How is it an impossibility? There are millions of people around the world that believe He is and existed as a man. You don't think that one single person of those millions have discovered something that proves He is what He says He is?
Bible contradictions
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
How is it an impossibility? There are millions of people around the world that believe He is and existed as a man. You don't think that one single person of those millions have discovered something that proves He is what He says He is?
An appeal to popularity is hardly any sort of evidence. Millions of people believe astrology and dowsing are real. Millions of people believe in witchcraft. A full 1/6th of the planet -over a billion people believe Muhammad was a true prophet and that only Islam is the way to truth and god. Do each of these now have as much or more credibility because of their popularity? Not at all.
Only to those that have the gullible nature to believe without evidence or question. It doesn't demonstrate itself to be any more authoritative than Moby Dick, Huck Finn, or the Grapes of Wrath.
Perhaps in your mind. Having studied many, many religions, both extant and extinct, I can assure you that only a few are concerned with the mythology of your bible.
Only to those that have the gullible nature to believe without evidence or question. It doesn't demonstrate itself to be any more authoritative than Moby Dick, Huck Finn, or the Grapes of Wrath.
Perhaps in your mind. Having studied many, many religions, both extant and extinct, I can assure you that only a few are concerned with the mythology of your bible.
Last edited:
I wasn't saying that it was evidence, was I? I take the time to write these posts please take the time to read them. If it is too difficult to understand the idea and thought I was getting at please ask me to clarify.
My point was how can he assume that he knows more than the millions of other people who know the Bible and Christ. Impossibility sounds like an absolute to me. So you believe in absolutes? And where do you draw those absolutes from? Wherever you draw those absolutes from, that is your authority. Come on man work with me.
have you checked the link provided.
have you studied any ancient religion and noticed the similarities, between there heroes and jesus.
there is no evidence for a jesus person if you think you have some independent and verifiable evidence then feel free to put it forward.
it might be possible but extremely unlikely, given the lack of evidence, you could use the same arguement for lenny the leprechaun, or winnie the pooh, are they possible.
I think Skinwalker made it clear, its an appeal to popularity.
if a thing is wrong it matters not, how many billions of people believe it to be right, it will still be wrong.
Last edited:
No one in this forum can say they don't have access to the Bible. The Bible has become accessible in 236 countries being translated into 392 languages. (Portions of the Bible have been translated into 2,287 languages.)
I see another fulfilled prophecy in this as well. Only now in the history of the world is this happening and it was fortold in the Bible over 2000 years ago:
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:19
"And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations." Mark 13:10
I want to tell people the truths that have been revealed to me in the Bible--my words mean nothing. Its actually kinda interesting that you mention truth. What is truth to you? Or if you present "truth" to people what would that be?
Unless it was inspired. Then all Scripture is all Scripture.
All of the aforementioned have been based upon the Bible so there are some seeming universal truths. The Bible explicity warns against adding to or detracting from its teaching (Rev. 22:18, Deut 4:2). The New Testament contains the inspired and totally accurate witness of contemporary disciples and followers of Jesus. It alone claims to be fully inspired of God and usable for the establishment of doctrine (2 Tim. 3:15-17, 2 Pet. 1:19-21).
Well you can compare the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic if you so desire to the 6,000 ancient manuscripts. Or you can trust that the 48 scholars did the best they possibly could when they translated the first English Bible, or there are also many other current scholars that have translated the Bible into contemporary English.
Historically, the King James Version is been the most accurate--I use the NKJV. The NASB is also a good translation.
But again the Word of God only becomes alive when you are born again. Are you born again?
SetiAlpha6, you are passing your own judgments upon the Bible. Who has the authority to judge something as being wicked and immoral? Only the Bible has that authority.
The Bible is anything but wicked and immoral! God is righteousness and purity. God has set up His laws to help us not harm us. You will never know God unless you trust in Him completely.
I have the Spirit of God--yet I can sin because I quench the Spirit. Sometimes my heart does deceive me and I make wrong and bad choices! Then my conscience kicks in.
The heart is deceitful and wicked, who can know it? is a rhetorical question. Only God knows it so we ought to trust His judgments.
Yeah but that is only one aspect. The Bible also teaches love, mercy, compassion, grace, gentleness, slow to anger, etc. as a way of life as well.
I don't think any Christian would say they love the Father out of fear. Though the beginning of wisdom is fear. The fear of the Bible is a holy fear. Only outside of God's will ought one be fearful of His wrath.
"The LORD will take vengeance on His adversaries,
And He reserves wrath for His enemies."
Nahum 1:2b
Hey what's up geeser!!
Well first of all--Why would it be wrong? Who has the authority to make that judgment?
Does Lenny the Leprechaun, Winnie the Pooh, Muslims, Buddhists or any other religion have the Bible? Millions of people around the world put their faith in Lenny the Leprechaun and Winnie the Pooh? Please address those that have credibility. This forum discusses the credibility of the Bible. Would you like to tune in and discuss that?
The Bible gives the historical accounts of the eyewitnesses at the time of the resurrection-over 500. The prophets fortold His coming. Islam, Judaism, Christianity recognize his existence. The places and history of the New Testament are valid. So basically the real question is: Are the historical witnesses, prophets, three major religions and circumstantial evidence all wrong about Him? or should we believe your simple judgment? Why do you think all of time has been divided into BC and AD?
Very true--many religions are based upon the universal truths of the Bible.
Why would I need to be Christian in the United States in this day and age? Its easy to be misled and forget God because we are not required to worship Him, it is a choice. I chose to worship God. I didn't swallow the spoon-fed, public school ideology--that I am here to consume and enjoy and then become nothing. I went against the grain and discovered truth.
The real answer is--If something is right, it matters not how many billions of people believe it to be wrong.
There are three things man places his trust in: themselves, religion, or the Bible.
It seems like a lot of questions have been raised about "evidence" of the Bible. I like this and considering it is Easter Sunday and all--I'm not expecting any long replies to this, just hope you all will read it and maybe share a few quick comments:
The Resurrection:
Does Circumstantial Evidence Confirm It?
Timothy McVeigh, the man behind the Oklahoma City bombing, had a date with death. He received a lethal injection for killing 168 innocent people, even though no one saw him commit this heinous crime. All the evidence against McVeigh was circumstantial. Indirect testimony: That’s what circumstantial evidence is. It’s an accumulation of facts from which one can draw intelligent conclusions.
As a newspaper reporter covering the courts, former journalist Lee Strobel saw how circumstantial evidence is used to expose what really happened during a crime. So, in the midst of a spiritual quest, Strobel began to wonder: Could circumstantial evidence verify that the resurrection of Christ really happened?
Well, he took his question to philosopher J. P. Moreland. In a challenging voice, Strobel asked Moreland: “Can you give me five pieces of solid circumstantial evidence that convince you Jesus rose from the dead?” Certainly, Moreland responded. First, there’s the evidence of the skeptics. Some of those who were most hostile to Jesus prior to his death became his most ardent supporters afterwards.
Second, the ancient Jews had a number of immensely important religious rituals. These included the offering of animal sacrifices, obeying the Mosaic law, and keeping the Sabbath. But within five weeks of Jesus’ death, more than 10,000 Jews had suddenly altered or abandoned these rituals. Moreland asked: Why would they relinquish rites that had long given them their national identity? The implication is that something enormously significant had occurred.
Third, we see the emergence of new rituals: the sacraments of Communion and Baptism. The early Jews baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “which,” Moreland said, “meant they had elevated Jesus to the full status of God.”
Fourth, we see the rapid rise of a new church, beginning shortly after the death of Jesus. Within twenty years this new church (begun by the companions of a dead carpenter) had reached Caesar’s palace in Rome, and eventually spread throughout the Roman empire.
And fifth, Moreland said, there’s the most convincing circumstantial evidence of all: the fact that every one of Jesus’ disciples was willing to suffer and die for his beliefs. These men spent the rest of their lives witnessing about Christ. They frequently went without food; they were mocked, beaten, and thrown into prison. In the end, all but one died a painful martyr’s death. Would they have done this for a lie? Of course not. They did it because they were convinced beyond a doubt that they had seen the risen Christ.
Even if we doubted 2,000-year-old evidence, we have all the circumstantial evidence we could possibly want—right in front of us. It is, Moreland said, “the ongoing encounter with the resurrected Christ that happens all over the world, in every culture, to people from all kinds of back-grounds and personalities. They all will testify that more than any single thing in their lives, Jesus Christ has changed them.”
Circumstantial evidence earned Timothy McVeigh a death sentence. But sacred circumstantial evidence about the resurrection of Jesus Christ can lead all of us, including McVeigh, to a much better verdict: everlasting life in the presence of God.
Okay Okay I know I've posted a lot but I just wanted to share this as well:
"The fact that Abraham Lincoln was born, became president, or was assassinated cannot be proven using scientific methods. To be scientific, it must be repeatable (as in the testing of gravity). The proofs that Lincoln did exist and was a historical figure are: 1) the written evidence; 2) eyewitness testimony; and 3)physical evidence that remains to this day-the Ford Theatre, birth records, and newspaper ariticles regarding his election. All these facts are acceptable in a court of law as proof to a judge and jury.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is evidential: 1) the empty tomb still exists; 2) His birth record is documented all the way back to Adam and Eve; 3) the four Gospels record His death; 4) the location, and even the names of the political leaders who sentenced Him are historically recorded; 5) there were more than 500 eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after the resurrection, recorded in the New Testament 6) the very existence of the Christian faith, based on His death and resurrection; 7) the cultural and political evidence of the time, including the Roman calendar separating all of time into Before Christ (B.C.) and in the year of our Lord (A.D.)."
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many instances in the bible where God ordered his followers to kill. The Old Testament is full of instances like this! It can't be denied but it is either ignored or rationalized away as "Gods' will".
The million dollar question then ,is : If the biblical God ordered you to pick up the sword and go into the town and kill....would you do it? If you were ordered to participate in a stoning of someone found collecting firewood on the sabbath...would you do it?? If you are a true follower of the bible you cannot let your feelings of this not being right bother you, it has to be done. You are not to question the Lords' morality(as perverse and bizzare as it may be!)
some have the own holy books, which are just as invalid as the bible, some are held in legend, and some are from books, but all are imaginary.JimHR said:
yes agreed.JimHR said:
have done they all have the same credibility as the bible.JimHR said:
no it's to discuss the contradictions in the bible, which shows the bible has no credibility.JimHR said:
am doing teach what next.JimHR said:
not proven!JimHR said:
not proven!JimHR said:
the places some maybe, but as for history, not proven!JimHR said:
as all are pure hear say, then yes they are all wrong, you first have to establish he existed, and using the bible as you evidence, you on a downward spiral.JimHR said:
this is an appeal to authority another fallacy, the days of the weeks and the months are named after gods does that make those gods valid, give me a break, teach.JimHR said:
and the bible is based on mithra, the vedas, etc...many legendry stories from many many cultures. what make you think the bible an authority, it's yet to be accredited here. your credulity is pointless to us, you have to establish it's authority for us.JimHR said:
when are you going to start.
you most definitely need to prove jesus actually existed, if you cant establish that then all the circumstantial evidence in the world is irrelevant.JimHR said:
The Crucifixion A Barnett
The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is probably the single most important event in the xian religion. The crucifix itself, an instrument of torture and death, is the most common symbol associated with xians. It is found in their churches, in their houses and often hanging around their necks.
The inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the Easter story are well known.
The problem I have is with the whole point of the crucifixion (assuming, for the sake of argument, that it actually happened). What was it all for? What good did it do?
The Death
How does crucifixion kill you? According to the Bible, it seems you can just hang there indefinitely until you feel like "giving up the ghost". In actual fact (correct me if I'm wrong) you die of asphyxiation. Hanging by your arms makes it more and more difficult to expand your chest until you can no longer draw air into your lungs. One of the reasons that the Romans would break the legs of the crucified was to speed up their death - they could not take any weight on their legs and the whole body was hanging by the arms.
( As an aside, it should also be noted that the Romans probably tied the wrists to the cross, and nailed the hands on to make sure the victim could not pull his hands free. If nails were used with no rope, the weight of the body would simply rip the nails through the hands. It has been mentioned that the nails were usually placed between the Radius and Ulna bones in the forearm, as they could support the weight. Presumably it was both the combination of the ropes and nails that held the victim in place. Interesting that you never see xian stigmatics showing rope marks on the wrist and nail marks on the fore-arms, and most images of jesus show him supported only by nails through the hand... )
The four gospels all give different accounts of (among many other things) Jesus' final words. Seems to me that he would hardly have been able to suck in a lungful of air, let alone make any sort of grand speeches.
The Sacrifice
I've read "The Lord sent his only son to die for me! How much more personal can you get?" ; also, I'm sure you've all heard "He died for our sins" and so on. It seems that some people almost celebrate the awful death of Jesus. Was it really some great selfless sacrifice, for the benefit of a world of sinners?
So the story goes, Jesus died and this somehow absolved all of humanity's sins, past, present and future. He then spent three days dead (some say He went to the underworld or Hell), came back to his physical body and then floated up to Heaven.
1. How was this a selfless sacrifice? He was marched up the hill by a bunch of heavily armed centurions. Was he really saying things like "No, it's okay, I want to do this. It's part of The Plan, you see."? (It has to be said that many human sacrifices do willingly go to their deaths, sure in the belief that they are doing it for the good of their people, and that their deity actually exists. They don't usually magically manipulate events to ensure that it happens, however...)
2. Maybe it somehow was a selfless sacrifice. In this case, why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed by the state? Why not just say to his disciples "Well guys, it's time to say Goodbye." and throw himself under the nearest chariot? Death is death. Did the manner in which jesus died actually make any difference?
3. It has never been adequately explained how this death freed us all from sin. If the death freed us from the consequences of sin (hell, or eternal oblivion), it is still unclear as to why it had to happen in this particular way. Why didn't God just sort it all out during Creation?
4. If Jesus is God, then how do we know he really suffered? Is it possible to inflict physical pain on an immortal, omnipotent entity? (see Suffering below) Maybe he was just faking it for the crowd...
5. If Jesus is God, then how was it a sacrifice? He only had to spend a few days "dead", then it was back home to Heaven (and he knew all this beforehand, being omniscient). A few days in the underworld can hardly have been a big deal for an eternal, omnipotent deity, can it? (And of course, being omnipresent as well, he would already have been there all the time anyway.)
6. What was he doing during those three days? (Some people say he was preaching to the lost souls in Hell.) Why three days anyway? Coming back to life after a couple of weeks would have impressed the superstitious locals much more.
7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn't suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide... (Of course, in Jesus' case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further).
8. Why didn't he stay dead? Not much of a sacrifice if you spring back to life a few days later, is it (especially if that was your intention right from the start)?
9. If Jesus had it all planned from the start (if you believe in the older prophecies), then it certainly was not a sacrifice. He must have used his God-Magic to manipulate events and ensure that the crucifixion occurred. This would include making Judas betray him.
10. Why is Judas so reviled? If he acted with Jesus' blessing, or even under divine coercion from Jesus, why is he portrayed as a bad person? Either way, he helped the crucifixion take place, so surely christians should admire him. Without Judas they might not have been Saved, or Jesus might have lived a lot longer and they'd have a much less impressive ornament to hang round their necks as a symbol of his death. A runaway horse maybe, or a slippery banana-skin or perhaps a poorly cooked chicken leg.
11. Why didn't Jesus let the disciples in on the big secret beforehand?
12. If Judas had not given Jesus a big ol' smacker, would nobody have known who he was? Had he been preaching, healing and overturning tables with a mask on, so that the only way in which the "great multitude" who came for him could recognise him was through Judas' kiss? Perhaps Jesus had a twin brother, and only Judas could easily tell them apart? Perhaps the other disciples were all wearing "Jesus Masks" to throw the crowd off the scent? Judas' part in all this would seem to be quite redundant if Jesus were at all recognisable to his enemies...
We are told that Jesus died for our sins, and his death on the cross saved us all from Hell (or eternal death). So why do we still get all the sermons about sin, heaven and hell? If we are all going to Heaven anyway, why do priests keep pestering us? If our afterlife still depends on living a good christian life then what difference did Jesus' death make? How did it change anything?
If Jesus has already "paid the price" for our sins, then surely we can now sin as much as we like. If not, why not? Or, if he only paid for Original Sin, that still doesn't explain why God needed a blood sacrifice to sort out something that could easily have been avoided in the first place. (Remember though, that the first murder in the Bible occurred as a result of God preferring a sacrifice of flesh to one of vegetables, for some obscure reason.)
If our getting into Heaven depends solely on accepting jesus as our personal Saviour, what about all those people who died without even hearing about him (for whatever reason)? If they get into heaven anyway, then jesus's death is irrelevant. In which case, why shouldn't the same apply to everyone? If God had never sent jesus to Earth, everyone would get into Heaven and there would be a few less bloody wars in the history books...
The idea of God sacrificing himself to himself, in order to prevent himself sending us all to Hell for commiting sins because of the way he made us, and which he knew we were going to do anyway, is a little hard to swallow...
The Suffering
A big thing is made about how much jesus suffered on the cross. While certainly quite nasty, there are much worse ways to die (and the followers of jesus have been quite inventive in thinking up new ones over the last couple of thousand years). If jesus's suffering was somehow supposed to be for our benefit, wouldn't we benefit more if his suffering had been greater (e.g. he might have been hung, drawn and quartered; or keelhauled; or sent to a Maria Carey concert)? Or, if he had suffered less (maybe quickly stabbed) would it have made any difference? All the other people who were crucified (and there were certainly plenty - the Romans were very big on crucifixions) would have suffered to a similar degree, if not more. How was jesus's suffering any different to theirs?
Crucifixion is obviously a particularly horrific way to die. However, being God, Jesus would have known not only the pain involved in crucifixion, but also the pain involved in every other possible manner of dying. God would be perfectly aware of tortures, diseases and injuries that make crucifixion seem like a picnic on a warm summer day. When people go on about how terrible His death was, how much he suffered, and that it allowed Him to experience human suffering, I think "But if he was God, a few hours on the cross would have been utterly insignificant to Him and He would already know exactly what all possible forms of human suffering are like."
Some people argue that jesus suffered more than just physical pain - he suffered spiritual pain because he was taking all of our sins on himself. Unfortunately, this spiritual suffering didn't seem to make enough of an impression on the writers of the Gospels for them to note it down... This also begs the question - If He suffered "spiritual pain", why was it necessary for Him to also suffer physical pain? Couldn't He have atoned and suffered without being nailed to a stick first? At what point did the spiritual pain begin and end, and why?
Presumably this atonement includes the sins of people in the past and future (including, I guess, all those whom He mercilessly drowned in Noah's Flood), as well as at the time of the crucifixion. In that case, why did God have to come to earth at all and be sacrificed (to himself)? Why not just sort it all out right at the time of Creation? What happened to those who died before Christ did? Were they just sort of floating around in limbo, waiting for the time of the Atonement?
So jesust suffered horribly and died (temporarily) for His beliefs? So what?
How many people suffer far, far worse deaths every single year for no good reason whatsoever? (Ironically, sometimes at the hands of jesus's followers.) People who are brutally murdered because of the colour of their skin, or their sexuality, or their beliefs, or simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Original Sin
If it simply freed us from (or paid the price for) Original Sin (Adam and Eve bringing sin into the world), does that mean that all those people who died before Jesus didn't have a chance? Or did his death retro-actively Save them as well? In which case, why did he have to die at all? Why not just remove Original Sin right at the start?
Or, if God took Original Sin into account when judging people, and Jesus removed it, won't more souls go to Hell as a result? Before, God might have said "Well, you're a sinner but you're tainted by Original Sin, so I'll let you off lightly this time.", whereas now, a person who committed the same sins wouldn't stand a chance! Very fair...
A fatal flaw in the Original Sin argument is this :
There is no such thing as Original Sin.
Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil are mere mythology. The evolutionary origins of all life, including humans, are well understood. We did not magically pop into existence several thousand years ago in a luxurious garden, complete with talking reptiles and magic apples. We have evolved over millions of years to reach our current state. This is scientific fact, in the same way that gravity is. Like it or not, there was no Eve to commit an Original Sin in the first place. It seems a little more likely that after Jesus' death, his followers had to think up some sort of supernatural justification pretty quickly, and Original Sin seemed as good as any. Your Great-great-great..........great-great-grandparents were not called Adam and Eve.
In order to accept that Jesus' death washed away Original Sin (and therefore had any meaning at all), you are forced to subscribe to the young-Earth creationist view that the universe is about 6000 years old, and was created just as described in the Book Of Genesis. This would mean that almost all sciences (including the sciences that allow us to generate the electricity that is letting you read this document) are totally wrong about everything. This is one of the main reasons why creationists object so strongly to evolution. It implies (or demonstrates) that the basic concept behind xianity is simply false.
There was nothing for a jesus to atone for, so the crucifixion was meaningless.
Last edited:
Deuteronomy 4:2
"You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
When this verse in Deuteronomy was written most of the rest of the Old Testament and none of the New Testament in the Bible even existed. So according to this verse the Bible should have ended forever with the end of the Book of Deuteronomy, because everything else written after that Book would have been an addition to the Word.
Hmmm... I wonder if the Jews might even use this exact verse as a justification to throw out the entire New Testament, today. There are other Old Testament verses that justify what they did to Jesus.
Thanks for this reference! I never saw this before!
Revelation 22:18
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
The Book we now have, the Bible, did not exist at the time the Book of Revelation was written; therefore this verse can only be talking about itself, the Book of Revelation, not all of the other additions to the Word since the Book of Deuteronomy was written. When it says “prophecy of this book”, it refers to the Book of Revelation exclusively, not to the current day collection of many different books, from many different human authors, called the Bible. And when it says “plagues which are written in this book”, it is likewise referring only to the plagues which, surprise (!), just happen to be written in the Book of Revelation. Hmmm… How about that?
2 Timothy 3:15-17
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
As I have said, these “sacred writings”, ("writings" means more than one) were not contained in one single book, called the Bible, but existed in many different individual writings, or individual books. They were not organized into one Book, until centuries later. This is why the verse in Revelation simply cannot apply to the entire current day Bible. And no one, including you, even knows what these "writings" originally included or excluded.
I am asking you to be honest with yourself and with me about these things.
Thank You!
Last edited:
No one in this forum can say they don't have access to the Mr Men books. They have sold over 100 million copies and have been translated into dozens of different languages.
Tell me Jim, does that make Mr Tickle real?
I wont speak for the rest but Lenny does have a book - the Book of Lenny. It is the inspired word of Lenny concerning reality. You can't prove it, you need faith. No, Lenny wont try and get you to believe in him by arguing popularity - that is a weak approach.
And therefore I suppose Jupiter exists because he has a planet named after him. Hell, once every single week of the year you mention Mani, (a moon god), [Monday]. Does the fact that you probably mention this moon god way more than you mention AD/BC mean mani exists?
Your arguments are exceptionally weak.
True, no one in this forum can say they don't have access to the Bible. I agree with you.
It is also true that this is a rather recent occurrence in world history. As you have said, "Only now in the history of the world is this happening." And indeed, before modern times, certainly, millions if not billions of people lived and died without any direct access to the Bible at all. Of course, if a person can’t read, it would not matter at all how many different translations there are, even now, would it?
According to the Bible, most of these people, even some of your own distant relatives, who lived before modern times, will burn in eternal torment in hell, without ever having had the chance to read the Bible or to be "born again".
This is what the Bible teaches, correct? They were not "born again" so they will be tortured for all eternity, right?
Do you agree with this?
Or, have I missed something?
Yeah but it wasn't just blindly killing people. God's commandment is "Thou shalt not kill."
The question is--what purpose was it for?
Another good question is--did it really happen? If those tribes killed those people it only adds credibility to the events recorded in the Bible.
P.S. "And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—that they might accuse Him. Then He said to them, “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Matt 12:10-12
100 million doesn't come close to over 6,000,000,000 in 1992 plus the rest since then. Do I need to repeat myself all the time? I am sorry man but you nor I really have the time if this is how its going to be. Has the Mr. Men books been translated into over 2,000 languages? And that is just one fact. Need I repeat more?
Ok-who wrote it? Was it written by 40 authors over hundreds of centuries who spoke three different languages and lived on three different continents? Was it written by kings and shepherds and physicians and warriors? Come on man I'm just not getting your arguments. I want to help you understand the history but its like your on the defensive of something.
No. It means that a significant event happened at the turn of BC to AD. What do you think caused it? Man please try to answer the questions. I mean that's why I am here.
That's your judgment, but who are you?
geeser,
How would you like for me to go through your post with the precision of a forensic pathologist?
Your interpretation, from a medical perspective, is somewhat juvenile. That being said my own personal knowledge is limited to a few movies and such.
However, do you see what this statement say's of your ability?
"7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn't suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide... (Of course, in Jesus' case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further)."
This shows [edit] limited ability to understand human event's, walking a person to his\her own demise in no way constitutes suicide. Gallow's etc.
-bear in mind i am a medical professional.
How would you like for me to go through your post with the precision of a forensic pathologist?
Your interpretation, from a medical perspective, is somewhat juvenile. That being said my own personal knowledge is limited to a few movies and such.
However, do you see what this statement say's of your ability?
"7. If Jesus willingly went to the cross, was it then a suicide? Isn't suicide a Big Bad Sin? There seems to be a very fine line between sacrificing yourself and committing suicide... (Of course, in Jesus' case, he sacrificed himself to himself without actually dying, just to confuse matters further)."
This shows [edit] limited ability to understand human event's, walking a person to his\her own demise in no way constitutes suicide. Gallow's etc.
-bear in mind i am a medical professional.
Last edited:
jesus if you go by the bible knew in advance he would die, thus by doing it he is commiting suicide.
Snakelord, and M*W, most definitely are.
but your not, for this reason, and I quote "How would you like for me to go through your post with the precision of a forensic pathologist?
Your interpretation, from a medical perspective, is somewhat juvenile. That being said my own personal knowledge is limited to a few movies and such. " so your a medical professional who's learnt his trade from a few movies and such, LOL.
Having said all that, the Mr Men books aren't printed for the mere sake of it - shoved in hotel side cupboards to gather dust, or in the backs of church seats where nobody really bothers to look at them/read them. Then you have the masses bought by the education system for RE classes, the masses bought by those that want to go out and peddle them by knocking on peoples doors, etc etc. Out of that huge number you stated, how many are actually owned by a specific person?
Further to that, how many people actually sit down and read the bible? During my recent church visits I couldn't find one other person that had actually read the bible, (save for a couple of small paragraphs perhaps). I found it quite amusing: the only person in 200 that had read the bible, (many times), is the atheist.
Further to which, (and you need to pay attention): Numbers do not equate to truth. It could be 60,000,000,000,000 and it wouldn't make anything in it true.
An argument from popularity is weak.
40 or something which c'mon, is pretty damn cool considering it's got like 10 pages, 60 words and some pictures of a red square with eyes.
Likewise, the 100 mill figure is quite awesome considering it isn't taught in schools, isn't left lying in hotel rooms, isn't handed out on your doorstep, isn't left lying in their hundreds on church seats etc etc. Those 100 million copies were bought by individuals.
The question however is: Is something ultimately true because of the amount of copies it sells?
Lenny wrote it. Lenny speaks every language that exists or has ever existed and can travel continents in a matter of nano-seconds. Does something become true because more people write about it? Evolution for instance, is it a fact only because many people write about it, or is the amount of writers, languages they speak etc quite meaningless to whether evolution is ultimately true or not? Further to which, if you actually collated all the written works regarding evolution you could say that it has been written over decades by hundreds of different authors from all different continents. The point there is that someone millennia ago that had access to old accounts and stories could then easily continue the story, add to it, put his own little opinion in there and then - when they were collated, (while leaving many out), someone could claim it's all part of one book. It isn't. You have someones poems, the latter part are all letters etc etc. It's not "one book" written over yada yada by yada yada, it's just a collection of separate old manuscripts chucked together willy nilly.
No, it was written by Lenny. He is above and beyond kings, physicians, shepherds or warriors.
I want to help you understand that all your figures are completely meaningless. It's nothing to do with being defensive and everything to do with being sane.
No it doesn't. It means that at some stage some people in a position of power decided that they would use a specific god/entity as the basis for the calender. This doesn't mean that Jupiter is or was real, but that some person in power decided to name a planet after a specific god.
"'Anno Domini' dating was first calculated in 525 and began to be adopted in Western Europe during the eighth century."
500+ years after this supposed demi-god being had existed someone in power, (a christian monk), decided to use the stories concerning his existence as the basis for the calender.
However, to follow your line of reasoning.. Because Monday is named after Mani, a moon god, does it mean that once upon a time, on a Monday, an important event concerning this moon god took place? No. Don't be silly.
The person you're talking to. If I am not good enough then go talk to someone else. (And make it someone that will agree with everything you say so you can then feel all warm and gooey inside).
How does an appeal to popularity equate to any sort of evidence for anything other than popularity? Are you suggesting that popularity alone dictates the veracity of a concept? If so, what amount of popularity do we assign to wrong, dangerous, kooky, and generally superstitious ideas before we accept them as truth?
The alleged Jesus knew he was going to be "betrayed." He knew the events that were to unfold and said them to his friends. By staying and letting them play out, he committed suicide. Personally, I don't believe in any sort of "sin" inherently associated with suicide, so if the guy really existed, and the events really happened, then he showed moral courage to stand and face what he believed to be right even though it meant committing suicide. Japanese kamikazee pilots and Palestinian freedom fighters who blow themselves up have the same belief.
w1z4rd
Valued Senior Member
I have looked over all the evidence... read the works of Josepheus, Tacitus and so on, and have not found anything convincing. To me the most convincing piece of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed (the real person the myth is based on) is the James Cameron documentary on the Jesus tomb.
I advise you watch it because if you know Christianity pretty well (not the Christian propaganda, but its real history), you will see that the case they present is pretty convincing.
To me that is the most solid information I have come across that JC existed.
True, it was not just killing people for no reason, it was the cold blooded killing of a man for merely picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week.
Numbers 15:32-36
32Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day.
33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation;
34and they put him in custody because it had not been declared what should be done to him.
35Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."
36So all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.
JimHR, do you agree with killing people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, because this Law is still in force today? It has never been repealed! I trust you have never mowed a lawn or prepared a meal on the Sabbath for that would likewise be worthy of death. Any honest person would surely just turn themselves in to be killed.
Exodus 31:15
15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:16
'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.'
Leviticus 16:31
"It is to be a sabbath of solemn rest for you, that you may humble your souls; it is a permanent statute.
Leviticus 24:8
" Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before the LORD continually; it is an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel.
Hmmm.... I smell another contradiction.
Thank You
Last edited:
Jim,
It seems that arguing/debating with you here is like trying to debate with a stump. I even invited you to respond to my very first post in this thread and forum, but with logical and rational answers, yet...nothing.
...undoctored, my white ASS!
I guess you didn't watch "Banned from the Bible" last night on the History Channel did you? It mentions several verses, including the secret book of Mark, the book of Judah and others that I can't remember off the top of my head, that early Christian church members removed (or added) to suit their own agenda. I can't remember all of the books that were left out, but they were left out, no matter how you look at it.
Here is a Wikipedia reference (the more you read about these banned books, the more it looks like they were removed to suit someone's agenda, partly in hopes to weed out the Gnostic faith):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible
Jim, the bible has contradictions, regardless of how you look at it. Why is it that every single one of us on here can see it, but you can't? Do you think we're all stupid or something? For all of us to be stupid, you sure do like to be on here quite a bit.
It seems that arguing/debating with you here is like trying to debate with a stump. I even invited you to respond to my very first post in this thread and forum, but with logical and rational answers, yet...nothing.
That's a weak argument. Millions of Muslims have 'discovered something' that proves Mohammed existed as Islam's true prophet; they also believe that Jesus existed, but not as the son of God. Millions of Chinese people believed both Buddha and Confucius existed as men. Just as geezer pointed out above, what evidence is there to prove that Christianity is any more believable than any other religion?...hint "Because the bible says so." is not evidence that proves Christianity is any more believable than any other religion.
JimHR said:
JimHR said:
...undoctored, my white ASS!
I guess you didn't watch "Banned from the Bible" last night on the History Channel did you? It mentions several verses, including the secret book of Mark, the book of Judah and others that I can't remember off the top of my head, that early Christian church members removed (or added) to suit their own agenda. I can't remember all of the books that were left out, but they were left out, no matter how you look at it.
Here is a Wikipedia reference (the more you read about these banned books, the more it looks like they were removed to suit someone's agenda, partly in hopes to weed out the Gnostic faith):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible
Jim, the bible has contradictions, regardless of how you look at it. Why is it that every single one of us on here can see it, but you can't? Do you think we're all stupid or something? For all of us to be stupid, you sure do like to be on here quite a bit.