The stagnantly closed minds of the religious elite

§our§tar: I'm afraid you are mistaken. Paul ministered to Gentiles. Peter to Jews. Now historically speaking, it is only logical that some significant impact on the Jews would "birth" Christianity. These recordings have been placed in the book called 'Acts'.
*************
M*W: Yeah, and Paul coerced Luke, his good buddy at the time, to write about his comings and goings in the Acts, but they later became bitter enemies. I wonder why?
*************
SourStar: Do not listen to Medicine Woman, who can provide NO archaeological evidence whatsoever to her point.
*************
M*W: It's common knowledge these days, except to you closed-minded xians who apparently don't read any published literature on the subject, and I don't mean novels. It's even been on PBS and the Discovery Channel. I'm not an archaeologist, so I don't need to provide any "archaeological evidence" to prove my point. You can read, but you refuse to read what would become your worst nightmare. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's your loss, not mine. This is your brain on drugs -- your addiction to xianity. It's a sickness.
*************
SourStar: There were a GREAT number of Christians before Paul even became converted. There is a good deal of evidence for this in the Bible and has never been refuted by historians. As this is the case, it is illogical to propose that Paul somehow pioneered the Christian Church through his own doing since it was well under way from the Day of Pentecost.
*************
M*W: Of course, you idiot, there were those followers of the Rabbi Jesus long before Paul was in the picture, but the numbers weren't all that "great." They were mostly Jews from the local temple, and they weren't even called "Christians!" Jesus allegedly wasn't a man of vanity, so he would have been insulted if people called themselves "Christians." Jesus was not a Christian -- he was a Rabbinical Jew who practiced Judaism, remember? By the time Paul slithered into the picture, Jesus had been outta the picture for some decades. The Jerusalem Church led by James was not a church at all. It was monarchial movement within Judaism. There were no sacraments of baptism or the Eucharist, nor did they believe that Jesus was miraculously resurrected. What you believe about xianity was created by Paul, not Jesus. Paul was the first to claim Jesus was a deity. Jesus didn't officially become a deity until the early church patriarchs VOTED for him to be officially DECLARED a deity! That happened sometime between 325 AD - 381 AD. So Jesus wasn't God in his own day! Therefore, Paul is a liar!

The Day of Pentecost is known as the birthday of the Catholic Church, but the experiences of the apostles that day having euphoric sensations and speaking in tongues does not mean the founding of a new religion. Rabbinical literature recognizes certain days like this to commemorate certain unexplained or mystical occurences, and it doesn't imply abandonment of Judaism. Bystanders thought the apostles to be drunk. Surely if Jesus was God the bystanders would have had the same experiences. The psychological phenomena the apostles experienced that day is now known by scientific investigators to be nothing more than religious possession!

Go to a bookstore. The shelves are full of publications refuting the Jesus myth.
 
Unfortunately Medicine Woman, your views have no historical basis whatsoever.

---
Christianity was launched on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after the death of Jesus (Acts 2). On its first day it consisted of no less than 3,000 people (Acts 2:41). Shortly thereafter, the number had grown to 5,000 men alone (Acts 4:4). Subsequently “believers were the more added to the Lord” (5:14), because the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their teaching (5:28). Every day the message of Christ was being proclaimed (5:42), and the church experienced phenomenal growth on a daily basis (6:7). At this time, as any elementary Bible student knows, Saul of Tarsus (later designated as “Paul”) was still a zealous persecutor of the church. He was one of the principals at the death of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (8:1).

But Christianity already had spread considerably. The gospel had gone throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1). As a result of the conversion of the Ethiopian, the message took root in Africa (8:26ff).
---

This is called historically accurate information. ALL THIS WHILE, PAUL WAS NOT EVEN A CHRISTIAN HIMSELF. Can you not understand that there were 5000 "shortly thereafter". And as Christians, they INDIVIDUALLY spread the Gospel. Imagine that each one spread the Gospel to at least one person, or even "half" a person. There would STILL be a GREAT number of Christians in the region BEFORE Paul ever came into the scene.

NO Historian refutes this. You can't argue past these historical FACTS.

http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/november98.htm
 
SS,

NO Historian refutes this. You can't argue past these historical FACTS.
Click to expand...

Umm well the first of the gospels weren't concocted by the myth-makers until some 50 years after the mythical Jesus had allegedly died.

There are little to no historical records of those early times concerning classical Christianity as you present it. Most of what you are regurgitating is myth wrapped up to look like obective reporting.
 
Wow, I apologize for your apparent ignorance Cris.

I just gave you historical information and then all you say is that it is "wrapped up to look like objective reporting". I would at least respect your opinion if you could even provide ANY credible evidence that these reports are unfactual. Unfortunately for you, you cannot.

----
1. The Chester Beatty papyri contain much of the Gospel records, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the book of Revelation. They date from the third century A.D.

2. Papyrus 52, in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England, contains a portion of John 18. It dates to the first half of the second century A.D.

3. Several papyri in the Bodmer Library in Geneva, Switzerland contain different segments of the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the book of Acts, Jude, the epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude.

Add to the more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts thousands of ancient translations of the Greek New Testament into other languages. For instance, there are more than 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate; it was the most translated work of antiquity. This is an amazing fact in itself since ancient works were rarely rendered from one language to another.

Finally, there are those quotations from the New Testament that are found in the writings of the “church fathers,” i.e., those works produced in the first several centuries of the Christian era. It has been noted that virtually the whole of the New Testament, with the exception of about a dozen verses, could be reproduced from these sources alone.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/credibleNTbooks.htm
----
 
§our§tar:

1. The Chester Beatty papyri contain much of the Gospel records, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the book of Revelation. They date from the third century A.D.

2. Papyrus 52, in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England, contains a portion of John 18. It dates to the first half of the second century A.D.

3. Several papyri in the Bodmer Library in Geneva, Switzerland contain different segments of the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the book of Acts, Jude, the epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude.
*************
M*W: These documents that you have listed are not originals. There are NO KNOWN originals in existence. In fact, they very well may be forgeries!
*************
SourStar: Add to the more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts thousands of ancient translations of the Greek New Testament into other languages. For instance, there are more than 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate; it was the most translated work of antiquity. This is an amazing fact in itself since ancient works were rarely rendered from one language to another.
*************
M*W: Your statement is scientifically flawed. These ancient translations were all done by the hands of different scribes who spoke different languages. Therefore, the copies of copies of translations of translations are plagued with errors.
*************
SourStar: Finally, there are those quotations from the New Testament that are found in the writings of the “church fathers,” i.e., those works produced in the first several centuries of the Christian era. It has been noted that virtually the whole of the New Testament, with the exception of about a dozen verses, could be reproduced from these sources alone.
*************
M*W: The "church fathers" did not live in Jesus' time but almost four centuries later! They had in their posession AT NO TIME the directly quoted and transcribed sayings of Jesus! Paul, on the other hand, never knew Jesus but wrote about his comings and goings some 40 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion.
*************
SourStar: http://www.christiancourier.com/ is an obviously biased website which propagates the lies of xianity. xianity has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus. What you believe in is Paulianity which is a bastardization of what Jesus taught. And besides, since you're so hellbent on wanting to see the EVIDENCE, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Jesus ever existed! Prove to everyone here on sciforums that YOU, personally, have actual EVIDENCE of Jesus' life, and none of that bullshit that you know it's true, because the Holy Spirit told you so or that you've read it in your lying bible! YOU SHOW THE EVIDENCE!
 
Medicine Woman said:
§our§tar:

1. The Chester Beatty papyri contain much of the Gospel records, Acts, the Pauline epistles, and the book of Revelation. They date from the third century A.D.

2. Papyrus 52, in the John Rylands Library of Manchester, England, contains a portion of John 18. It dates to the first half of the second century A.D.

3. Several papyri in the Bodmer Library in Geneva, Switzerland contain different segments of the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the book of Acts, Jude, the epistles of Peter, James, John, and Jude.
*************
M*W: These documents that you have listed are not originals. There are NO KNOWN originals in existence. In fact, they very well may be forgeries!
*************
Click to expand...

I would firstly like to state that "they very well may be forgeries" is not the same as "they are forgeries". What more, the very fact there are no listed discrepancies in the manuscripts that change the meaning of the text. Considering there are thousands and thousands of manuscripts, this lack of error among and between them shows that they simply cannot all be forgeries. It would be illogical to make such an accusation without any evidence whatsoever.

SourStar: Add to the more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts thousands of ancient translations of the Greek New Testament into other languages. For instance, there are more than 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate; it was the most translated work of antiquity. This is an amazing fact in itself since ancient works were rarely rendered from one language to another.
*************
M*W: Your statement is scientifically flawed. These ancient translations were all done by the hands of different scribes who spoke different languages. Therefore, the copies of copies of translations of translations are plagued with errors.
*************
Click to expand...

You are greatly mistaken here. The ancient works were RARELY 'translated' as you say. For instance, there are more than 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate; it was the most translated work of antiquity. Need I tell you that there is a difference between 'copy' and 'translation'. The manuscripts were COPIED.

SourStar: Finally, there are those quotations from the New Testament that are found in the writings of the “church fathers,” i.e., those works produced in the first several centuries of the Christian era. It has been noted that virtually the whole of the New Testament, with the exception of about a dozen verses, could be reproduced from these sources alone.
*************
M*W: The "church fathers" did not live in Jesus' time but almost four centuries later! They had in their posession AT NO TIME the directly quoted and transcribed sayings of Jesus! Paul, on the other hand, never knew Jesus but wrote about his comings and goings some 40 years after Jesus' alleged crucifixion.
Click to expand...

Well considering Christianity was largely spread by MOUTH in it's infancy, I find your claim erroneous. If the Church fathers were in conjunction with the New Testament, then surely any discrepancies would have been noticed by the thousands of people who heard the preaching of the apostles and read the letters of the apostles.

*************
SourStar: http://www.christiancourier.com/ is an obviously biased website which propagates the lies of xianity. xianity has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus. What you believe in is Paulianity which is a bastardization of what Jesus taught. And besides, since you're so hellbent on wanting to see the EVIDENCE, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Jesus ever existed! Prove to everyone here on sciforums that YOU, personally, have actual EVIDENCE of Jesus' life, and none of that bullshit that you know it's true, because the Holy Spirit told you so or that you've read it in your lying bible! YOU SHOW THE EVIDENCE!
Click to expand...

Even with all your insults, I still await evidence for your earlier accusations and yet you are unable to bring any.
 
§our§tar: I would firstly like to state that "they very well may be forgeries" is not the same as "they are forgeries".
*************
M*W: We've been over the discussion of "forgeries" in previous threads. I suggest you look there. There is no point in me cut-and-pasting this same information that is available in earlier posts. Why must you be lazy and not look for yourself but say I have no evidence?
*************
SourStar: What more, the very fact there are no listed discrepancies in the manuscripts that change the meaning of the text. Considering there are thousands and thousands of manuscripts, this lack of error among and between them shows that they simply cannot all be forgeries. It would be illogical to make such an accusation without any evidence whatsoever.
*************
M*W: You can't possibly believe that those ancient manuscripts that were copied by hand and translated into many languages, have no errors on them! That's ludicrous.
*************
SourStar: You are greatly mistaken here. The ancient works were RARELY 'translated' as you say. For instance, there are more than 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate; it was the most translated work of antiquity. Need I tell you that there is a difference between 'copy' and 'translation'. The manuscripts were COPIED.
*************
M*W: Out of 8,000 COPIES, human error prevails.
*************
SourStar: Well considering Christianity was largely spread by MOUTH in it's infancy, I find your claim erroneous. If the Church fathers were in conjunction with the New Testament, then surely any discrepancies would have been noticed by the thousands of people who heard the preaching of the apostles and read the letters of the apostles.
*************
M*W: True Christianity may have been spread by mouth in Jesus' time or shortly thereafter. What Paul spread was not Jesus' philosophy.

The church fathers WERE NOT in conjunction with the NT. The NT didn't exist until the early church fathers voted on what was to be included in the NT. How on Earth could you think that "thousands of people who heard the preaching of the apostles and read the letters of the apostles..." could be a factual occurrence? Those people couldn't read at all, and the fact of the matter is that no one read ANYTHING in the NT until the 1500s when the printing press was invented! Only the church fathers had the authority to read the MISTRANSLATED COPIES of the books of the NT. That was nearly 400 years after Jesus was gone! None of the original documents existed! EVERYTHING that has been included in the NT IS A FORGERY!

Even with all your insults, I still await evidence for your earlier accusations and yet you are unable to bring any.
*************
M*W: I have listed an extensive bibliography of SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH on the EVIDENCE you REFUSE TO READ! Just because you continue to refuse to read it, doesn't mean that it isn't true. You're a mindless, gutless, xian zombie, who believes in the false religion of a dying demigod savior. Whether you believe anything other than the lies in your bible, I don't care, because I don't care about you. You're only foolish speck in the remaining 25% of the world's xian population. The other 75% of the world's population is NON-CHRISTIAN! What a loser!
 
SkippingStones,

Did you ask most people in the church what they thought about the sermon, or in general? Did you talk with the pastor? With your grandparents?

Take a real good look at WHERE you ARE asking about it. You've got Leo on one hand, who openly declares that he hates everyone but Neildo and worships a woman who came out of a book he despises. And I'm not quite sure where Neildo is... somewhere between basic paganism and alien overlords.

Now, that's not to put them down... they are free, as everyone is, to believe what they want... that's the beauty of being human :)

Really, I'm just suggesting that you find a calmer setting so that you don't get distracted. The last thing any of us need in trying to figure things like this out is to not be able to focus on the main points. And also, find someone whom you can discuss it with, in such an atmosphere, that is patient, very knowledgeable about the subject, doesn't bash you over the head with anything, and will respond truthfully your questions. That goes for anything you study, not just this... and I know it's difficult to find people like that sometimes, but it's well worth the effort.

Also, you'll find in every church a different setting, with different percentages of people on different levels of spiritual and mental awareness.. but they're all trying to do just what you are, in essence :)

I wish you the best. May God guide you and keep you.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************M*W: Again, where's YOUR EVIDENCE that Jesus existed?
Click to expand...

Jesus exists and He loves you :) and by His grace, I do too. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be here right now. He pulled me up from the pit. He saved me by his grace and mercy and love. His blood was shed for us, and there is power in His name. Evidence... He is.
 
dr.p: Jesus exists and He loves you :) and by His grace, I do too. If it weren't for him, I wouldn't be here right now. He pulled me up from the pit. He saved me by his grace and mercy and love. His blood was shed for us, and there is power in His name. Evidence... He is.
*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums dr.p. People who are "in the pit," so to say, will believe in anything promising to get them out of the pit. When I was a little girl, I believed I had a fairy godmother, like Cinderella had, who would give me anything I wanted by a flick of her magic wand. But I grew up, and I don't believe in fairy tales anymore. Fortunately, I've been able to avoid those pits by my own instincts and spirit.
 
*************
M*W: Oh, by the way, I was directing that question to SourStar, anyway. But since you replied, I would ask you to show me solid positive evidence that Jesus existed. Your statement, however sweet, proves nothing except you believe you were in a pit.
 
Beneath Rome there exists a maze of galleries that served, from the second to the fifth centuries A.D., as tombs (and secret places of worship during persecution) for early Christians. It has been estimated that there are some six hundred miles of these subterranean passages, representing 1,175,000 to 4,000,000 graves (Blaiklock, 1970, p. 159).

The catacomb vaults are filled with art work, which testifies to the deep faith in Christ that was embraced by legions in the capital of the Roman empire. Common among these inscriptions was the figure of a fish, frequently containing the word ichthus (Greek for “fish”; Boyd, 1969, p. 203). The letters, however, were an acrostic for the declaration, Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior. Did millions, living in the shadows of the first century, die for a “myth”? Such a theory makes no sense.

http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/historicityJesus.htm

I have a feeling Medicine Woman won't even read this before starting to insult me as she always does, but at least I don't resort to verbal abuse as a debate tactic. :m:
 
Yo Dudies,

Regarding the historicity of "Jesus-the Christ", if one accepts what the Bible has to say about Jesus, ie. that he was known to "great multitudes" of people including the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". Interesting then, that there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions this famous figure named Jesus.

Allcare.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: Welcome to sciforums dr.p. People who are "in the pit," so to say, will believe in anything promising to get them out of the pit. When I was a little girl, I believed I had a fairy godmother, like Cinderella had, who would give me anything I wanted by a flick of her magic wand. But I grew up, and I don't believe in fairy tales anymore. Fortunately, I've been able to avoid those pits by my own instincts and spirit.
Click to expand...

I've believed in Jesus since I was a kid... I think it was 14 years ago or so I was first introduced to the Bible and saved. I took it for granted that He exists... tho, I've questioned things at times. Over the past few years I got into a lot of trouble spiritually, and in other ways. I'd been trying to fix things on my own for a while, and it just didn't work. But, as soon as I gave everything up to Him, it was all gone.... So, I wasn't a new convert when or after I was saved from my trouble... I was saved from myself when I already believed. That event just brought God to the foreground, where He should've been the entire time.

And... correct me if I'm wrong from my observations, but you're a Marian Catholic, right? You believe in Mary, but not in Jesus, right? How is your belief in Mary any different than my belief in Jesus? Note that I'm talking about the act of believing, not the object believed in.
 
§outh§tar: Unfortunately Medicine Woman, your views have no historical basis whatsoever.
*************
M*W: My views are based on comtemporary research into the historical and archeological findings of the person of Jesus. Just because you refuse to believe the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. You choose to remain ignorant. That is your problem. I don't care what you believe, because Christianity is dying worldwide. The bible has been refuted by modern day scholars who do this kind of research. The facts are found in books everywhere; biblical refutations are all over the media; the research has been presented on Discovery, PBS and NOVA. You can't deny it, but you choose to put you head in the sand so you won't have to face the truth!
*************
SourStar: Christianity was launched on the day of Pentecost, fifty days after the death of Jesus (Acts 2). On its first day it consisted of no less than 3,000 people (Acts 2:41). Shortly thereafter, the number had grown to 5,000 men alone (Acts 4:4). Subsequently “believers were the more added to the Lord” (5:14), because the apostles had filled Jerusalem with their teaching (5:28). Every day the message of Christ was being proclaimed (5:42), and the church experienced phenomenal growth on a daily basis (6:7). At this time, as any elementary Bible student knows, Saul of Tarsus (later designated as “Paul”) was still a zealous persecutor of the church. He was one of the principals at the death of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (8:1).
*************
M*W: Is there any historical or archeological evidence to support your views outside your lying bible?
*************
SourStar: But Christianity already had spread considerably. The gospel had gone throughout Judea and Samaria (8:1). As a result of the conversion of the Ethiopian, the message took root in Africa (8:26ff).

This is called historically accurate information. ALL THIS WHILE, PAUL WAS NOT EVEN A CHRISTIAN HIMSELF. Can you not understand that there were 5000 "shortly thereafter". And as Christians, they INDIVIDUALLY spread the Gospel. Imagine that each one spread the Gospel to at least one person, or even "half" a person. There would STILL be a GREAT number of Christians in the region BEFORE Paul ever came into the scene.

NO Historian refutes this. You can't argue past these historical FACTS.
*************
M*W: The story of the Pentecost WAS NOT WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT! It was not writted from first-hand accounts. It was written decades later and was exaggerated to high hell by Paul, who wrote it or influenced the writers who did. "No historian refutes this." That's because NO HISTORIAN OF THE TIME OR EVEN LATER MENTIONS IT EITHER! See how you twist the truth? Typical ignorant xian!
 
dr.p: And... correct me if I'm wrong from my observations, but you're a Marian Catholic, right? You believe in Mary, but not in Jesus, right? How is your belief in Mary any different than my belief in Jesus? Note that I'm talking about the act of believing, not the object believed in.
*************
M*W: No, you've got me confused with Leo Volont, alias VERN. He's the Marian Catholic. I'm a former Catholic, also known as a recovering Catholic.

Where did you get the idea that I'm a Marian Catholic? I have no reason to doubt Mary was the mother of Jesus (not Immanuel, as she was told to name him!), but I don't believe Jesus was the Messiah anymore than Mithra, Adonis, Attus, Dionysus or Osiris was. Most people believe that Jesus didn't exist, ergo all those people surrounding him. I tend to believe Jesus existed but not as yet another dying demigod savior.

I read everything I can regarding the life of Jesus, including all the Mary's of the bible (Old and New), and my main focus of interest is on Mary Magdalene. Although these characters are associated with Christianity, they were not Christian. Paul, the writer and/or creator of these characters Christianized them, but that is not true. They were Jews who Paul patterned after earlier mythologies. In reality, the Marys and Jesus were probably highly influenced by Egyptian beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top