Also Jeff, Let me ask you something using my shakespeare example, how do you know what god meant even in a right translation? Many people disagree on what a shakespeare play means and we are dealing with god here. Furthermore, I find it amusing that you would accept the part of the bible that Jesus quoted buddha parables, to prove buddha when clearly in other places you think the translaters got it wrong. It is also very bold of you to claim that when Jesus said such and such he did it to be cryptic. You were not there and I highly doubt that you have a window to the mind of god. No, instead, you base your conclusions on someone else's understanding and that is no different than what I am doing? But I am base my conclusions on the word of god. You should prolly learn hebrew and greek first, then read the old and new testament in those languages, maybe you would be in a better position to argue that the bible was inacurate. It is also worth pointing out that there are jewish people, who do understand hebrew, that believe Jesus Christ is the messiah. So explain to me again how you know that Jesus prayed in the lotus position? And more importantly, why that matters? The fact of the matter is the bible itself illustrates the jewish people thought Jesus was not traditional and that is the reason he was nailed to the cross. I certainly do not have to read something else to find that out. But (you're right) I am prolly reading the wrong translation. But (just for kicks) can you explain to me how you know that jesus Christ was not god because I have really yet to be conviced? ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited March 23, 2001).]
Josephus wasn't born until 37 CE, a few years after the purported death of Jesus. Antiquities wasn't published until 93 CE. The authenticity of Josephus' brief mentions of Jesus is questionable. The style of writing is a departure from his typical style, and the content is of a decidedly Christian bent. Jesus as the Messiah and such. Possibly added by Eusebius in the fourth century, as he was the earliest known historian to have referenced these passages. There are no mentions of Jesus by any contemporary sources.
kbm, I have to disagree here. Science puts itself under scrutiny continuously. That is why theories are constantly being revised, proven, disproven, etc. Science's "head start" is, like you said, in the fact something must be proven before it is "law". This is common sense. If you can't prove it, why should I believe it? This is also where religion has yet to "prove" itself, because as you said, it was based on faith. ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second!
This is where I have a problem with Christianity/the Bible. If I cannot take what it says word-for-word, then each is left to his/her interpretation which eventually leads to the divisive sects/denominations we have today in Christianity. I was raised a Christian, but consider myself an agnostic now. I'm open to the existence of God, but the more I live life, the less I believe, I think. Often, Christianity is its own worst enemy based on its contemporary disciples, its wars, its conversion attempts, etc. Studying the evolution of the Bible was a interest of mine in the past. I used to love to trace the history of how the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, etc came to be. But the more I read, the more I discovered that this was a truly a literary work of man, not of God. If anyone is interested in the history of the Bible, study the rule of Constantine and the Council of Nicea back around 300 A.D. It woke me up because that's when I knew that this was no longer a work of God, but a work of man claiming a god. Christianity "evolved" through murder, force, and brutality among its own holy-men. The Bible evolved with it. Books/chapters were ripped out and the Bible has been reformed in its history. So what are you telling me? The Bible was the "Word of God", but now it's the "Revised Word of God"? Redactors have butchered what we now call the Bible to suit their needs and I can't stand that. ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second!
kbm- I respect your opinion and faith as it mirrors my own. I had planned to write a very long opinionated reply, but IMO either you have faith and believe or you dont. By the way my favorite passage in the Bible is Acts 2:38 ------------------
Really good point and I realized after I wrote that I was mistaken. Josephus was not who I was thinking of. Gotta dig through my books again. ------------------ "I swallowed a lot of agression...along with a lot of pizzas."
kbm: Sorry if what I wrote bothered you. I wasn't trying to tell you that you are wrong. I was just pointing out some of the things I had read and learned from professors and other teachers over the years. I don't KNOW anything and wasn't trying to prove anything. Like everyone, I'm still learning a lot. I was just trying to add my tiny amount of knowledge to the discussion. Anyway, I really have nothing more to add, so carry on. ------------------ "I swallowed a lot of agression...along with a lot of pizzas."
A few notes about Jesus: 1. The idea of Jesus as savior is not unique to Christianity. It is pre-dated by Greco-Roman "mystery cults." These pagan saviors often performed acts which would bring salvation to their followers. In fact, many such acts can be found later described in Christianity. 2. The idea of a spiritual channel between God and man, or "intermediary son" is a philosophical-religious concept that dates to the Hellenistic age. 3. The earliest Christian writings, the epistles, do not mention Jesus as a man. He is the same type of mystical savior figure, through whom the earth was created (as Paul stated). Paul mentions his resurrection, etc...but never mentions Jesus of Nazareth, specific acts, etc. Paul frequently lashes out at other Jesus followers -- saying they are not following the true Jesus, theirs is made up, etc. He speaks often of his revelation of Jesus as having come divinely from God. Not as having been direct from Jesus's teachings. 4. In the epistles, many sayings are attributed to divine revlations from God. Later, in the gospels, these saying re-appear almost identically as sayings from jesus. 5. It is in the gospels -- many years after the epistles -- where Jesus of Nazareth is called the son of God. 6. Considering most early Christians were really still strongly Jewish, is would be appaling for them to attribute a savior, god-like figure to a living human. It certainly would have also made it impossible to convert jews during those early years. All I can think of off the top of my head at this time. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
DoD, Although I did not say it explicitly, I meant scrutiny in the sense that if the theroies of science are found to be disproved, one does not have the urge to dismiss science as a practice. You only believe that science has taken a leap forward in understanding. But most christian scrutiny has been to disprove the exsistence of God. A much different type of scrutiny because you are attacking christianity itself. Think what it would have meant to the world if an early theory of science had caused people to give up on the pratice of science altogether. ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited March 23, 2001).]
Pictures of molecules have been taken by scanning tunneling microscopes. They exist. The atomic bomb is the result of the existence of atoms. The energy nuclear reactors produce are the result of the existence of atoms. These are things that I can see, touch, calculate, etc. I cannot calculate the existence of God, I cannot observe that Jesus is the Son of God, etc. There are no concrete facts that the mountains were created by God no more than by any other deity. The fact I can predict the effects of an atomic explosion and calculate what is needed to create that explosion is enough for me to know that atoms exist. As for the Bible being accurate, sure there are accuracies. I'll never say it's completely wrong -- there are several historically accurate points in the Bible. However, there are also some glaring textual errors. As an example, I had to look the following up for the verse (no I haven't memorized the Bible... ). If you read Genesis 1:24-26, you'll see God create animals before man. In a twist if you read Genesis 2:18-19, it states he created man then animals. While this may be a slight mistake, it's an example of an error that redactors either put in by mistake or did not catch that's been passed down for hundreds of years. What's to say other mistakes have not crept in? Heck, dozens of people were slaughtered and books taken out and edited one to two hundred years after Christ's death. The Word of God was changed. What you end up with, in my opinion, is a lot of mythology woven with historically accurate accounts and stories. The Old Testament doesn't really synch up with the New Testament in many places. In the OT you have several instances where God is not quite so omnipotent and downright mean. In the NT he is a much more caring God (in the form of Jesus). Women are second-rate throughout the Bible. I can't believe God would make women subserviant to men, but then hey, that's the way they're portrayed. Most of these stories exist to justify the beliefs of the day, in my opinion. I still say it is the word of man now much more than the Word of God until proven otherwise. I could go on, and in the past I have, but we'll never convince one another. I'll keep pointing things out, you'll keep disagreeing and vice versa. ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second! [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited March 23, 2001).]
DoD, I would never argue that the bible does not have some inaccuracies. The one you pointed out, I think, could be seen another way, but I can see why you interprete it the way you did. Yes, yes, DoD the god of the old testament is much meaner than the one in the new testament. He is not only a loving god but also a judge! This double nature of god has to do with god having to follow his own laws. Then there is the idea of a tri-unit god. The father, son and holy spirit. Each must follow the other but all have a different purpose to fulfill. This is the main reason many denominations disagree with one another. Each chooses to accept god in one form or another and then dismisses his other forms. One, for example, chooses to accept god the father but not the son or the holy spirit. The truth is god would like us to follow him in all his persons. ------------------ I am an invisible man.
Pardon me if this has been dealt with: Why would it seem hypocritical for a creationist to use science in proof of creation? While I realize no one can expect "proof" of the fact that the world was created in a set number of days, I do believe there are many scientific discoveries that fit the creation model better than they do the current model of evolution. For example, the fact that we now know the universe had a beginning fits the creation model the best. There were many evolutionists who found the Big Bang theory pretty hard to swallow at first (although I realize that some creationists find it equally as hard to swallow). ------------------ The sky is falling!
The discovery of pre-human "humans" does not support the creationist theory. The discovery of multiple forms of pre-human "humans" does not support the creationist theory. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
The real question in the thread now is justifying your faith in a god you cannot see. There are many proofs that the bible is accurate but that still does not validate that god is real. You simply cannot see him. All other points just end up here! ------------------ I am an invisible man.
RocketB, Read the post carefully. When I use the word all, ask yourself what has he stated before hand? Do I mean all points ever made in the world, no! I mean all proofs that god is real is moot because scientists often want to calculate what they can see only. If they cannot see it, then it cannot be real. Insightful post, BTW. ------------------ I am an invisible man.
You mentioned in an earlier post that Christianity has had many bad representatives over the years. It looks to me like Christianity still has a few bad representatives. If you believe what you posted above, you need to study Judaism a little more thoroughly, my friend. If you would, you would then learn how absurd your statement is. ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
Random question, not in terms of present argument: When I took Physics in highschool, only a few years ago, we were not taught that scientists unequivocally beleived that the universe had a beginning. There was still the debate over Big-Bang vs. oscillationg Big-Bang. Has this changed? ------------------
religion should be evaluated by the scripture, not the people. EVERY religion will have more than its share of bad apples. someone pointed out the example of the bible containing an inaccuracy about men or animals being created first. my question for all of you is this: if the book contains some discrepency or inaccuracy, then how can it be from God? after all, God created the universe so perfectly, He created humans, animals, the ecosystem without any flaw. Should He not be able to write a book that doesnt contradict itself? ------------------ http://members.fortunecity.com/omar369
Thats just it jamma. "He" didn't write the book, men did. BTW, I agree ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
