God...whatever!

jayleew said:
I agree it is fiction until proven. You say "almost". What do you mean?
I know my college history professor used the Bible for historical reference, but how much of the Bible is really based on historical events?
Click to expand...

The bible itself is a historical document, and can legitimately be used as historical reference depending on the context. If for example someone refers to the Bible to say that Jesus' resurrection was a historical event, then that is just foolish.

Christenstein said:
If Jesus were to exist, how is He fiction? Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Simply put: it's not unrealistic that the story of Jesus is based on a real preacher, but it's unrealistic to assume that the supernatural aspects were true. It's more realistic to assume the supernatural aspects of the story were simply penned by the writers based on decades worth of chinese whispers and story telling.

What I'm trying to say is that christians would be in for a big shock if they seen the real person this story was based on. Similarly, if you met the leaders of certain tribes and heard all the stories about him beforehand... let's just say the real person would be a letdown.

Real people without the myths are just... real people.

What motive will these people have when Christians were being persecuted. Saint Paul went to jail and remained on house arrest for most of his life. Stephan and others were stoned to death for believing in Christ Jesus. What does it profit all these men and many other figures to go to the death for merely a myth?
Click to expand...

Actually, martyrdom is actually the best thing for spreading a religion and gaining said people historical notoriety. Just look where it got Jesus...

Man did not write the books of the Bible. Man was assisted by the Holy Spirit in writing those books.
Click to expand...

OH COME ON! THAT'S JUST STUPID!





this post was edited by the Holy Spirit
 
Last edited:
Christenstein said:
Man did not write the books of the Bible. Man was assisted by the Holy Spirit in writing those books.
Click to expand...

Who told you this? Did you read this somewhere? If so, where? Is this first hand evidence? In the Christian culture, it is a common belief that this is true. But, you forget that the Holy Spirit was not available until after Jesus died.

Tidbit: Did you know that the term "Holy Spirit" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible? There are other terms that describe a third entity of the Trinity, but no "Holy Spirit".

The men from the New Testament were filled of the Holy Spirit, but man wrote the Old Testament from instruction from God. Biblical scholars say that Moses wrote Genesis.

Anyway, to say man was assisted by the "Holy Spirit" without first defining and establishing the "Holy Spirit" as verifiable, is useless to giving credibility to the idea you are trying to present.

Aside from all this babbling, man did in fact write the Bible, regardless of the Holy Spirit's presence or not. It was not the hand of the Holy Spirit who put the pen to the page. No use challenging the statement.
 
Christenstein said:
The Bible is not one source, but a collection of different sources or books. The last time I checked, the Bible was not written by one person, but many people.
Click to expand...
but compiled as one, it's quite irrelevant to say there different, theres no prove for that, there just different chapters, named genesis, exodus etc..
but because the bible is a compilation, you cannot use it to verify itself.
Irregardless of there aledgedly being several writers.
you could say in that case, as the there is no proof that Sheherazade (a thousand and one nights) made up all those stories, she must have got them from other sources, but nobody is trying to pass this of as a book of truth, it has just as much morality within.
but if you were trying to prove that sinbad was real because he is in several of the stories, I would call you on the same logical fallacy.
now if you had an extra biblical source, that verified the bible, of which there is none, then fine.
 
jayleew said:
Biblical scholars say that Moses wrote Genesis.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Sorry, but this has long been disproven by biblical scholars and archeologists who also have proven that the Exodus didn't happen.

Some people like the Jews and non-progressive christians still believe Moses wrote the Torah, but scholars have concurred that Genesis was written by as many as five different authors (Described below):

Scholars have concluded that it was literally impossible for Moses to have written the Pentateuch because the timeline for the authorship of Genesis took place about seven hundred years AFTER Moses's lifetime. This theory is still being taught today in seminaries. It's called the Wellhausen (or Graf-Wellhausen) hypothesis. This hypothesis states that there are a number of authors responsible for writing the Torah. The Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis encompasses the following fragments from the Genesis authors:

Jawist version written c.950BCE
Elohist version written c.750BCE
Priestly version written c.650BCE
Deuteronomist version written c.587BCE

However, these fragments weren't compiled until about 200CE! By that time, however, the RCC was being formed by the early church fathers in full force, but it would still take another 200 years to get that job done! What intrigues me is that the oral torah wasn't actually written down until about 200CE! That was way after Jesus's time, so he never had a copy of the Old Testament to read from. Then how was it that Jesus knew what the Old Testament said? Apparently Jesus didn't know that it wasn't Moses who wrote the first five books of the bible. Oh, well, he didn't exist anyway, but if he did, his folks would have lied to him, too! The stories of Moses and the Torah and Jesus and christianity just don't add up.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: Sorry, but this has long been disproven by biblical scholars and archeologists who also have proven that the Exodus didn't happen.
Click to expand...

I did a poor man's skim on the subject (wikipedia). Compelling stuff.

Interesting...so, in your estimate, how much is left that is actually based on actual events?

Also, curious that this idea has not been adopted into the mainstream Christianity...at least in the average Christian....course the average Christian doesn't even read the Bible lol
 
geeser said:
what your doing is a logical fallacy, called a generic fallacy you cant use the same source to verify itself, what extra-sources do you have to verify your beliefs.
Click to expand...
no

what I am saying is that something is verified by practice

I am not saying that something is verified by theory
I am not saying that something is verified by belief (although one can believe in something that turns out being true - like for instance you could believe the advice of your doctor and save yourself a trip to the operation theater several months down the track)

I know the answer is none, so do go away and get an education you've been on these boards, for some time now unfortunately, but you've learnt nothing.
Click to expand...
it appears you haven't learnt much either since you are still making the same argument you gave since day one

KennyJC said:
I could study every word of the gospels and come to the same conclusion. I could study every popular nursery rhyme and still conclude that they are fiction. Jesus, even if he existed, is still almost 100% fiction.
Click to expand...
I guess things would get dynamic if you came to the level of practice
The writers of religious scripture borrow ideas from past scriptures, and liberally embellish new ideas for what they think will help them gain more followers and power. That is it.
Click to expand...
or alternatively, they give details on how one has to be (ie free from the pushings of lust, etc) in order to know something of the claims given



Well, I know one thing for sure - I know a man can not write a document and proclaim "THIS ENABLES ME TO KNOW GOD!"
Click to expand...
its not clear what the reason would be that prevents a person writing details of their experience in knowing god - unless you know that there is no god ... and I think we have been down that road before .....

Chris Cremin said:
lg
re Normative. I wish you would stop using this term.
You know no-one understands it.
It just causes confusion.
Click to expand...
How would you suggest I state it then?
 
lightgigantic said:
no
what I am saying is that something is verified by practice
Click to expand...
I'm fed up to the back teeth with your inanely stupid replies, how can you verify an imagined/non-existent thing through practice, for F sake man use your head.
Show how the thing is not imagined/non-existent first, then you can say your above comment with intelligence, and pride.
Else shut the F up, you're boring.
 
jayleew said:
I did a poor man's skim on the subject (wikipedia). Compelling stuff.

Interesting...so, in your estimate, how much is left that is actually based on actual events?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: That I don't know. That's why I'm still searching for the truth. I have a feeling that my search will never end, if that gives you some kind of estimate.

Also, curious that this idea has not been adopted into the mainstream Christianity... at least in the average Christian....course the average Christian doesn't even read the Bible lol
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: That's a good question. There are at least three biblical scholars (seminary graduates) of both Catholic and Protestant affiliations who are publishing on the passe ideas of the virgin birth, the trinity, and the resurrection not having occurred. Dominic Crossan is one of my favorite christian scholars. There area also Lee Strobel and John Spong who write on the modernization of christianity to disclude the above topics in that they are not necessary requirements of belief in modern christianity. There may be a lot more scholars who are following this trend, but I don't usually read material especially if it is filed under religious/christian fiction. Most christian-related books are filed under this heading. And sadly, some of the better scholarly works of christian related topics are filed in the New Age section! (But that's in Barnes-n-Noble's stores) where I shop.

I believe you are correct when you say the average christian doesn't read the bible. With a more educated and modernized society, I don't hear of many people reading the bible anymore, but then I'm not a part of that sector anyway. I would think that most believers would have a problem with some of the bible stories. Now with communications devices at our fingertips that faster than a speeding bullet, the bible just doesn't hold up as an antiquated communications device. Christianity is on a worldwide downward spiral, so its holy book is also falling out of popularity along with it. The question to ask would be, "Is christianity serving its believers in modern society?" I believe it has fallen short. Churches across America are closing down due to a decreasing population. People are busier these days trying to survive on two incomes. The megachurches that are televised seem to be packed full of beleivers, but who really knows? When we are used to megamarts for shopping, maybe everyone's going to the megachurches, and god help those who are taken in by the televangelists.

But back to your question about mainstream christianity. I have read there is a trend in christian seminaries today to downplay the virgin birth, trinity, and the resurrection. I would recommend reading Dominic Crossan's scholarly approach to this question.

I don't have much hope for christianity to adequately minister to a modern society. Perhaps with new generations of priest, pastors and parishoners, a happy medium may be found, but I doubt it. People aren't dumb. They've been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to come back like the holy book promised he would. Well, he's seven years too late, and the light's not on at the door. Maybe he got side-tracked? Maybe there was an emergency at some other place in the universe? Maybe he decided not to come after all? Then the son-of-a-bitch should have RSVP'd! Is this really the kind of god we should believe in after all?
 
geeser said:
I'm fed up to the back teeth with your inanely stupid replies, how can you verify an imagined/non-existent thing through practice, for F sake man use your head.
Click to expand...
you do realize that your above statement is just another way of saying "I have direct perception god doesn't exist" - I think we have discussed how inane this is already
Show how the thing is not imagined/non-existent first, then you can say your above comment with intelligence, and pride.
Click to expand...
and without coming to the platform of practice (built on the foundation of theory of course) how do you propose one establish that something exists (particularly things that are beyond the direct perception of your average joe - like electrons, etc)?


Else shut the F up, you're boring.
Click to expand...
you have unresolved anger issues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top