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

Bible inaccuracies - What bible assumptions about the world has been proven wrong by new discoveries and facts.

A list would be nice: and quotations from the bible would also be nice.

Does anyone here know where in the bible it is stated that the world is roughly 6,000 years old?

Originally posted by kgkg
Does anyone here know where in the bible it is stated that the world is roughly 6,000 years old?

No where. Several hundred years ago a theologian estimated how the length of a generation and then counted up how many there seemed to be between Adam and Jesus. Hardly a reliable method by any standards.

Here is a good web site for this kind of information.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Check it out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here is a good web site for this kind of information.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Check it out. Awesome link thanks

Originally posted by kgkg
Awesome link thanks

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here is a good web site for this kind of information.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Check it out.

I would avoid sites where Militant Atheists reign.

Use more academic sites.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I would avoid sites where Militant Atheists reign.

Use more academic sites.

Really? Post some of those academic sites, please.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Really? Post some of those academic sites, please.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/64396/Bible

encyclopedias a NOT a valid academic source

and few academics or academic publications would waste article space with a going over of biblical inaccuricies.

Originally posted by inimalist
and few academics or academic publications would waste article space with a going over of biblical inaccuricies.

Right.

Besides, having an agenda does not necessarily make one untruthful. A website run by atheists is still as susceptible to scrutiny as any other, thus giving them a reason to use actual unedited Biblical quotes. The fact that they have an agenda behind their posting such quotes does not invalidate the source. Besides, I dare anyone not to find an academic source on this, but to find a source from someone without a vested interest in one side or the other. All sources for this will be biased toward one viewpoint or another.

By that same rationale a christian running a bible website does not necessarily make him untruthful. Open to scrutiny yes, untruthful? nope.

My logic is simple...avoid argument with militant atheists and christians. These people care about been right..not about learning.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
By that same rationale a christian running a bible website does not necessarily make him untruthful. Open to scrutiny yes, untruthful? nope.

My logic is simple...avoid argument with militant atheists and christians. These people care about been right..not about learning.

Well, I disagree, with a caveat. If someone is not well grounded in what they believe, then using extremist sites can be hazardous. However, they can be enlightening when wanting to know what the extremes are.

I would only agree with that IF the person is indeed "Open minded" which at times is hard to prove. However, over critical individuals are easy to spot...thus raising suspicions for me. There is also of course misconceptions...but these are easy to detect...when people base their judgements on misconceptions THEN there is the risk of extremes. But then again, certain people like to act like A-holes to cover up their pseudo intellect. So, take things with a pinch of salt.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
I would only agree with that IF the person is indeed "Open minded" which at times is hard to prove. However, over critical individuals are easy to spot...thus raising suspicions for me. There is also of course misconceptions...but these are easy to detect...when people base their judgements on misconceptions THEN there is the risk of extremes. But then again, certain people like to act like A-holes to cover up their pseudo intellect. So, take things with a pinch of salt.

Snap!

Trust me...I learn my lessons from folks coming from interest groups. Of course, I don't mean to make them look like villains...I'm not a politician...I don't swing any mud.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
By that same rationale a christian running a bible website does not necessarily make him untruthful. Open to scrutiny yes, untruthful? nope.

Agreed.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
My logic is simple...avoid argument with militant atheists and christians. These people care about been right..not about learning.

Not necessarily. I became an ardent atheist because I cared deeply about learning. Once I became one, it didn't negate that interest.

Not every atheist (or atheist website) is about sticking it to Christians. Some are, granted. But sometimes it's just honestly what they believe to be truthful, and their criticisms are a search for that. It happens to be an affront to many peoples' religion, yes. But it is not purely to attack but to present their own position.

Also, perhaps more importantly, you can avoid arguments with the militant types on either side while still listening to their words.

And be careful with the term "open-minded." Most of the time I get accused of not being open minded, it's when I don't believe in something that the accuser does. Being open-minded is about being open to reasonable positions, not fanciful suppositions. And also being open to the possibility that something is bull pucky.

There are no innacuracies in the Bible. It is infallible.

Originally posted by Ordo
There are no innacuracies in the Bible. It is infallible.

Though the Bible cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong.

Originally posted by Ordo
There are no innacuracies in the Bible. It is infallible.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C


Did you go look at the site I posted?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you go look at the site I posted?

Its just propoganda. Everybody knows that the Bible is infallible.

Originally posted by Ordo
Its just propoganda. Everybody knows that the Bible is infallible.

Then there would be no harm in just looking.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then there would be no harm in just looking.

IF YOU EVEN LOOK YOU HAVE ENTRAPPED YOUR SOUL IN ITS WEB OF SIN!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then there would be no harm in just looking.
http://christian-thinktank.com/ If you are truely open minded. If not stick with that website you gave.

Originally posted by jgiant
http://christian-thinktank.com/ If you are truely open minded. If not stick with that website you gave.

Does that web site give better examples of bible inaccuracies?

Originally posted by jgiant
http://christian-thinktank.com/ If you are truely open minded. If not stick with that website you gave.

OMG I LOOOOVE THEIR TITLE QUOTE!

Seriously.

Profiling it right now.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does that web site give better examples of bible inaccuracies? It explains why they are not inaccuracies. The bible is the most screwtinized peice of liturature in history and has stood the test of time. Whatever "inaccuracies" thought of now have already been put throught the ringer and the bible always comes out unscaived. I've went through this stage in my life thinking that the bible was full of errors, but to someone who truely knows the bible they can see most of the so-called errors are due to the readers lack of interest in finding truth. The only real inaccuracies i've seen in the bible are number errors mostly due to scribal errors and they are easily recognized and are few and far between. But don't take my word for it and don't take one sides view for it, truely seek out the truth for yourself with an open mind.

If the Bible is the inspired word of god, then I should be able to read it an understand it without the aid of someone else's interpretation. After all, it is god's word is it not? Then would he not make it accessible to everyone and not just those with a degree in divinity?

If the Bible is such a unified work, then why are there thousand of competing interpretations?

I do community service at a local Lutheran Church and they are all but at war with another Lutheran Church not a few miles away due to doctrinal differences.

Originally posted by Autokrat
If the Bible is the inspired word of god, then I should be able to read it an understand it without the aid of someone else's interpretation. After all, it is god's word is it not? Then would he not make it accessible to everyone and not just those with a degree in divinity?

If the Bible is such a unified work, then why are there thousand of competing interpretations?

I do community service at a local Lutheran Church and they are all but at war with another Lutheran Church not a few miles away due to doctrinal differences. Yeah, but you can't trust Lutherans at all. They're not as bad though as those shifty Calvinists.

Originally posted by Autokrat
If the Bible is the inspired word of god, then I should be able to read it an understand it without the aid of someone else's interpretation. After all, it is god's word is it not? Then would he not make it accessible to everyone and not just those with a degree in divinity?

If the Bible is such a unified work, then why are there thousand of competing interpretations?

I do community service at a local Lutheran Church and they are all but at war with another Lutheran Church not a few miles away due to doctrinal differences. You don't need someone to explain to you that the bible teaches there is one God and that Jesus is the son of God and he died for your sins and he is the only way to salvation. You don't need someone to explain that the two greatest commandments are to love your God with all your strength, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself. From Genesis to Revelation these biblical truths are the foundation of scripture and can be understood by anyone who can read scripture without any prior introduction or bias.

Originally posted by jgiant
It explains why they are not inaccuracies....

Then you are off topic.

Originally posted by Autokrat
If the Bible is the inspired word of god, then I should be able to read it an understand it without the aid of someone else's interpretation. After all, it is god's word is it not? Then would he not make it accessible to everyone and not just those with a degree in divinity?


God doesn't like stupid people.

Duh.

iirc correctly their is a part in the bible that says forgive those that sin out of ignorance......

also he says something about punishing those who have the means and access to the word of god but do not follow it... ect ect... its not quote just to lazy to find it...


anyways it be funny to drop some bibles in the congo and wonder if god would punish them?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you are off topic. Just making sure that its not all one sided, which would have those who come here automatically assume that the inaccuracies posted here are truely inaccuracies. I assumed it was an open discussion on the topic my bad.

A bit off topic, but look up the similarities between Krishna,Mithra, Isis etc & Jesus all who preceded Jesus, and you might get the idea where the story came from.

http://englishatheist.org/indexz31.shtml

*yawn*

Originally posted by Bicnarok
A bit off topic, but look up the similarities between Krishna,Mithra, Isis etc & Jesus all who preceded Jesus, and you might get the idea where the story came from.

http://englishatheist.org/indexz31.shtml Before jumping to conclusions one must look at the facts about each one mentioned. (sorry if this is off topic)
1. Krishna-Actually was born into a family who already bore 7 children, no virgin birth. Plus the virgin birth predates krishna by many years (around 100) because it was prophecised in the book of Isaiah. His father was never stated to be a carpenter in Hindu text. As far as crusifiction goes this is how the Hindu text says Krishna died, "A fierce hunter of the name of Jara then came there, desirous of deer.
The hunter, mistaking , who was stretched on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel
with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey." Mahabharata, Book 16, 4 If that is similar to Christ's death I would like to hear why. Krishna rose nearly imidiately after his death, not three days later and appeared only to the hunter who shot him. And Krishna had not foreknowledge of his death.
Mithras-To start off there is no mention in the bible when Jesus was born. It was suspected by the early theologians (200AD) to be in the Spring time (March-April) because shepherds were watching their flocks at night and this is when they had their babies. In 385AD Pope Julius I declared Dec 25 to be Christ's birth because he wanted to challenge the pagan celebration of the Roman god Saturnalia. No virgin birth, he came fully formed from a rock. Mithras did not have 12 diciples, he was surrounded by the 12 signs of the zodiac so maybe thats how that myth got circulated and justified. Mithas is does not die (or even harmed) but assends into paradice on a chariot. Sunday is a holy day, but considering that most religions have either saturday or sunday as a holy day this makes for a weak argument.
As far as Isis goes, I imagine you were talking about Horus instead of Isis because Isis was either the mother or wife of Horus. Either way the similarities are trivial in comparision to the differences. The main difference was that Jesus was a historical person who did live and died. If you can find any facts other than speculation for the claim that Christ was a rip off of other religions i would like to see them. This is like me telling someone my friend commited suicide after seeing his girlfriend dead and then having someone telling me i ripped off Shakespeare.

Originally posted by jgiant
You don't need someone to explain to you that the bible teaches there is one God and that Jesus is the son of God and he died for your sins and he is the only way to salvation. You don't need someone to explain that the two greatest commandments are to love your God with all your strength, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself. From Genesis to Revelation these biblical truths are the foundation of scripture and can be understood by anyone who can read scripture without any prior introduction or bias.

Except people have killed each other over supposed truths. Doctrinal disagreements can vary on how to titanic issues like how to be saved, to a simple disagreement on the nature of sacraments.

Issues over who Jesus actually was and if he even claimed to be divine have yet to be resolved. The four gospels alone contradict each other so badly its a wonder anyone can actually read them and not notice all the glaring contradictions.

Reading through the Bible and claiming it all make sense, requires some serious selective reading and rationalizing.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Except people have killed each other over supposed truths. Doctrinal disagreements can vary on how to titanic issues like how to be saved, to a simple disagreement on the nature of sacraments.

Issues over who Jesus actually was and if he even claimed to be divine have yet to be resolved. The four gospels alone contradict each other so badly its a wonder anyone can actually read them and not notice all the glaring contradictions.

Reading through the Bible and claiming it all make sense, requires some serious selective reading and rationalizing. Im sorry you feel that way. I think its quite clear Jesus said he was the son of God and he was the only way to salvation. He refers to himself as divine repeately, why do you think the Pharases and other Jews wanted to always kill him and called him a blashphemer. ""I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. " John 8:58. And can you please give me examples of condtradictions because i do not know of any. And before answering you must remember what a condtradiction is. If i say to my mother "I saw my friend Bill today" and then tell my father "I saw Bill with his girlfriend today" this is not a contradiction but a differnet prespective on what actually happened, both statments are truth.

Originally posted by jgiant
And can you please give me examples of condtradictions because i do not know of any.
Who was Joseph's father?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Who was Joseph's father? Joseph's father was Jacob. The geneology of Christ in Matthew chapter 1 is Joseph's geneaology while Luke chapter 3 traces Mary's geneology. In Luke the reason it says Joseph was "the son of Eli" was because Joseph was his son by marriage (Eli being the father of Mary and he had no sons of his own)

Can you prove that?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you prove that? THe royal line of Jesus is passed through his legal father and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage. Then Why doesn't it just say Mary? Well Moses himself established precedent for this kind of substitution in Numbers 27: 1-11 "1 The daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Makir, the son of Manasseh, belonged to the clans of Manasseh son of Joseph. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. They approached 2 the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly, and said, 3 "Our father died in the desert. He was not among Korah's followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. 4 Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father's relatives."
5 So Moses brought their case before the LORD 6 and the LORD said to him, 7 "What Zelophehad's daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father's relatives and turn their father's inheritance over to them.

8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses."
and also in Numbers 36: 1-12. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+27%3A1-11%2CNumbers+36%3A1-11&version=NIV
Maybe this video will help, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qavIXRNXCbY

Sorry for the double post, but that video i posted has a more convincing explanation than what I posted. The reasoning that Matthew shows why Jesus would not be the messiah if Joseph was his biological father.

Seeing as how Mary was a virgin, the genealogy in Matthew is pointless since Joseph isn't really Jesus' father.

The Luke genealogy is an assumption with no explicit statement on the writer of Luke. Because hardline Christians believe the Bible to be perfect, when they come to a blatant contradiction, they have to come up with rationalizations as to why there is in fact no contradiction despite the obvious evidence that says otherwise.

A simple conclusion is that the virgin birth is in fact not an original development and was something invented by the early Church. In the original Hebrew, the verse in Isaiah says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. The young woman became a virgin only when the Hebrew word was mistranslated into Greek. This passage obviously has nothing to do with Jesus (who, if this prophecy did apply to him, should have been named Immanuel instead of Jesus).

Not to mention that Immanuel was supposed to kick the crap out of the Assyrians. Which never happened because he was never born to a young woman of any knd.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Even if the word means virgin (debatable, since there is in fact another word that specifically refers to a virgin, bethulah, which is used other times in the bible) it still does not explain why Isaiah was clearly referring to contemporary events.

The Immanuel mentioned is meant to be a sign to King Ahaz, not some prophecy of a future messiah. The author of Matthew was attempting to force events together to justify Jesus' status. You must understand that this is how prophecies were handled in the bible. I do not have time to go in depth with this one so i'll give you a link that can help, its alot too read but worth it to understand http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

Originally posted by jgiant
You must understand that this is how prophecies were handled in the bible. I do not have time to go in depth with this one so i'll give you a link that can help, its alot too read but worth it to understand http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

I'm still reading that, but if your going to refer to long arguments of other people, than I think its fair to provide a counter.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html

Personally this is an excellent example of how badly god screwed up with his supposedly infallible book. Being an all knowing being, he should have realized how much controversy this would cause and make sure it didn't happen.

He should have made sure the bible ended up being written in clear and simple language that everyone could easily understand.

He should have made sure that the bible was not riddled with (at the very least) blatant errors and contradictions at face value.

This alludes back to my point earlier. The bible shouldn't require lengthly interpretation.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm still reading that, but if your going to refer to long arguments of other people, than I think its fair to provide a counter.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html

Personally this is an excellent example of how badly god screwed up with his supposedly infallible book. Being an all knowing being, he should have realized how much controversy this would cause and make sure it didn't happen.

He should have made sure the bible ended up being written in clear and simple language that everyone could easily understand.

He should have made sure that the bible was not riddled with (at the very least) blatant errors and contradictions at face value.

This alludes back to my point earlier. The bible shouldn't require lengthly interpretation. I believe he made it this way to show who truely wants to seek him out. Not everyone needs to go this in depth with their studies to know that Jesus is Lord, they need only look to the historicity of the Gosples and the three historical facts that show that Jesus was who he claimed to be. 1. That Jesus's tomb was empty on that Easter Sunday. 2. That Jesus did appear to many people after his resurrection. 3. That the disciples and others truely did have a supernatural experience after the suppose resurrection that made the church explode into existance in the first century and ultimately lead to many christians pursecution in the early formation of the church.
But having all of these other things like phrophecy, unbelievable consistency and harmony between over 40 writers over a period of thousands of years, and personal experiences with the Lord that are undeniable help you believe.

yeah. setting people up for failure is gods calling card.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
yeah. setting people up for failure is gods calling card. Call it what you want, but ultimately it is your own fault for not seeking him with an open mind and heart. I've been there. I don't deserve his grace, but after much study of the bible and other religions and my own personal experiences I have an unshakable faith that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Originally posted by jgiant
Call it what you want, but ultimately it is your own fault for not seeking him with an open mind and heart.

how is it my own fault? im not the one with unlimited knowledge and power how is it my fault that he wants to be mean and make me jump through hoops? maybe god should switch places with me for awhile so he can understand what its like to be a regular person with a thousand different religions shoving their "proof" and "experiences" in his face constantly... its definitely not my fault. thats like putting a small steak in front of a dogs face and putting a large steak on the floor inside of a completely different room and blaming the dog for not seeking out the bigger steak in the other room.

Originally posted by jgiant
Call it what you want, but ultimately it is your own fault for not seeking him with an open mind and heart. I've been there. I don't deserve his grace, but after much study of the bible and other religions and my own personal experiences I have an unshakable faith that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

This type of arrogant belief that fosters lines like it is "your fault" and that you are somehow special enough to see some kind of amazing truth about the universe sickens me. This is why I despise most religion.

I was raised in a hardcore Christian household, dedicated as a baby, became born again, raised in the church and believed until two years ago, when I realized I had lived a lie.

Christians don't know the truth, they just believe they know the truth. They do their best to rationalize away all the contradictions, the horrors, the absurdities and claim they have proven that they have god on their side.

Personally, I think Christians would be better off, if god doesn't exist, because if he does exist than they really do have to explain why they worship such a horrific and vicious deity.

i think theyd be better off because if he hates wickedness and badness as much as they say he does (not what the bible actually shows mind you) then theyre all ****ed when judgment day comes

Originally posted by Autokrat
This type of arrogant belief that fosters lines like it is "your fault" and that you are somehow special enough to see some kind of amazing truth about the universe sickens me. This is why I despise most religion.

I was raised in a hardcore Christian household, dedicated as a baby, became born again, raised in the church and believed until two years ago, when I realized I had lived a lie.

Christians don't know the truth, they just believe they know the truth. They do their best to rationalize away all the contradictions, the horrors, the absurdities and claim they have proven that they have god on their side.

Personally, I think Christians would be better off, if god doesn't exist, because if he does exist than they really do have to explain why they worship such a horrific and vicious deity. Im sorry you feel that way. Im in no way saying im special, Im in the same boat as all of you, a sinner not worthy of anything but death and judgement and eternal separation from God. But I believe with all my heart that deep down if one searches for God they will find Jesus. You deciding what God should and shouldn't do and what he should be like does not change the fact that he is God. His ways are not like ours and in the end he is ultimately just and righteous.

why? maybe its god that deserves to die, afterall hes the one whos all powerful whereas were just lowly mortals... its his fault we're the way we are.

Originally posted by jgiant
Im sorry you feel that way. Im in no way saying im special, Im in the same boat as all of you, a sinner not worthy of anything but death and judgement and eternal separation from God. But I believe with all my heart that deep down if one searches for God they will find Jesus. You deciding what God should and shouldn't do and what he should be like does not change the fact that he is God. His ways are not like ours and in the end he is ultimately just and righteous.

I am sorry that your beliefs are nonsense. Religion is fairytales for grow-ups.

Originally posted by jgiant
three historical facts that show that Jesus was who he claimed to be. 1. That Jesus's tomb was empty on that Easter Sunday. 2. That Jesus did appear to many people after his resurrection. 3. That the disciples and others truely did have a supernatural experience after the suppose resurrection

You only have one source for those claims and it's a heavily biased one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You only have one source for those claims and it's a heavily biased one.
Considering the gosples were four separate documents as well as the other books of the new testament there is 4 sources from the gosple writers, Paul and his letters to the churches, James and his episle, and Peter with his two. That makes sources from seven different people. Now if you want to say thats one source fine, Jesus's empty tomb was never a refuted claim considering that many Jewish people believe that Jesus's disciples stole his body from the very beginning. In a second century debate between a Jew and a Christian called, St. Justins Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho asserts the claim made in the gosple of Matthew 28: 12-15 (which states the Jewish leaders paided the soldiers to say the disciples stole the body), by stating, "his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven"

Jesus appearing to many after his resurrection is stated in all four gosple writers and by Paul, many skeptics believe that this might have been caused by hallusinations. The fact that the disciples truely believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and were persecuted for it can be found by a several of the non-biblical sources around that time. Tacitus, a Roman historian in the early second century writes, "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 Judea, 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."
Josephus, a famous Jewish historian wrote, "in the end of the first centruy, Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, ; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
He also writes that (Capital letters are most likely additions by Christians scribes) , "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 wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. 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 THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day"

The references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus are forgeries by Eusebius.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus are forgeries by Eusebius. I recognized your objection when i explained that the Capital letters were the words that are in question, and most likely forgeries. The other reference to James, the brother of Jesus, is accepted nearly by all historians as accurate. Can you give solid evidence that the Tacitus reference is a forgery. From the sources I've seen the majority of Historians accept this as Tacitus himself, the only claim against its validity is that he was echoing what he heard from the Christians. These arguments are mostly speculation and have very little foundation to stand. Do you believe that Jesus did not exist, or that he did and his disiples made him out to be a god.

There is a difference between believing that a charismatic cult leader named Jesus existed as opposed to the belief that he was divine. The gospels themselves are not valid sources, not in the slightest. They were passed down through oral tradition and written down by Greek authors near the end of the century, long after Jesus' death.

The letters of Paul came first (at least eight of them we know were to be written by Paul, the rest are believed to be forgeries) and have little to do with the gospels. Not that they are a valid source either.

The bible is simply not a valid source for anything, given its dogmatic nature.

Originally posted by Autokrat
There is a difference between believing that a charismatic cult leader named Jesus existed as opposed to the belief that he was divine. The gospels themselves are not valid sources, not in the slightest. They were passed down through oral tradition and written down by Greek authors near the end of the century, long after Jesus' death.

The letters of Paul came first (at least eight of them we know were to be written by Paul, the rest are believed to be forgeries) and have little to do with the gospels. Not that they are a valid source either.

The bible is simply not a valid source for anything, given its dogmatic nature. Ok so you do believe that Jesus existed. Now you have to ask why the disiples and others at the time truely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and suffered horrible deaths because of it. Also, you must ask if Jesus was someone to admire and look to for moral wisdom. If you say he was then you must also accept that he claimed to be the Son of God and had power to forgive people of sins. If he claimed this and was not who he said he was, than he is a terrible blasphemer and most likely mentally unstable. And the letters by Paul have everything to do with Jesus paying for our sins and that he is the only way to salvation. Also, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul asserts that Jesus appeared to around 500 people after the resurrection.

Originally posted by jgiant
Ok so you do believe that Jesus existed. Now you have to ask why the disiples and others at the time truely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and suffered horrible deaths because of it. Also, you must ask if Jesus was someone to admire and look to for moral wisdom. If you say he was then you must also accept that he claimed to be the Son of God and had power to forgive people of sins. If he claimed this and was not who he said he was, than he is a terrible blasphemer and most likely mentally unstable.

Aside from the absurd logic of this argument and premises that can't be independently proven. C.S Lewis forgot to add one option to the false dilemma you have just stolen from him.

Perhaps Jesus rising from his grave was simply legend fabricated through oral tradition like any other myth. Perhaps the entire romanticized affair was myth and Jesus was just some apocalyptic Jewish rabbi that believed the world would end in his generation.

Two, it is perfectly possible to accept that Jesus had some reasonable ethical advise without believing that his other absurd claims (claims that he may have not even made.) In any case, Buddha and Confucius were way ahead of Jesus in the ethics department, long before Jesus even existed. Nothing Jesus said was special.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Aside from the absurd logic of this argument and premises that can't be independently proven. C.S Lewis forgot to add one option to the false dilemma you have just stolen from him.

Perhaps Jesus rising from his grave was simply legend fabricated through oral tradition like any other myth. Perhaps the entire romanticized affair was myth and Jesus was just some apocalyptic Jewish rabbi that believed the world would end in his generation.

Two, it is perfectly possible to accept that Jesus had some reasonable ethical advise without believing that his other absurd claims (claims that he may have not even made.) In any case, Buddha and Confucius were way ahead of Jesus in the ethics department, long before Jesus even existed. Nothing Jesus said was special. It is true that these figures were before Jesus, but to say what Jesus said was not anything special is an argument onto itself. Its like saying that Moses was way ahead of Buddha and nothing that he said was special. Also, Buddha's focus was never on a god, but on people freeing themselves from ignorance and greed to end suffering. Some of the Buddha's teachings on how to treat others overlaps Jesus's teaching, but the underlying motives for each teacher is different. Also, no other religion truely recognizes the sin of man as Christianity. Jesus taught that that everyone was guilty of sin and deserved eternal judgement. Someone had to pay the penalty for our sins, no amount of good deads can make up for our sinful nature and that is why Jesus was put to death on the cross, to pay our sin debt. No other religion shows the need for a savior such as this. There are similarities between Buddha and Confusius (who didn't even believe in a god) and Jesus, but they are miniscule in light of the driving forces behind each. This only shows the moral cravings of mankind, furthur proving that the moral laws given by God are not only in a book or some tablets, but written on the hearts of all men. According to the aposle Paul, "14"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
Romans 2: 14-15

Originally posted by jgiant
... Also, no other religion truely recognizes the sin of man as Christianity...

This is circular reasoning.

Originally posted by jgiant
I recognized your objection when i explained that the Capital letters were the words that are in question, and most likely forgeries. The other reference to James, the brother of Jesus, is accepted nearly by all historians as accurate. Can you give solid evidence that the Tacitus reference is a forgery. From the sources I've seen the majority of Historians accept this as Tacitus himself, the only claim against its validity is that he was echoing what he heard from the Christians. These arguments are mostly speculation and have very little foundation to stand. Do you believe that Jesus did not exist, or that he did and his disiples made him out to be a god.

The argument that Jesus existed is mostly speculation and has very little foundation to stand. I am not asserting that he existed; you are. I do not have to prove anything; you do. The fact of the matter is that there is no extra-biblical evidence to support that Jesus existed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The argument that Jesus existed is mostly speculation and has very little foundation to stand. I am not asserting that he existed; you are. I do not have to prove anything; you do. The fact of the matter is that there is no extra-biblical evidence to support that Jesus existed. As far as Jesus never existing, well that would put you in the radical fringe if you were a historian. The existance of Jesus was never contested until recently, around the 18th centrury.

Originally posted by jgiant
As far as Jesus never existing, well that would put you in the radical fringe if you were a historian. The existance of Jesus was never contested until recently, around the 18th centrury.

This is probable also true about the unicorn.

Originally posted by jgiant
As far as Jesus never existing, well that would put you in the radical fringe if you were a historian. The existance of Jesus was never contested until recently, around the 18th centrury.

This is an improper appeal to popularity; and it does not make the position wrong.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This is an improper appeal to popularity; and it does not make the position wrong.

Appealing to historians on the subject of history is entirely reasonable. He just has to now back up his claim that most historians really do agree with him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Appealing to historians on the subject of history is entirely reasonable. He just has to now back up his claim that most historians really do agree with him.

His argument is that if one holds that Jesus did not exist, then he is a member of an unpopular group, or if you prefer, not a member of a popular group. He is not appealing to the expertise of historians, he is appealing to the popularity of a particular belief.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His argument is that if one holds that Jesus did not exist, then he is a member of an unpopular group, or if you prefer, not a member of a popular group. He is not appealing to the expertise of historians, he is appealing to the popularity of a particular belief. I am appealing to the fact that if credible historians recognized Jesus existing within the first and second century then the fact that a few historians believing that Jesus being a myth a thousand plus years later makes that argument laughable. Now if I do state these sources and you make the argument that a Christian scribe just forged them all, you must also present your proof. As I mentioned earlier the Josephus source in dispute was recognized by me, but the other source from Josephus and Tacitus are not to my knowledge disputed by the vast majoritiy of Historians. Ok so here is my sources:
Secular Evidence:
Tacitus: 1st and 2nd century Roman historian and according to the Encyclopedia of World Biography, "perhaps the greatest historian that the Roman world produced" http://www.bookrags.com/biography/tacitus-dtx/
Tacitus Jesus reference from Annals:"Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." source: http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=15.44
Objections to accuracy:
1. Was this just a Christian scribe who wrote this in? Well considering there is no copy of the Annals which does not contain this passage there is no evidence to back up this claim. Also, the fact that Tacitus does not show the Chritians favorably helps the argument that it was not put in by Christians.
2. Was this just hearsay from the Christians that made Tacitus write this?
Due to Tacitus's historical reputation as being very critical of hearsay it would be very out of character for him not to mention hearsay if he had any doubt in his mind to the historical evidence. Here is an example of his critical nature http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078&layout=&loc=15.53. He distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay many other times in his writings (around 70).

Pliny the Younger: A 1st and 2nd century Roman Senator whose letters to Emperor Trajan mention Christ:
"I asked them directly if they were Christians...those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they
were or ever had been Christians...worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.
They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed
it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by means of
torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination,
and hastened to consult you...on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes,
and both sexes already are brought into danger..." http://www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html
Objections to accuracy:
1. Christ is never confirmed as a real person here, so what makes this source valid? There is no reason not to belive that he belives Christ was not a real person, other wise he would most likely have mentioned it. Pliny states they "sing to Christ AS IF he were a god" this indicates that was regarded as a person, but not of devine nature.
2. If some of the Christians denied Christ, they must have known it was a myth, right? That would not account for those who did not deny Christ, and suffered and died for him. Those who denied Christ were not truely commited to him and did not believe that he was the Christ with all their hearts.

Celsus: a 2nd century Roman philosopher and opponent of Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
Celsus Jesus reference on miracles: "Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired
certain powers... He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of
them gave himself out to be a god... It was by means of sorcery that He was able to accomplish the wonders
which He performed... Let us believe that these cures, or the resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a
few loaves... These are nothing more than the tricks of jugglers... It is by the names of certain demons, and by
the use of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of power..."
It is painfully clear that Celsus believes that Jesus existed. If he had any reason to believe he did not then his main arguments would be that he never existed and thus destroying the Christian faith.
Celsus Jesus reference on Virgin birth: "Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her
living by the work of her hands. His mother had been turned out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade,
on being convicted of adultery . Being thus driven away by her husband,
and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard."
This again shows that he believes that Jesus existed, he is just arguing against his virgin birth.
Celsus Jesus reference on Apostles: "Jesus gathered around him ten or eleven persons of notorious character... tax-collectors,
sailors, and fishermen... deserted and delivered up by those who had been his associates, who had him
for their teacher, and who believed he was the savior and son of the greatest God... Those who were his
associates while alive, who listened to his voice, and enjoyed his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him
subjected to punishment and death, neither died with nor for him... but denied that they were even his disciples,
lest they die along with Him."
Again proving he belived Jesus existed and that he had disciples and that he was crusified.
Celsus Jesus reference to divinity: "One who was a God could neither flee nor be led away a prisoner... What great deeds did
Jesus perform as God? Did he put his enemies to shame or bring to an end what was designed against him? No
calamity happened even to him who condemned him... Why does he not give some manifestation of his divinity,
and free himself from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him and his Father?"
Again proving the biblical accounts of Jesus's life and death.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA: a second century Greek satirist and rhetorician (http://www.reference.com/browse/columbia/Lucian) who describes his views of early Christianity:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel
rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all
brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and
live after his laws..."
This shows that even though Lucian was trying to mock the Christian faith he did not bring up the question of his existance.
Objections to Accuracy:
1. Can we take Lucian's work as a serious historical work?
Lucian prided himself on representing historical truths as in his writings. In "The Way to Write History" Lucian states, "The historian's one task is to tell the thing as it happened... He may nurse some private dislikes, but he
will attach far more importance to the public good, and set the truth high above his hate... For history, I
say again, has this and only this for its own. If a man will start upon it, he must sacrifice to no God but
Truth. He must neglect all else."
2. Was this just an insertion by a Christian scribe? Considering the way he talks about Jesus and the Christians I would say no. If there is any evidence for an insertion it would be new to me.

Mara Bar-Serapion: This was a prisoner who wrote a letter to his son. The date of this letter is after 70AD-3rd century AD so this is possibly the newest (youngest) reference:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as
a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment
their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just
after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger.
The Samians were overwhelmed by the sea. The Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete
dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good. He lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for
good. He lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good. He lived on in the teaching which He
had given."http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/mara.html
This shows that Jesus (the "King" of the Jews) did live and die and is put in the same categories as other historical figures.
Objections to Accuracy:
1. How do we know that this is reference to Jesus? Considering that she referes to the King of the Jews (a title for Jesus given by the Romans) and she mentions that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed soon after his death, this narrows the options to one person, that is Jesus.

Tacitus is recording information about Jesus that he was told by Christians.

Pliny the Younger is reporting the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor to the emperor Trajan.

It does not follow from Celsus and Lucian being critical of Jesus that they believe he existed.

Mara Bar-Serapion is writing an allegory that not only does not reference Jesus by name, but also references Socrates, whose historicity is also in question.

Not to mention that none of these accounts constitutes independent confirmation.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Tacitus is recording information about Jesus that he was told by Christians.

Pliny the Younger is reporting the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor to the emperor Trajan.

It does not follow from Celsus and Lucian being critical of Jesus that they believe he existed.

Mara Bar-Serapion is writing an allegory that not only does not reference Jesus by name, but also references Socrates, whose historicity is also in question.

Not to mention that none of these accounts constitutes independent confirmation.
I answered your remark about Tacitus in my post.
Pliny the Yonger does not dispute Jesus's historicity.
Your arguments for Celsus and Lucian is interesting because if they are trying to denounce Christianity why don't they attack the historicity of Jesus.
If Mara is not talking about Jesus, then who?
Your aguments are possible, but far from the most probable. I accept your stand on Jesus not being divine (tho I hope and pray that one day you will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ), but to say he was not a historical figure I would need early documentation on this claim, since this hypothesis is a fairly new one developed in the 18th century. This hypothesis is also not accepted by serious historians and scholars.

Originally posted by jgiant
I answered your remark about Tacitus in my post.

Tacitus refers to Jesus by the religious title "Christos." Roman records would not have referred to Jesus by a Christian title, but by his given name. Ergo, Tacitus is merely repeating what Christians said about Jesus.




Originally posted by jgiant
Pliny the Yonger does not dispute Jesus's historicity.

Pliny the Younger is only reporting on the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor, not editorializing on them.




Originally posted by jgiant
Your arguments for Celsus and Lucian is interesting because if they are trying to denounce Christianity why don't they attack the historicity of Jesus.

The aim of Celsus is to characterize Christianity as profane, and the aim of Lucian is to characterize Christianity as absurd.




Originally posted by jgiant
If Mara is not talking about Jesus, then who?

It is of no consequence since the writing is allegorical in nature.




Originally posted by jgiant
Your aguments are possible, but far from the most probable. I accept your stand on Jesus not being divine (tho I hope and pray that one day you will come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ), but to say he was not a historical figure I would need early documentation on this claim, since this hypothesis is a fairly new one developed in the 18th century. This hypothesis is also not accepted by serious historians and scholars.

No, you need documentation from non-Christian accounts during the time in which Jesus is purported to live that he existed. The burden of proof of historicity is on you, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, you need documentation from non-Christian accounts during the time in which Jesus is purported to live that he existed. The burden of proof of historicity is on you, not the other way around.
You must take the evidence given and unbiasly analyze it for yourself. If this is the conclusion you come to then fine. But since none of these sources references Jesus in a mythylogical way one must question where the idea of a myth Jesus came from. If you question Jesus's existance than you must question many other historical figures as well. Figures such as Alexander the Great, Ceaser, Buddha, Confusious, and Muhammad. Also, are you retracting your statment that the Tacitus reference and the second quote from Josephus was a forgery?

Originally posted by jgiant
As far as Jesus never existing, well that would put you in the radical fringe if you were a historian. The existance of Jesus was never contested until recently, around the 18th centrury.

strange, thats the same time as the enlightenment, the general birth of science and tthe end of violently enforced conformity to church doctrine...

Originally posted by jgiant
You must take the evidence given and unbiasly analyze it for yourself. If this is the conclusion you come to then fine. But since none of these sources references Jesus in a mythylogical way one must question where the idea of a myth Jesus came from. If you question Jesus's existance than you must question many other historical figures as well. Figures such as Alexander the Great, Ceaser, Buddha, Confusious, and Muhammad. Also, are you retracting your statment that the Tacitus reference and the second quote from Josephus was a forgery?

No, the default position is unbelief; I do not need to question whether Jesus is mythological, you have to prove that he is historical.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, the default position is unbelief; I do not need to question whether Jesus is mythological, you have to prove that he is historical. If you want me to quote from early Extra-Biblical Christians I will, but i doubt that will convince you. I suggest you search Jesus out for yourself in an in depth unbias study and seek him out. I promise if you truly seek him out with an open mind and heart he will reveal himself to you. Also, if Christianity is based on a myth then it would be the fastest growing myth of all time. Usually myths take a while before they catch on because people who are alive at the time of the myth can refute it and kill it before it spreads. If Jesus did not exist it would make Christianity a more unexplainable phenomena than if he did.

Originally posted by inimalist
If the historicity of central religious figures were important to me, I'd be a Muslim.
So you don't dispute Jesus as an historical figure? And(hypothetically) you would believe the account of Jesus according to a man who lived 500 years after his death?

Originally posted by jgiant
So you don't dispute Jesus as an historical figure

I don't believe that the Jesus of the bible lived, any more than the Jason of the Argonauts did.

Originally posted by jgiant
And(hypothetically) you would believe the account of Jesus according to a man who lived 500 years after his death?

I give little credit to "account" based history. I would give it a listen, but certainly I wouldn't call it conclusive or very convincing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't believe that the Jesus of the bible lived, any more than the Jason of the Argonauts did.



I give little credit to "account" based history. I would give it a listen, but certainly I wouldn't call it conclusive or very convincing. Would you serve God and fallow Christ teachings if he were to show himself to you?

Originally posted by jgiant
Would you serve God and fallow Christ teachings if he were to show himself to you?

How would he do that?

It all depends on how.

Originally posted by jgiant
If you want me to quote from early Extra-Biblical Christians I will, but i doubt that will convince you. I suggest you search Jesus out for yourself in an in depth unbias study and seek him out. I promise if you truly seek him out with an open mind and heart he will reveal himself to you. Also, if Christianity is based on a myth then it would be the fastest growing myth of all time. Usually myths take a while before they catch on because people who are alive at the time of the myth can refute it and kill it before it spreads. If Jesus did not exist it would make Christianity a more unexplainable phenomena than if he did.
Cool, so I take it you accept Islam as well by that logic.

Originally posted by jgiant
Would you serve God and fallow Christ teachings if he were to show himself to you?

the most difficult part of this would be that I would interpret most situations like this as being a hallucination of some kind

were I convinced that it were God I would believe though...

how is this relevant to the fact that pre-modern scholarship is known to be highly subject to personal bias and does not benefit from modern technology or academic research techniques?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, so I take it you accept Islam as well by that logic. Yes i belive Muhammad was a real person. I do not believe his teachings and his historical views on Jesus because the fact he was born 500 years after his death.Originally posted by inimalist
the most difficult part of this would be that I would interpret most situations like this as being a hallucination of some kind

were I convinced that it were God I would believe though...

how is this relevant to the fact that pre-modern scholarship is known to be highly subject to personal bias and does not benefit from modern technology or academic research techniques?
Well its not i was just asking you a personal question, because I know if you seek God will all your heart you will find him. Pre-modern scholars recognized that uncovering science revealed the truths of God. Finding natural laws of the universe prove there is order and design by a creator.

Originally posted by jgiant
Pre-modern scholars recognized that uncovering science revealed the truths of God. Finding natural laws of the universe prove there is order and design by a creator.

In what subject do you think pre-modern academia is superior to modern academia?

Originally posted by jgiant
Yes i belive Muhammad was a real person. I do not believe his teachings and his historical views on Jesus because the fact he was born 500 years after his death.
So you don't think him existing is enough to believe his teachings... but you DO think it's reasonable for me to accept Jesus's divinity based on the mere fact he existed...

Originally posted by jgiant
Well its not i was just asking you a personal question, because I know if you seek God will all your heart you will find him. Pre-modern scholars recognized that uncovering science revealed the truths of God. Finding natural laws of the universe prove there is order and design by a creator. That's why they're pre-modern.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you don't think him existing is enough to believe his teachings... but you DO think it's reasonable for me to accept Jesus's divinity based on the mere fact he existed... Thats another topic I am just trying to show that the overwhelming evidence is that he existed.
Originally posted by inimalist
In what subject do you think pre-modern academia is superior to modern academia? Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's why they're pre-modern.
Modern science is the same way. Dr. Hugh Ross and Francis S. Collins (founder of the Human Genome Project) are great examples of Christians who understand God has wonderful design. Dr. Stephen Hawkings is recognized as one of the greatest minds of our time and he (although he is not recognized as a Christian, his wife is) states in his book "A Brief History of Time", "One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God. Many of the findings of science could be found years before their discovery by science if only they looked to the Bible. The Earth being round, the Earth being held up by nothing and floating in space, the universe having a starting point.

Originally posted by jgiant
Thats another topic I am just trying to show that the overwhelming evidence is that he existed.

Modern science is the same way. Dr. Hugh Ross and Francis S. Collins (founder of the Human Genome Project) are great examples of Christians who understand God has wonderful design. Dr. Stephen Hawkings is recognized as one of the greatest minds of our time and he (although he is not recognized as a Christian, his wife is) states in his book "A Brief History of Time", "One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God. Many of the findings of science could be found years before their discovery by science if only they looked to the Bible. The Earth being round, the Earth being held up by nothing and floating in space, the universe having a starting point. None of that. None of it gives even the slightest shred of credibility to the existence of a God.

Originally posted by jgiant
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God.
Lol, I dare you to prove that is a true story. I bet you can't.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
None of that. None of it gives even the slightest shred of credibility to the existence of a God. No it doesn't I am just stating how modern science still recognizes God as a real force. So you believe that the universe came about by chance and out of nothing and is fine tuned to premit life just out of randomness? Do you believe that there is such a thing as morals? Do you also believe that the laws of nature and the universe are just by chance too, or necessity? If the universe were to expand or contract even the most miniscule amount more than it did in the big bang the universe would collapse into itself, do you believe that this was just because of chance?

Originally posted by jgiant
Modern science is the same way. Dr. Hugh Ross and Francis S. Collins (founder of the Human Genome Project) are great examples of Christians who understand God has wonderful design. Dr. Stephen Hawkings is recognized as one of the greatest minds of our time and he (although he is not recognized as a Christian, his wife is) states in his book "A Brief History of Time", "One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"
Einstein did not believe in God initially and thought that energy and matter were eternal and so was the universe. Arno Penzias discovery of microwave background radiation proved that energy and matter were not eternal and the universe indeed had a beginning. Einstein then had to become a theist accepting that if the universe had a beginning there must be a God. Many of the findings of science could be found years before their discovery by science if only they looked to the Bible. The Earth being round, the Earth being held up by nothing and floating in space, the universe having a starting point.

ok, again, not looking for your identity politics, especially when you are now putting words and interpretations into the mouths of people who would vehemetly disagree with your position.

my point:

you said: The idea that Jesus was not real is a modern concept and not in line with the majority of historical scholars prior to the 18th century.

I said: Which happens to coincide with the fall of religion as the dominant organizational and truth holding institution, as well as the beginning of modern science.

Here is the rub: I don't care who believes what. Fact is, since the 18th century, we have figured out most of what we know about the universe. In fact, that something originates post-1700 should be an indication that it is likely much more informed than something which originates pre-1700. This is compound with the fact that in many parts of the world pre-1700, questioning whether Jesus had lived would be cause to have you institutionalized if not killed outright.

Originally posted by jgiant
No it doesn't I am just stating how modern science still recognizes God as a real force.

1) no it doesn't
2) if it does, what is the standard notation for the God force?
3) some scientists are religious, the number is under 5% iirc
4) "Modern science" isn't a thing that can recognize anything
5) no

Originally posted by King Kandy
Lol, I dare you to prove that is a true story. I bet you can't. Forgive me. I am wrong in stating this, thank you for calling me on it because i would never have questioned it. I actually never researched this and just assumed it was true. Now I know I am going to be jumped on for this! Son of a...ohh well. Its ok because he did have to accept there was a God, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." And i need to study his mater and energy theory being eternal because I know that he had to eventally retract that statment I just don't understand the whole story.

Originally posted by jgiant
No it doesn't I am just stating how modern science still recognizes God as a real force. So you believe that the universe came about by chance and out of nothing and is fine tuned to premit life just out of randomness? No, I don't believe that.

Originally posted by jgiant
Do you believe that there is such a thing as morals? No, I don't believe in morals.

Originally posted by jgiant
Do you also believe that the laws of nature and the universe are just by chance too, or necessity? If the universe were to expand or contract even the most miniscule amount more than it did in the big bang the universe would collapse into itself, do you believe that this was just because of chance? *sigh*



There is a trend amongst philosophers and idealists, thinkers and believers. Humans in general really. We have a knack for going to the extremes. In this case you posit, you either believe in Divine Creation, or you believe in Random Chance. There is no room for anything else, not in our minds.

Is it so impossible to consider that whatever force created this existence is beyond our reckoning? Why must it be some "God"? Some entity whose presence so many crave? Is it so impossible to believe that there was no beginning? There will be no end? Is it so impossible to believe that our limited understanding of this universe is not enough to understand it? That we may--we will--never understand it? Is it so impossible to forget about it? To quit troubling ourselves with such matters?

Our meager little lives don't matter--one day we won't even be matter. These fantasies of a better life, of a kind Lord, of an immortal soul... they slow us down, get in our way. Unfortunate it is, that so many require such delusions simply to feel content. To feel safe. To know that there IS a reason--an answer. An answer to Why and How. Something to ease the burden of eternity. But that's humans for you. We can learn to cope with anything, except Zero and Infinity.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I don't believe that.

No, I don't believe in morals.

*sigh*



There is a trend amongst philosophers and idealists, thinkers and believers. Humans in general really. We have a knack for going to the extremes. In this case you posit, you either believe in Divine Creation, or you believe in Random Chance. There is no room for anything else, not in our minds.

Is it so impossible to consider that whatever force created this existence is beyond our reckoning? Why must it be some "God"? Some entity whose presence so many crave? Is it so impossible to believe that there was no beginning? There will be no end? Is it so impossible to believe that our limited understanding of this universe is not enough to understand it? That we may--we will--never understand it? Is it so impossible to forget about it? To quit troubling ourselves with such matters?

Our meager little lives don't matter--one day we won't even be matter. These fantasies of a better life, of a kind Lord, of an immortal soul... they slow us down, get in our way. Unfortunate it is, that so many require such delusions simply to feel content. To feel safe. To know that there IS a reason--an answer. An answer to Why and How. Something to ease the burden of eternity. But that's humans for you. We can learn to cope with anything, except Zero and Infinity. I respect your opinions and that is a possibility. I just look at the evidence (science, order and design, universal sense of good and evil, universal laws of nature, the complexity of life and the universe, personal experiences, Biblical accuracy, historically and prophetically, and the way finding Jesus has changed my life) that I have seen and continue to see and it all points to the God of the Bible being the one true God. Though I definiatly see where you are coming from and understand. But I cannot accept this veiw on account of the overwhleming evidence pointing to a God and not an eternal universe that has no morals. If thats the case than raping a child is just as acceptable as saving someone who is drowning.

Originally posted by jgiant
I respect your opinions and that is a possibility. I just look at the evidence (science, order and design, universal sense of good and evil, universal laws of nature, the complexity of life and the universe, personal experiences, Biblical accuracy, historically and prophetically, and the way finding Jesus has changed my life) that I have seen and continue to see and it all points to the God of the Bible being the one true God. Though I definiatly see where you are coming from and understand. But I cannot accept this veiw on account of the overwhleming evidence pointing to a God and not an eternal universe that has no morals. If thats the case than raping a child is just as acceptable as saving someone who is drowning.

Couldn't your argument (if assumed to be true) be used to defend the point of view of a first century Roman (non-christian) when talking to an early Christian?

From the point of view of a Roman, the idea of many gods agrees with his/her experiences, contemporary religious writings on Roman gods and history as understood by the Roman? Wouldn't they say "Though I definitely see where you are coming from and understand. But I cannot accept this view on account of the overwhelming evidence pointing to many gods"?

If that is not true, then I have to ask why are you (or Christians today) so special?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Couldn't your argument (if assumed to be true) be used to defend the point of view of a first century Roman (non-christian) when talking to an early Christian?

From the point of view of a Roman, the idea of many gods agrees with his/her experiences, contemporary religious writings on Roman gods and history as understood by the Roman? Wouldn't they say "Though I definitely see where you are coming from and understand. But I cannot accept this view on account of the overwhelming evidence pointing to many gods"?

If that is not true, then I have to ask why are you (or Christians today) so special? There really isn't anything different. The only argument I have is that I know I have a secure place in eternity. Only time will tell if Christianity will last, but I am willing to say with certainty that it will survive as a dominant religion unlike Roman mythology. It is also interesting to note that the Christian religion (which was originally Jewdasim) is the second oldest practicing religion next to Hinduism.

Originally posted by jgiant
There really isn't anything different. The only argument I have is that I know I have a secure place in eternity. Only time will tell if Christianity will last, but I am willing to say with certainty that it will survive as a dominant religion unlike Roman mythology. It is also interesting to note that the Christian religion (which was originally Jewdasim) is the second oldest practicing religion next to Hinduism.
That is so wrong it's not even funny. Judaism is way older than christianity. So is Zoroastrianism.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is so wrong it's not even funny. Judaism is way older than christianity. So is Zoroastrianism. To have Christianity you must have Jewdasim. Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the Old Testament.

Originally posted by jgiant
To have Christianity you must have Jewdasim. Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the Old Testament.
First of all it's "Judaism", not "Jewdaism".

Secondly you are aware that there is a distinct religion of Judaism that people in the modern world practice, right? Judaism as practiced by Jews, is much older than Christianity.

Originally posted by King Kandy
First of all it's "Judaism", not "Jewdaism".

Secondly you are aware that there is a distinct religion of Judaism that people in the modern world practice, right? Judaism as practiced by Jews, is much older than Christianity. Have you ever heard of a messianic Jew?

Yes. Have you ever heard of a NON-messianic Jew, and understand that they by far outnumber messianic ones?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes. Have you ever heard of a NON-messianic Jew, and understand that they by far outnumber messianic ones? Yes I understand all that, I am just saying that Christianity is just a continuation of Judasim. The first Christians were Jews. Its like Kill Bill Part 1 and 2. You can't have part 2 without part 1.

But you can have part 1 without part 2. And many do.

inaccuracies

Originally posted by jgiant
I respect your opinions and that is a possibility. I just look at the evidence (science, order and design, universal sense of good and evil, universal laws of nature, the complexity of life and the universe, personal experiences, Biblical accuracy, historically and prophetically, and the way finding Jesus has changed my life) that I have seen and continue to see and it all points to the God of the Bible being the one true God. Though I definiatly see where you are coming from and understand. But I cannot accept this veiw on account of the overwhleming evidence pointing to a God and not an eternal universe that has no morals. If thats the case than raping a child is just as acceptable as saving someone who is drowning. You purport that a "sense of good and evil" is "evidence"? Since when did a "sense" become evidence?

Good thing you're not the deciding member in a jury. "I have a sense that Mr. Dahmer is not guilty".

Originally posted by jgiant
There really isn't anything different. The only argument I have is that I know I have a secure place in eternity. Only time will tell if Christianity will last, but I am willing to say with certainty that it will survive as a dominant religion unlike Roman mythology. It is also interesting to note that the Christian religion (which was originally Jewdasim) is the second oldest practicing religion next to Hinduism.

However, you have more in common with my first century Roman, then just the idea that all religions have a life cycle. You and the Roman both have devotion. So, if you both believe with all your heart that your beliefs are true, why is the Roman's belief untrue and your true? It seems to me that they should both be the same.

I guess the age of your religion is important to you. Therefore, let me point out that I am a Buddhist, and you know how old Buddhism is.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You purport that a "sense of good and evil" is "evidence"? Since when did a "sense" become evidence?

Good thing you're not the deciding member in a jury. "I have a sense that Mr. Dahmer is not guilty".



Well according to his FULL quote he was describing more than just "sense"

stop trying to bring the man down.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, you have more in common with my first century Roman, then just the idea that all religions have a life cycle. You and the Roman both have devotion. So, if you both believe with all your heart that your beliefs are true, why is the Roman's belief untrue and your true? It seems to me that they should both be the same.

I guess the age of your religion is important to you. Therefore, let me point out that I am a Buddhist, and you know how old Buddhism is. Yes around the 6th century BC. Age is of minor importance to me. The age does show the uniqueness of the religion considering the belief of one God was not solidly present before Judasim. Yes, I've researched Zoroastrianism and and I do not think the evidence is convincing enough to state that Zoroastrianism belief in one God without any other side gods was established before Judasim. I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God; based on my research on many religions and through personal experiences, the Lord answering my prayers and an inner change of personal belifes and life styles I can only attribute to the Holy Spirit. I cannot say anything else other than that to answer your question.

Originally posted by jgiant
Yes around the 6th century BC. Age is of minor importance to me. The age does show the uniqueness of the religion considering the belife of one God was not solidly present before Judasim. Yes, I've researched Zoroastrianism and and I do not think the evidence is convincing enough to state that Zoroastrianism belief in one God without any other side gods was established before Judasim. I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God; based on my research on many religions and through personal experiences, the Lord answering my prayers and an inner change of personal belifes and life styles I can only attribute to the Holy Spirit. I cannot say anything else other than that to answer your question.

Please read my question again. I never said anything about Zoroastrianism or the first one god religion. It's possible (I've gone it myself) that you read my post after reading all the other posts and put them all together. I'm not asking you what the other people are asking you. I am asking you a more fundamental question.

Let me take a different approach: Do you think that people of other religions are censer? Would you be surprised to know that they use the same logic to support their religious beliefs as you do?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please read my question again. I never said anything about Zoroastrianism or the first one god religion. It's possible (I've gone it myself) that you read my post after reading all the other posts and put them all together. I'm not asking you what the other people are asking you. I am asking you a more fundamental question.

Let me take a different approach: Do you think that people of other religions are censer? Would you be surprised to know that they use the same logic to support their religious beliefs as you do? I totally understand. But here are a few reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible is consistently proven itself over years of critisism to stand the test of time. Over and over again skeptics have been proven wrong when trying to debunk the Bible. The skeptics said the Hitties never existed and therefore the Bible was wrong. They believed that there was no such thing as the House of David and they found evidence of that being accurate. There are many other archeological finds that have further proven the Bible historically accurate. The book of Job is one of the first (if not the first) to state that the Earth was round and was held up by nothing. Job contains many statments about nature that were unheard of at the time, which have been proven correct. The prophecies in the Old Testament were said to be written after Jesus's life and death and that was proven wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you believe that Jesus lived (which I do) than those prophecies, which dated at least a few hundred years before his birth, were not just by chance. Also many other prophecies in the Bible, which have came true and continue to come true, furthered my faith. As well as the incredible harmoney that spans hundreds of years from around 40 different authors (from different parts of the middle east) that is contained in Scripture, helped further my faith. The fact that these manuscripts have survivied as well as God's chosen people (who many have tried to erase from existance), helped further my faith. The Bible is a unique book, who who has no equal in my opinion. And again personal experiences.

Originally posted by jgiant
I totally understand. But here are a few reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible is consistently proven itself over years of critisism to stand the test of time. Over and over again skeptics have been proven wrong when trying to debunk the Bible. The skeptics said the Hitties never existed and therefore the Bible was wrong. They believed that there was no such thing as the House of David and they found evidence of that being accurate. There are many other archeological finds that have further proven the Bible historically accurate. The book of Job is one of the first (if not the first) to state that the Earth was round and was held up by nothing. Job contains many statments about nature that were unheard of at the time, which have been proven correct. The prophecies in the Old Testament were said to be written after Jesus's life and death and that was proven wrong by the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you believe that Jesus lived (which I do) than those prophecies, which dated at least a few hundred years before his birth, were not just by chance. Also many other prophecies in the Bible, which have came true and continue to come true, furthered my faith. As well as the incredible harmoney that spans hundreds of years from around 40 different authors (from different parts of the middle east) that is contained in Scripture, helped further my faith. The fact that these manuscripts have survivied as well as God's chosen people (who many have tried to erase from existance), helped further my faith. The Bible is a unique book, who who has no equal in my opinion. And again personal experiences.

These are simply beliefs on your part, and not facts. Why would the bible be more correct then the Koran? It also has historical facts written into it's pages, and it also claims to be the word of god.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
These are simply beliefs on your part, and not facts. Why would the bible be more correct then the Koran? It also has historical facts written into it's pages, and it also claims to be the word of god. The reason I do not accept the Koran as the Word of God is because it makes claims about Jesus's life and death 500 years after he was alive. Muhhammad also believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, but he violated the original purpose that God had for marriage (one man and one woman to become one flesh) by taking multiple wives. Not to mention his other things in the Koran that are not in harmony with the Old Testament.

Originally posted by jgiant
The reason I do not accept the Koran as the Word of God is because it makes claims about Jesus's life and death 500 years after he was alive. Muhhammad also believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, but he violated the original purpose that God had for marriage (one man and one woman to become one flesh) by taking multiple wives. Not to mention his other things in the Koran that are not in harmony with the Old Testament.

The NT was written at least 90 years after the death of Jesus (and that is being very forgiving, most likely they were written much later).

Again I'm not talking about your belief. There is a possibility that your interpretation of the bible is wrong. I'm asking you, why would one religion be right, while another one is wrong when the appear to be the same form the macroscopic point of view?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Still even 20 years is enough time to distort the story enough to be unreliable. However, that doe not remove the possibility that the information is correct, but it does weaken your point. Also the Council of Nicea in 325 AD was far more of an influence then when things were written. The Gosple of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses as well as the Epistle of James, who was the brother of Jesus. The Gosple of Mark was written by Mark who was a follower of Peter (an eyewitness) and accompanied him during his ministry. The Gosple of Luke was written by Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul (I'd say he was an eyewitness, others may not) and did extensive historical investigation (most likely interviewing many of the eyewitnesses and family of Jesus) in his Gosple and the book of Acts, which if you read it you can see what I mean. I don't understand how this weakens my point considering you said the Gosples were written much, much later. Also, can you expand how the Council of Nicea fits in here, considering they took the most reliable manuscripts, which could be traced to authors who were either Apostles or worked with Apostles of Jesus.

Originally posted by jgiant
The Gosple of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses as well as the Epistle of James, who was the brother of Jesus. The Gosple of Mark was written by Mark who was a follower of Peter (an eyewitness) and accompanied him during his ministry. The Gosple of Luke was written by Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul (I'd say he was an eyewitness, others may not) and did extensive historical investigation (most likely interviewing many of the eyewitnesses and family of Jesus) in his Gosple and the book of Acts, which if you read it you can see what I mean. I don't understand how this weakens my point considering you said the Gosples were written much, much later. Also, can you expand how the Councile of Nicea fits in here, considering they took the most reliable manuscripts, which could be traced to authors who were either Apostles or worked with Apostles of Jesus.

No, they were not. You are projecting your beliefs as if they were fact. This is fine for you, but not for me. The truth is, we do not know who wrote the four gosples. There is evidence that they may have been copied from an older source, see Q gosple.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, they were not. You are projecting your beliefs as if they were fact. This is fine for you, but not for me. The truth is, we do not know who wrote the four gosples. There is evidence that they may have been copied from an older source, see Q gosple. Yes Mark's Gosple is a good example of that Q. If they were using Q as a reference to refer to then its fine and takes nothing away from their accounts. I have no problem with a Q if it exists. Luke states in the beginning of his Gosple he used sources. But from my understanding there is no evidence of this supposed "Q" just alot of speculation, which is not in anyway reliable.

Originally posted by jgiant
Yes Mark's Gosple is a good example of that Q. If they were using Q as a reference to refer to then its fine and takes nothing away from their accounts. I have no problem with a Q if it exists. Luke states in the beginning of his Gosple he used sources. But from my understanding there is no evidence of this supposed "Q" just alot of speculation, which is not in anyway reliable.

Do you have any idea were the speculation comes from? You should look into it, and get back with me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you have any idea were the speculation comes from? You should look into it, and get back with me. There is no manuscriptual evidence of this "Q" and the idea was first brought up in the early 1800's by Herbert Marsh.

Originally posted by jgiant
There is no manuscriptual evidence of this "Q" and the idea was first brought up in the early 1800's by Herbert Marsh.

You are still not getting the profound point behind the Q gospel. If the Q gospel did exist, then the four gospels were not written by their name sake. More likely, they were written by scribes many years later.

You can dismiss the Q gospel if you like, but I think it is compelling that parts of Mark and Luke seem to be copied from the same source.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are still not getting the profound point behind the Q gospel. If the Q gospel did exist, then the four gospels were not written by their name sake. More likely, they were written by scribes many years later.

You can dismiss the Q gospel if you like, but I think it is compelling that parts of Mark and Luke seem to be copied from the same source. Or it could be that there were some things in Jesus's life that were profound moments that needed to be told. Just like if a few people who were close with Martin Luther King wrote about him, they would mention the "I have a dream speach", the time he spent in jail in Birmingham, his assasination all from different perspectives of course, but the core must remain the same. Which in the Gosples it does. In fact that is why so many people have a problem with the Gosples, the different perspectives make it seems as though they contradict one another, but in reality they are not. That gives me further affirmation of their reliability because they are not identicle to each other, but have their own unique perspective on the remarkable life of Jesus.

Originally posted by jgiant
The reason I do not accept the Koran as the Word of God is because it makes claims about Jesus's life and death 500 years after he was alive. Muhhammad also believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, but he violated the original purpose that God had for marriage (one man and one woman to become one flesh) by taking multiple wives. Not to mention his other things in the Koran that are not in harmony with the Old Testament.
Lol, wtf are you going on about here? In the old testament many of the most important followers of god had multiple wives. It was not until the NEW testament that it was stated that only monogamy was acceptable.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Lol, wtf are you going on about here? In the old testament many of the most important followers of god had multiple wives. It was not until the NEW testament that it was stated that only monogamy was acceptable. Just because they had multiple wives, it doesn't mean that it was right in the eyes of God. Those patriarchs in the Old Testament who had multiple wives: Solomon, David and so forth, did so for reasons that are not mentioned in the Bible specifically. Some theories have it that God allowed this because women back then who could not find husbands were very vulnerable to poverty and death. Having a husband who could provide and support them could be the acceptable alternative. Though most of the time those who violated the nature of marriage were punished as shown by Solomon. I am just reasoning this out because from my understanding scripture is not too clear on this, but the Bible is clear right from the beginning the intent of marriage, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become ONE flesh." In addition when Solomon took all those wives it was in direct violation of Deuteronomy 17:17 which states that kings shall not multiply wives for himself. Solomon's wives brought idolatry into Jerusalem, resulting in the kingdom being divided (1 Kings 11).

Sorry for the double post, but I have not studied in depth the issue of polygamy in the Old Testament and it is fairly interesting to see how God works with sin. Its truely remarkable he makes it painfully clear that what he did with Adam and Eve was the right way to do it. The first practice of polygamy is seen in the line of Cain (who we know committed the murder of his brother), Lamech had two wives and we later see that Lamech lead the Cainites in an open rebellion against God, we can see that sin begets sin here. Abraham was not really a polygamous, but committed adultery with Hagar, which caused his household to fracture. David's problem with women also lead to his downfall and repentance of his sin. God ended up taking all of David's wives away from him and leaving him with Bathsheba to become his only wife. Very interesting and awesome how God works.

Originally posted by jgiant
Some theories have it that God allowed this because women back then who could not find husbands were very vulnerable to poverty and death. Having a husband who could provide and support them could be the acceptable alternative.
You do realize, that that is the exact same thing the Koran says...

Originally posted by King Kandy
You do realize, that that is the exact same thing the Koran says... Yes but does it make it right in the eyes of God? The Bible makes it perfectly clear that it is not. If every time we see the end result a disaster.

David had multiple wives and he wasn't bad.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well according to his FULL quote he was describing more than just "sense"

stop trying to bring the man down. Never. Picking and choosing is what democracy's all about.

Where did Cain get multiple wives? Where did he get a wife at all? Did he bang his sister?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Where did Cain get multiple wives? Where did he get a wife at all? Did he bang his sister?


Difficult answer = Yes

Easy answer = Cain did not exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Difficult answer = Yes

Easy answer = Cain did not exist.

Kind of already knew that, but it makes for amusing arguments, especially when dealing with literals.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Kind of already knew that, but it makes for amusing arguments, especially when dealing with literals.


Ya, it's up there in my top ten.

Originally posted by King Kandy
David had multiple wives and he wasn't bad. You must understand that it lead to his downfall and having all his wives but one taken from him.

Originally posted by jgiant
You must understand that it lead to his downfall and having all his wives but one taken from him.

It didn't lead to the others' downfall, so your example is unique. The only other one was Solomon but that was because he took foreign wives with their own gods.

Originally posted by Autokrat
It didn't lead to the others' downfall, so your example is unique. The only other one was Solomon but that was because he took foreign wives with their own gods. I believe the Bible is quite clear about this from the start. It is an interesting topic tho that I have to study.

there's parts of the bible which are not meant to be read as they are apocryphal

though deeper meaning lies in them