Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[Medicine*Woman]

This link provides some interesting further reading, if you want to learn something.

*************
M*W: Thanks, Dave. Your wikipedia link was really interesting, and I encourage everyone on the Religion forum to read it. I especially liked the following excerpts:

Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible. As with the historical records from any other civilization, the manuscripts must be compared to other accounts from contemporary societies in Europe, Mesopotamia, and Africa; additionally, records from neighbors must be compared with them. The scientific techniques employed are those of archaeology in general including excavations as well as chance discoveries.

Biblical archaeology is a controversial subject with differing opinions on what its purpose and goals are or should be.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient copies of the Hebrew Bible manuscripts do not qualify as artifacts representing something mentioned in the Bible, although they are an important testimony to the antiquity of the texts, and the reliable manner in which they were preserved through the centuries.

Archeologists found several artifacts in their excavations.

Quoting Paolo Matthiae: "The tablets (they discovered were dated to) a thousand years before Abraham, and a thousand years, even in the fourth millennium before Christ, was a very, very long time. They tell us much, but what they don't tell us - what they can't tell us - is whether the Bible is true or not. They have nothing to do with the Bible, at least not directly, and what we have here is not a biblical expedition. If we have tablets with legends similar to those of the Bible it means only that such legends existed round (sic) here long before the Bible."

*************
M*W: Most of the artifacts that have turned up were forgeries. In fact, the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority was arrested for defrauding the public and the government with the James Ossuary as well as many other pieces he sold.

The remains of Noah's Ark have been allegedly located by a number of archaeological groups and individuals. Most academics discount their findings as pseudoarchaeology.

Archaeologist Ron Wyatt claimed to have possibly located the Ark's final resting place. Since his death he has been acclaimed by many Bible believers. A plethora of internet sites concerning him have come into existence, and some have fabricated information about him and his discoveries. Samples from Turkey tested by Geological and Nuclear Sciences, a New Zealand government research institute, were found to be volcanic rock rather than petrified wood.

Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, William G. Dever writes:

Archaeology as practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the "larger than life" portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. There was no military conquest of Canaan, and many, if not most, of the Isrealites {sic} were polytheists. Monotheism may have been an ideal of Bible writers. Archaeology cannot not decide what the supposed events described in the Bible mean. Archaeology cannot decide this question; it can only sharpen our focus.

 

[KennyJC]

No problem, I'll let you mould your own version of reality.

And what do you call a literal belief in a story book?

 

[TheVisitor]

It supposedly is true, thousand of clay tablets where found in the ruins of Nineveh the ancient Assyrian capital a century ago and are on display at the British historical museum in London.

Now whether or not they are authentic and predate Abraham a thousand years....that does not make what is written in them essentially true.
They were written to convey a certain viewpoint, we do the same putting "spin" on political views today.
1) - They are the stories of ancient Canaanites.
2) - They may seem to relate similar accounts of the stories in the bible, but with key events turned around to make the God of the Israelites seem like an enemy of man.
3) - It makes sense that the God of the bible would be scripted in theses tablets in a negative light, because the Canaanites worshiped idols and heathen gods that were in direct competition for the hearts and minds of men.
4) - Religion was used as a tool of war, to create fearless warriors "giving" their lives for their god, so a people at war with the Hebrews or descendent's of Shem would have in their records belief in a god thats created to make them feel they are right, and their enemy is "wrong"
5) - This Babylonian religious war machine is still evident today.Take for example the Islamic Jihad.

The part of bible that was transcribed by Moses was written down as revealed to him.
Some parts were symbolic and some were literal, the bible refers to this being done so that certain truths can remain sealed, until an appointed time when a people is ready to understand its meaning.
Finding texts that can be dated before the time of Moses does not make them more accurate.
Moses said the old testament Pentateuch was given to him by God in a vision.
Since the abilities of seers or prophets to see the future and the past is not whats in dispute, the bible can not be disproved by the Sumerian texts, nor simply rendered a less accurate version of a similar account because they are physically dated as older.

 

[Woody]

KC said,

I am a charity, therefor it goes to myself.

ok, I see how you define charity. I'm glad we got that cleared up anyway.

it still remains that secularists give more to charity statistically.

Does that mean they give 100% to themselves like you do?

I don't see why that should be surprising since liberals tend to care more about whats going on around to the world

Until they start paying for it.

Why does the continued employment of a few detract from the overall greed of the church?

I know a minister that makes $12K US per year. That's somewhere around 7K english pounds. With that he supports a wife and two children.

I've been a member of various churches for years, reviewed their budgets, served on the financial board of directors, and I just don't see it about the greedy money mongering you keep harping on. If I was in a church like that I would certainly leave. I don't know where you get your information from but you've been conned.

 

[KennyJC]

KC said,ok, I see how you define charity. I'm glad we got that cleared up anyway.

That was actually an attempted joke. You see I am a charity, therefor I donate money to myself... HAHA! Get it? Get it?

Does that mean they give 100% to themselves like you do? Not much to be proud of.

I am sure I wouldn't be hard pressed to find religious folk who do as little as I do for charity. But again, I'm talking statistics here, not single cases.

Until they start paying for it.

I don't know what you mean by that.

I've been a member of various churches for years, reviewed their budgets, served on the financial board of directors, and I just don't see it the way you do at all about greedy money mongering. If I was in a church like that I would certainly leave. I don't know where you get your information from but you've been conned.

Then howcome the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Christians each year to the church in America, rather than going to the poor, goes to the Christians themselves? 95% of it I have read. multi-million dollar church buildings Christian golf courses, Swimming pools and not much in the way of giving it to people who need it. I wonder what the fictional Jesus would make of it all... I just love it when American religious nuts call atheists materialists. Take a look in the mirror.

One possible reason secularists statistically give more to charity is because they don't line the pockets of preachers, but instead actually give money to real charity.

 

[Woody]

DW said:

This link provides some interesting further reading, if you want to learn something.

Wow, the bible is an archaelogical gold mine. Thanks for the link.

Is anybody digging for Harry Potter? Haw Haw

 

[Woody]

KC said:

That was actually an attempted joke. You see I am a charity, therefor I donate money to myself... HAHA! Get it? Get it?

I got it the first time. The joke was on you, but you are more pathetic than I thought.

I am sure I wouldn't be hard pressed to find religious folk who do as little as I do for charity. But again, I'm talking statistics here, not single cases.

Good, then perhaps one of your secularist brethren here on this forum can step right up and tell us what they are doing to help others (not counting their employment which provides a paycheck).

I don't know what you mean by that.

If you were sincerely interested in helping others you'd make a personal sacrifice -- that's what I mean. It doesn't have to be money, it can be the time you sacrifice to show you care for someone without expecting anything in return (family members and friends don't count).

Then howcome the hundreds of millions of dollars donated by Christians each year to the church in America, rather than going to the poor, goes to the Christians themselves? 95% of it I have read. multi-million dollar church buildings Christian golf courses, Swimming pools and not much in the way of giving it to people who need it.

Can you name a church that has these things? I remember PTL some 20 years ago.

Multi-million dollar church buildings -- can anyone build a public facility for less than a million dollars? Tent revivals are nice, but I'd much rather be indoors. ok, so we like a building, especially in the winter time when it's raining or snowing, like negative 33C in Minnesota. Over there in Britain you guys never get 100+F degree heat do you? That's 39 degrees C, a rather chilly day in Phoenix in the mid-summer. I remember Dallas had 45 consecutive days of 39+C temperatures. You Brits have it made. A/C ain't free

That thing you call a "swimming pool", we christians call a baptistry. It's where you get dunked in front of everybody -- we call it a baptism. Every church has one except for the "head sprinkler" churches. I've never seen a real swimming pool at a church - no not even once, and I've been to many churches and many swimming pools too. I was a swimming athelete.

That thing you call a "golf course", we christians call a cemetery. It's where we bury dead people. Maybe you saw somebody swinging a pick and thought it was a golf club. I've never ever seen a real golf course at a church, no not once.

Have you heard what christian teachers make in christian schools? It's less than half of what their public school counterparts make. Did you know that private christian schools prepare students considerably better academically than their public school counterparts? Did you know that it costs less to educate a child in a christian school than it does in a public school? A lot less - Go figure. :bugeye:

One possible reason secularists statistically give more to charity is because they don't line the pockets of preachers, but instead actually give money to real charity.

Could you show your sources? I've heard that United Way rakes 35% on their charitable contributions to cover administrative expenses (executive salaries). A church that took that much out of a charity fund to pay off the church employees would be firing them. In church a charity fund is exactly what it says it is. Those that administrate and support it work for free.

 

[Woody]

M*W: Most of the artifacts that have turned up were forgeries.

If archaeologists can't be trusted then neither can paleontologists. Hence the bible and evolution are both false. So how'd we get here anyway?

 

[(Q)]

Morality was practised long before the commandments, heard of Noah?

Yes, I've read that fable, unless of course, you think it a true story?

It is a travesty of biblical proportions. We are to believe that god, finding bad apples in the barrel, decides to pull a couple out and toss the rest, so to speak.

We're to wonder if god made a mistake and was attempting to correct it.

And although the theist will tell you that god is all-powerful, he can't seem to just pull the bad apples out of the barrel and make them dissapear.

No, instead he slaughters everyone, women, children, babies, everyone! He puts them all to death in a most agonizing way, drowning.

Is this the morality you refer?

 

[Godless]

Morality was practised long before the commandments, heard of Noah?

Yea that guy that screwed both his daughters? What is so freaking moral about that?

Godless

 

[Woody]

Yea that guy that screwed both his daughters? What is so freaking moral about that?

Godless

You're thinking about Lot. He probably learned about it in Sodom -- the gay capital of the world in its day. Actually it was the daughters' idea. Their hubbies stayed in Sodom, and the men of sodom didn't want the girls for sex either. They were both virgins and married. Boy, some marriage!

 

[davewhite04]

Your wikipedia link was really interesting, and I encourage everyone on the Religion forum to read it.

This is the most sensible thing I've seen written from you thus far, congratulations.

 

[davewhite04]

And what do you call a literal belief in a story book?

The answer was almost in the question.

A belief.

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, I've read that fable, unless of course, you think it a true story?

It is a travesty of biblical proportions. We are to believe that god, finding bad apples in the barrel, decides to pull a couple out and toss the rest, so to speak.

We're to wonder if god made a mistake and was attempting to correct it.

And although the theist will tell you that god is all-powerful, he can't seem to just pull the bad apples out of the barrel and make them dissapear.

No, instead he slaughters everyone, women, children, babies, everyone! He puts them all to death in a most agonizing way, drowning.

Is this the morality you refer?

We were discussing the Ten Commandments, which are contained within the Bible. I provided a biblical person to backup a biblical question.

I have concluded that no matter what I write you will just throw it back in my face, along with another question. If I thought you had the slightest interest in finding an answer I would continue, but I think this is not the case, based on the evidence.

 

[davewhite04]

Thanks for the link.

You're more than welcome Woody

 

[Buffalo Roam]

If your right MW, I have nothing to loose, If I'm right you have everthing to loose, So who's ahead?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

You're thinking about Lot. He probably learned about it in Sodom -- the gay capital of the world in its day. Actually it was the daughters' idea. Their hubbies stayed in Sodom, and the men of sodom didn't want the girls for sex either. They were both virgins and married. Boy, some marriage!

*************
M*W: Honestly, the longer you're on the forum, the more ignorant you become!

Sodom and Gomorrah, for the fifteenth zillion time, is not a story about male homosexuality or even incest. It's a story about one being inhospitable to strangers.

Lot's daughters were "virgins" because of their ages, not their lack of sexual experience. So, if they had husbands at all, they could have still been doing their dad, which was reasonable and customary in their day.

But that's not the point. It's only a bible story not an actual event, although there may be some geologic evidence of a major explosion in the area southwest of the Dead Sea that caused a great saline deluge. Lot's "wife" is a salt mount ("pillar of salt") in that same Dead Sea area.

See: http://www.travelmania.com/gallery/albums/9/52.aspx

For reference regarding the "inhospitality" of the Sodomites (which really means "sodium dwellers," since the area was extremely high in saline content, see Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the Rites and Rituals of the World's Religions, by Charles Panati, 1996, p.411-15.

The buzz word here is "sodium" not "sodomy." Get that through your homophobic head.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

If your right MW, I have nothing to loose, If I'm right you have everthing to loose, So who's ahead?

*************
M*W: Although there is no competition to win or lose, I'm still ahead of you, because I don't believe in lies.

 

[Godless]

You're thinking about Lot. He probably learned about it in Sodom -- the gay capital of the world in its day. Actually it was the daughters' idea. Their hubbies stayed in Sodom, and the men of sodom didn't want the girls for sex either. They were both virgins and married. Boy, some marriage!

That's the bible for ya! full of BS.

But hey thanks anyway, I get incest confused, so much of it happened during those hot and spicy biblical days, it's hard enough to keep track of all the perversion of this book.

The bit of what happened with Noah:

Noah and Ham

The man who God saw as the most righteous on earth had a drinking problem. No sooner did the ark settle on land when he planted a vineyard. One day Noah got drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. Ham walked in accidentally and saw his nakedness. When Ham told his brothers, they carefully walked in backwards and covered him up. The puritan Noah cursed him to be a slave to his brothers. The reference to what Ham had done to Noah could imply something beyond casual looking.

20Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard;
21and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent.
22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
23Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
24When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
25he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” (Gen. 9:20-25)click ref.

Think the guy got some of his son's booty?

The bible should come with a warning label:

Warning: this document is meant to be read only by adults. Please keep away from children.

Stop Public Pornography

Secularist are woried of the obsene nature of this historical text, called the bible, while idiots claim this to be a document of moral value. Godless.

Godless.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I could have sworn that there are Roman sources recording the execution of a Jew with Jesus's name... but than again it doesn't really matter. I'm not a Christian, and I don't care about the mythology or the politics of the whole issue. I'm just sick of anti-christians because the only reason why it persists is because it is fashionable to be anti-christian. Bah... I shouldn't have posted in this thread but militant, anti-christian atheists are more annoying to me than christians themselves. Who gives a damn. I don't even know why I'm posting this except that I am bored and none of the threads I value are active at the moment, so I needed to find something. I can't stand this crap. Sorry for all of you who care.