I agree with you!, I do also believe that Jesus was a real person, no doubt about that and about that other stories, just like you said they've been used just for making it more credible.

[quote name='pbarosso' date='Nov 15 2005, 09:56 AM' post='932792']
hmmmmm.......im a bit late on this but better late than never.

first. ive read posts talking about this business of Jesus being "half" god. how could that be true? what these posters are doing is not understanding that god is above their understanding. that makes alot of people uncomfortable. people dont like not having all the answers, so they come up with disclaimers and a more "logical" and "human" explainations. the fact of the matter is(christianity aside) an all powerfull god could very well do anything he wanted whether you undestand it or not. heres a good question: why does the universe keep expanding? maybe we will never know?

second, the bible does not exist to validify a church. is in fact the opposite. the church exists to validify the bible. modern christian fundamentalists believe in the bible more than they do the god and some seem to go way too far. the bible is the basis for the christian protestant, fundamentalist faith. but it is not that way since a church has to exist in order to validify and make a bible in the first place. it like the "what came first, the chicken or the egg" analogy. its simple. the church made the bible. its people use the bible to study and learn. thats all it was intended to do. so basically that is why the catholic church today is the fundamentalist protestant church, because they made the bible and then centuries later, protestant churches were founded upon its pages. and please dont give me that crap about the king james version. they are fundamentally the exact same. they are like comparing granny smith apples to red delicious apples. the differences are hardly worth exploring. peace.


yeah i agree with your second comment, but people want to know the answers, thats why we try and find them. and then we get more questions and we then try and answer them, in our best with out current knowledge.

[quote]they are like comparing granny smith apples to red delicious apples. the differences are hardly worth exploring[/quote]

heh, red apples are sweeter than granny smith apples.

Exactly. And incidently, the fact that Jellyfish do share a significant portion of their DNA with us is a further support for evolution, when placed in the context of evolutionary theory. This means that evolution predicts (and predicted, when DNA was first discovered) that various species, even widely diverse ones, should share at least a small portion of their DNA. It turns out that that prediction was true.

"And incidently, the fact that Jellyfish do share a significant portion of their DNA with us is a further support for evolution, when placed in the context of evolutionary theory."

umm I do believe in evolution(but I don't agree with scientists on earth's age, If the earth is that old, the grand canyon should be deeper), but I fail to see your logic, there are many similarities between Ford trucks and Chevy trucks, does this mean they both evolved from a honda 250,000,000 years ago? the fact that all life has similar DNA could be evidence for both evolution AND creation. Think about it, if a person makes swords it is logical to assume that he would make both out of the same metal, unless he had something better.

Sorry if this doesn't really contribute to the current discussion, but I found this site interesting: Lucifer- where did the word come from..
I've never fully read the bible, though I heard it contradicts itself a lot of times.

Did you know that there is more evidence for Santa Claus then there is for Jesus?
Using the same logic for Jesus being real and applying it to Santa Claus......
[/quote]
Sorry, just not true. Typical humanist argument that makes me laugh and in a way cry! Why is it so hard to accept the historical truth that a man called jesus who claimed to be the son of God actually lived? Im not saying to you accept what he said is true! You argue he does not exist because you do not want him to exist, probably you would retaliate to me that i believe he exists because i want him to exist also, as it in some way might comfort me or somthing. However the fact remains that no serious historian denies the fact that jesus of nazareth actually lived and died, the problems occur when we debate did he rise again! but thats another issue.
Thanks, Tags.

And there's more evidence for Jesus being real than there is for Alexander the Great. What's your point.

Regards, PA

btw, there is more evidence of Santa as in Saint Nick, who did go and give things away to the underpriveledged. BUt there's no evidence at all for Santa in the sense of a guy in big red suit who lives in the North Pole with elves to make toys for all the little boys and girls who have been nice.

Edit: good post tags

Have I welcomed you yet to UM, can't recall! Oh well, welcome tags, to UM

It's not a matter of speaking for itself. I'm just saying that it might not be a suitable topic for a debate. Debate's are supposed to have logically constructed arguments and overriding themes. They're not just supposed to be "here, refute this".

Fiction

Here's something funny..

If the bible is fiction:
1) Many lives were lost in a senseless battle for religion
2) We were brainwashed by an imaginary character
3) Time was wasted learning it all these years
4) Our tax dollars went to an imaginary organziation

If the bible is actually FACT:
1) We better start behaving and pray pray pray
2) We better start behaving and pray pray pray
3) We better start behaving and pray pray pray
4) We better start behaving and pray pray pray

thanks. its good here.

Not true you say?
ST Nick....1

ST Nick....2

Or just GOOGLE (<<A link) and see for your self!

Outside of the Bible just how much evidence is there?

Because there is no contemporary evidence of him, nothing reported by Justus of Tiberius or Philo of Alexandria, both Jews that reported all events occuring during the period that Jesus supposedly lived. Seems they would have reported these great miracles. See my thread in the Spirituality and Skepticism Forum on the subject of Jesus Birth Date.

None. No first century historian was an eyewittness to the life of Jesus. Yes, Josephus, Pliny et al mention Jesus, but they were simply repeating what they had heard.

1) Same thing happened in the Greco-Roman world.
2) Were the Greco-Roman gods real? Were the ancients brainwashed?
3) And then as well.
4) As they did in the Greco-Roman world--more so.

Sean

u will not accept eye witness testimony! Paul, peter , john, james et al are all eye witnesses! and they have done exactly what u would expect someone to do if what they claim they seen happened; THEY WROTE ABOUT IT AND DIED FOR THEIR BELIEFS!!! hARD TO GET BETTER EVIDENCE THAN THIS.


The fact that josephus etc even heard the stories so soon after they allegedly occurred is evidence in itself that even in the first century these stories of a jesus who performed miraculous deeds lived. They certainly cannot be used as an argument against his existence!!!!!
Luke has been describribed as an historian of the highest order even by non christians. His attention to geographical, and social detail are immaculate, which gives added confidence in his theological and spiritual detail, and his accounts of jesus' life. If josephus had not mentioned jesus then i am sure u would use that as another argument aginst his historicity, however even when he does mention him u still find arguments to negate his accurracy!!! its a lose-lose situation.

Well, we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not (these gospels were written until generations after the fact) and Paul never met a physical Jesus, only had a vision (wow, that musta been some good s--t he was smoking), Peter was not the author of the book attributed to him (unless he lived to be 150 or more), John did not actually write any of the books attributed to him (they were written long after he died), James did not write the book attributed to him (written much to late), so where does that leave us...oh yeah, without any eyewitnesses... You were saying? Josephus, incidentally was not the author of the Testimonium, all evidence points to Bishop Eusebius in the 4th Century CE!

this topic should be in spirituality and believes forum not here...and the thread is still going proves one fact...religion is fav of topic of all.both believers and non believers

Paul was an eyewitness to nothing--save for a blinding light. And these stories contradict each other. In fact, his experience is a perfect example of the Hebrew kobad ("manifestation of light by which God revealed himself"). As for the others ... They wrote nothing. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, but midrash, faith documents, literary works. They were written 40-70 plus years after the crucifixion.

When we come to the New Testament, the earthly life of Jesus is generally dated between 4 B.C.E. and 33 C.E. with the year 30 the consensus bet on the date of the crucifixion. The first written part of the New Testament were the Pauline epistles, all of which were composed between 50 and 64 C.E. or 20 to 34 years after Jesus' earthly life was concluded. Paul tells us, however, almost nothing about the events in Jesus' life. In I Corinthians, chapters 11 and 15, he does pass on the tradition that he says had been given to him, but the details are still quite sparse.

Mark, the first Gospel, was written some 40 years after the end of Jesus' life. Matthew is second, written some 50 years after Jesus' life, Luke is third, some 60 years after Jesus' life and John is last, some 70 years after Jesus' life. So we deal with a time span of 40 to 70 years in a world where life expectancy was half of what we have today and in which there were no written records to which an author might refer. To complicate matters even more, all of the gospels were written in Greek and our presumption is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. So when we read the gospels, we are 40 to 70 years and one translation removed from the events being described. I would say any claim that one is dealing with literal words in either Testament is problematic. I think the New Testament contains authentic echoes of the Jesus of history far more than it contains his literal words.

The next issue that must be faced is where did the memory of both the words and actions of Jesus reside before these stories were written down. My study leads me to the conclusion that the place of their residence could only have been in the synagogue. The gospels are so deeply shaped by and intertwined with the stories found in the Old Testament that this intermingling process could only have occurred in the synagogue because that was the only place where the Old Testament was ever read and studied. Remember in that day there were no printing presses. Books had to be hand copied on scrolls and were thus very expensive and very rare. Even in the stories of the New Testament that do not directly quote Old Testament sources, the echoes of Old Testament themes are still heard. In Luke's Christmas story (Luke 1 & 2), for example, one meets allusions to Isaiah, Malachi, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Daniel Jacob, Rachel, Joseph, Samuel, David, Micah and probably others and that is just to scratch the surface.

If what you are looking for is literal accuracy, you will not find it in either Testament. If what you are seeking is the chronicle of how God was experienced in our religious past, together with and an invitation to you to walk in that path and enter the experiences that they describe, then I think you will discover in the Bible a rich reading experience.--BISHOP J.S. SPONG

And how many people have martyred themselves believing in a religious or political cause? This is your weakest argument.



The Josephus account is a known interpolation. The paragraph is tiny. That said, Josephus goes into far greater detail on all sorts of unique individuals--even basic criminals--then he does with Jesus. Here are a few. All these were messianic claimenst ... Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE), Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE), Simon of Peraea (4 BCE), Judas the Galilean (6 CE), The Samaritan prophet (36 CE), King Herod Agrippa (44 CE), Theudas (about 45 CE), The Egyptian prophet (between 52 and 58 CE), An unnamed prophet (c.59 CE), Menahem (66 CE) et al

He thought Jesus nothing special.



I believe in a historical Jesus. However, you will not find him in the Bible.



GL is anonymous. Most of his information is borrowed from Mark, Q, and L. As for dating and composition ...

Date and Place of Composition. If the Marcan gospel is rightly included among the sources used by Luke in composing his gospel, then the latter is to be dated after Mark. The Marcan gospel is commonly dated ca. 65–70 CE. How much later is the Lucan gospel? One cannot say for certain. Luke 1.1 refers to “many” others who had previously tried to write the Jesus story; even if Mark is included among the “many,” more time must be allowed for the others to whom Luke alludes. Again, since the Lucan Jesus refers to Jerusalem as an “abandoned” house (Luke 13.35), this and other references to Jerusalem (Luke 21.20, “surrounded by camps”; Luke 19.43–44, with earthworks erected against it) would suggest a date for Luke after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Some have sought to interpret these references as merely literary imitations of biblical descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadrezzar, hence lacking in historical references to the Roman destruction. But this interpretation is not without its problems. In any case, it is widely held that the Lucan gospel was composed ca. 80–85 CE, even though one cannot maintain this dating with certainty.

Nothing in the Lucan gospel hints at the place where it was composed. The author’s knowledge of Palestine is at times defective, which would suggest that it was not composed there. Ancient tradition mentions Achaia, Boeotia, and Rome; modern conjectures include Caesarea, the Decapolis, or Asia Minor. No one really knows where it was written.

Authorship. Unlike the Pauline letters, which bear the Apostle’s name, the third gospel is anonymous, as are the other gospels. Ancient church tradition attributed the third gospel to the Luke who appears in Philemon 24 as Paul’s “fellow worker” and is called “the beloved physician” in Colossians 4.14 (cf. 2 Timothy 4.11).

Most modern commentators on the Lucan gospel, however, are skeptical about the validity of this traditional attribution. They regard the tradition as based largely on inferences from the text of the New Testament made when people were first beginning to wonder who had written the Gospels. They further call in question Irenaeus’s description of Luke as Paul’s “inseparable” collaborator (Adv. haer. 3.14,1), which he inferred from the “we” sections of Acts (esp. Acts 16.10; Acts 20.6). The nature of these “we” sections has since been questioned. Are they fragments of a diary or notebook that the author of Acts kept as he journeyed with Paul? Or are they, rather, a literary form used by the author to enhance his narrative of sea journeys? A still larger part of the problem is the relationship of the author of Acts to Paul. In recent decades it has become evident that only with considerable difficulty can one reconcile much of the depiction of Paul in Acts with that which emerges from Paul’s own letters. Hence, was the author of Luke-Acts really the “inseparable” collaborator of Paul? The difference between the Lucan Paul and the Pauline Paul is not minor; even though it is largely an issue of Acts and the Pauline letters, it bears on the authorship of the Lucan gospel. The result is that many modern commentators are uncertain about the authorship of Luke-Acts.--JOSEPH A. FITZMYER, S.J., Oxford Companion to the Bible

Sean

So now you are saying the Bible can not stand on it's own?

But that is the whole point....I am saying there ARE contradictions in the Bible and you are saying no there is not. I (a nonbeliever) am willing to let the Bible speak for it's self.

[size=2]ok nonbelievers. you dont have to believe, and we nonbelivers andbelievers dont have to waste our time trying prove any points.

because the faith speaks for itself. if you can listen you will hear. or look close enough you will see. maybe not to the posts in this forum or to its members. pay attention when you are out and about. you cant let a human make an institution of god bad for you. a human recorded the events in the bible, not god. he only inspired, just as he inspires sinners to be priests and pastors, can you fault god?

no one does the right thing all the time. so maybe the answer is to not look at the wrongs someone does and focus on the right. forget about what happened to be written down 2000 years ago. can you see the benefit of loving your enemies and neighbors?

Of course- but we don't need christianity for that. Or the Bible.

Here are some links that i find helpful when making your own decisions. Of course one has to remember always when talking of a topic like this, there's always great biases.

The links.

Opposing views:

Study of the historicity of christian faith - a great site

The Bible with wonderful sidemarks

Common sense talks about the creation


Apologetic views:

Basic apologetic arguments


This might be a bit off the topic but i think you'll get a little help from those above links. Again, just google and you'l find tons of interesting stuff.

Instead of whats being said in the Bible, let us focus upon that which is not said.

meaning?

What has been left out of the bible?? stuff they didnt want us to know, which destroys the innocence of Christ and so on.

Also, in order for the Virgin Mary to be "innocent" then her parents wouldn't have concieved her and therefore::::::::: why did no1 notice??? and what bou ther husband, she cant hav bin a virgin 4eva.

i've forgotten my point. damn.

read the links i posted, especially the first one... it should help you on your quest. It also points out some of those concerns you've mentioned

im not concerned and wow!!!! im on a quest!! hahaha!!

didn't mean it as a religious bable... however it does answer to your damn question if you only had the real interest in looking, which i can see you don't.

You would be amazed at the stuff you can find!

what stuff is left out? can you tell me? and she is a virgin, Jesus was just in her, she didn't need to mate with someone to have birth, and Jesus came out of her not like other babies do, He came out of her just like a spirit in a way.

Mary being a virgin is a catholic invention. This is because of a translation error. It was translated from latin, which had the word virgo describing Mary. However virgo only means a young woman. Virgo intacta would actually mean a virgin.

This error has been set right already in some of the newer study bibles.

In her conversation with the angel Gbriel at the annunciation Mary protests that she could not have a child as she had not had sexual intercourse with any man!!!! Thus she is both a virgo ( a young woman; as u rightly point out) and a virgo intacta which u disputed wrongly.

welll thats interesting....because the cornerstone of christianity rests upon the conviction that jesus was a result of an immaculate conception and was thus a diety and not a human man.
Which is what the Koran says.
Boy oh BOY is the POPE gonna be PISSED.

In the sarcasm i missed youre point!!!

how very strange that the bible only meant mary was a young woman when she said to gabriel:

"that's impossible, I have never been screwed before."

Okay I'm paraphrasing, but it's the same meaning

and It's illogical to call Jesus a full fledged deity when his mom was a mere mortal. he if his daddy was a god and his mommy was a human then he was a demi-god

Youve missed the point!! the bible says that she was both a young girl and a virgin!!
Bible also claims as you rightly point out that Christ was both fully God and fully human; the god-man.

christians have nothing to do with popes.

Virgin birth. Yada yada yada!

It can never happen unless with invetro fertilization, but it didn't exist 2,000 yrs ago.

The Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost.
The Big Man, His Son & The Spook.

God can't be both, unless He was a half-bred. He's either one or other other.

For the sake of argument, and I don't believe in the stories of the Bible, if God ventured down to earth to partake in its bounty and the life He created, why do you really think He mucked in with the lowest of the low and not with the kings, of so He's so much affectionately assoicated with, sitting up there almighty on his throne of gold, watching his little playthings dance around blind and aimlessly in a creul, unfeeling world, like insects in a world controlled by a crazed, insane megolomanic?!

For those of you that don't believe that the BIBLE is spoken text from GOD, I don't know what to say? Not only did the LORD give you a detailed description on how the World was formed; but HE has also given man a complete description on how this world will come to pass. Read the BIBLE carefully, and pay close attention to world events. You will see that the events transpiring in modern times closely depict events in the BIBLE. Yet, we still have doubtors among us.

Sure, the BIBLE has been translated over the centuries, but the basic premise remains the same. Many say the Koran is the true spoken word from Allah. Yet, not only does the BIBLE predate the Koran; the Koran has primarily the same characters that the BIBLE contains. The only character that change roles between text is our LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST!

In the Koran Jesus, the Messiah, has been demoted to a messanger of GOD (Allah); a prophet of sort. Whereas, in the BIBLE, he is the son of the ONE WHO WAS, THE ONE WHO IS, & THE ONE WHO IS COMING, GOD!

Don't be led astray by lost sheep. They wll lead you into a bottomless pit!

For those of you that don't know the meaning of the BIBLE, here it goes:

B - Basic
I - Instructions
B - Before
L - Leaving
E - Earth

Ok, you say Mark is the earliest written about 70AD. Now, there is strong evidence that Mark was a young boy following Jesus, which would make him only 40 or 50 (at the oldest) years old at the time of writing. Hardly an old-aged person.

Though more importantly, and no one has yet to provide me with evidence of any kind (and I have asked this question before, it being totally ignored) to show why people believe these were written when they were. WE have no original documents to prove otherwise, how can people say when the original documents were written? Why is it that they cannot be more contemporary than the 120AD attributed to John by liberal scholars.

Just my thoughts on things.

Regards, PA

I'm saying the debate cannot stand on it's own.



Check with Lottie and Aztec if you really want, I'm anticipating that they'll tell you the same thing that I am. Unless the debate is expanded to say, the validity of the Bible, or the historicity of the Bible, rather than just contradictions in the Bible.

See what I'm saying.

Regards, PA

You had a point?



They had a point?

I thought it was like this:
B - Baloney
I - Ignorance of history
B - Bull Manure
L - Ludicrous contradictions
E - erroneous

At least that is how non-Christians see it.

Oh really. Its funny that; because every Christian on earth was once a 'non-Christian', and they seemed to give the bible the credibility it deserves. I suspect that there are many more non christians out there who will eventually see that Jesus is Messiah.
Sweeping statements of stupidity are not clever!

You know what is funnier - a very large group of people are known as Ex Christians, most of which were raised in Christian homes, were "saved", practiced the religion "regliously" with strong feelings, etc and then one day actually saw the contradictions, the pettiness and the evil of the religion and became ExChristians. I know, I was one of those...a good Christian, Deacon of the church, active in home ministries, et al for over 45 years and then I saw the truth and have never been happier in my life! So, many of the Christians that you say were once non-Christians, were non-Christian because they were old enough to be "saved", but had been indoctrinated (brainwashed) for all of their life! The Ex Christian group is growing, while the Christian group is shrinking (89% of the U.S. was Christian in 1986, but only 68% were Christian in 2002).

As I stated in a different thread...."Half human and all of the bad (per Christian belief) that goes with it (the original sin)".

Why don't that reply surprise me any?


But PA you were the one that was so avid to defend the Bible. Now are you saying you can not?
The challenge was about the contradictions in the Bible....not the supposed "validity of the Bible".

The Torah predates the Bible.....so what?
The Bible is just part two of a trilogy.


BYE BYE

PS: Please shut the door when you leave.