Please be careful not to extrapolate what I said. I never said the entire Bible has been rewritten several times. Am I biased? Not really. I just don't presuppose anything. The other sects obviously did not accept it. What was chosen to become the bible was chosen by the victors. I don't really understand the rest of you comment, as you seem to be saying that differences existed, but then the manuscripts from all over the world agree (proof?) and then that since the bible is vaguely consistent (again, not really) it must be impossible. It's an underpants gnome type argument. A general consensus? By whom? Of what caliber was this consensus? How egregious are the errors? Scholars have illuminated that a statement such as yours are over-simplified and inaccurate. Like I said, I don't remember all the details but some of my favorites are mistranslated old testament references (how would a Jew make that kind of mistake?) or attributing a saying to Jesus where he references the Greek Septuagint instead of the Tanakh, even though Jesus obviously had only one reference available at the time... I'd be happy to supply as many as you would like, once I'm back at the house. Like I said, I was not trying to be rude. I just don't have any desire to "prove" anything, particularly if the person I am communicating with is a "believer". That's just a waste of time, usually. As it is, my point (getting back to the thread topic) is that the Bible is full of historical edits and alterations that make ascertaining what Jesus did or did not say; did or did not do, impossible. The author referenced in the OP and in my post makes this extremely clear, and you can pick up mountains of other works that further describe this research and work. Some of my favorites (other than Price) are Elaine Pagels and Earl Doherty. Price and Doherty, for example, each wrote a separate refutation of the "Case for Christ" previously mentioned in this thread. I don't judge you for believing what you believe, and I don't think you are simple-minded or whatever for having faith. I simply think it erroneous to make generalized statements of consistency and accuracy when there very obviously is great disagreement in that regard among the texts themselves. Critical study from scholars familiar with the topic can go a long way in explaining why these changes and deletions occurred and what impact they had on the resulting messages. You are free to disagree with them, but I see little rationale for doubting their work; they are, obviously, far more invested and familiar with the exegesis in question.
I believe Jesus was a real person. There is no reason in my mind not to. I think it is utterly hilarious that you think the new testament books are eye witness accounts of Jesus and his life. That is so completely untrue that it's funny. you can choose to believe that as fact, but you might as well deny the earth being round as well.
Oh, yeah? Well I have this book to prove that the real Jesus existed: And nothing in books can be wrong.
Jesus still exists, it's all of you interweb folks that are imaginary. Well, except I've met a few of ya. Ok, so Jesus, and a few extras.
i'm not the biggest christian, but i think the point you are missing is that jesus had no sin. so he is the only person that could receive grace through god's covenant, including the fact that he was born of a virgin. so he shared that grace that only he could receive with all of us
There have been some new items discovered along the lines of the Dead Sea Scrolls that could shed a little light on this debate in the future. I am not claiming these are authentic are anything like that rather I am just pointing out there discovery. Link- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html
Jesus was followed around by a prostitute for 3 years. Deductive reasoning suggests this could mean 1 of 2 things. A.) Jesus was a pimp B.) Jesus ran up a big bill. Maybe Mary Magdalene was upset while Jesus hung on the cross because Judas got 30 pieces of silver and all she got was the promise of eternal salvation.
Well let's just say it is a little thing called FAITH. When you have faith in Jesus you get the added bonus of the Holy Spirit. When that happens ALL doubts are gone. How sad that you think that this is all there is to life. When you have the Holy Spirit you realize there is SO MUCH MORE!!!! Do you believe in God at all?
Also keep in mind the history of marginalia. One generation's marginalia became another generations part of the Bible as it got copied into the text. As far as written histories, it is also important to know that we have more of an understanding of Late Antiquity (the time Jesus would have lived) than writers in the 2nd-4th centuries. There also needs to be an understanding that history as we know it didn't exist until roughly the mid 18th century. That is a history based on facts and research above all and not storytelling and incorporating local tales and such. It is simply a fact that there are no extant "eye-witness" accounts and no extant Roman records of Jesus or an uprising.
So, if {a tree} falls in {the forest} and none of us were there, you're saying that it didn't really {make a noise}? Or is it more of schrodinger's cat thing, where like he both {always existed} and {never existed} equally until definitive observation has occurred where people are merely picking sides {team Jesus} until they shake hands with Him?
I think I have a disagreement about what faith is. I don't think most if not all people of faith also have some doubts. It's part of faith.
I think it's a third possibility. The tree may have fallen, and made a noise, but without the proper evidence to prove it, then it isn't historical fact. That is different than saying it never happened.
