Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem of course being, other than a few followers pretty much nobody followed Jesus at the time, not even his fellow jews (which suggests the miracles could be all made up).
I don't know where you are getting your information. Do you have historical documents stating the above that nobody followed Jesus at the time? The historical document called the New Testament talks about vast throngs following Him.
Quote:
The new testaments were written decades to centuries after Jesus even lived and were heavily edited, so it shouldn't be as reliable as many make it out to be.
I don't know where you got your information above but it is not accurate. I personally believe the four accounts including Acts were written very close to the time the events took place. The Scribes and Pharisees were always writing down what He said so they could trap Him.
Quote:
Honestly if god wanted all the jews..or indeed all of humanity to know about this he would have simply flew jesus around the entire world..instead of in just one tiny region in the world while neglecting the massive civilizations of India, China, the Americas etc etc. There's actually alot of books in the world with prophecies..that according to the book have been fulfilled.
He did it His way for a very good and wise reason. Eventually He will win the hearts of all mankind in spite of not flying His Son around the entire world.
None of the books you describe were concerning the Messiah and where and when He would appear like it was concerning Jesus.
Quote:
In short, having a book that describes the entire premises of what you believe in and the only reason you believe it to be true is that the book itself claims it is true does not seem very..rational. And I don't mean that to offend either.
No offense taken. But it was rational to the first hand witnesses to those who saw the Messiah when and where He was supposed to be when He came and after His death and resurrection. So it is not just based upon a book that claims these things to be true.
Quote:
Anyway I am not sure what you personally believe in, but if you think we are not damned to hell...well than I doubt atheists really care or have any problem with christians such as yourself.
I would hope they would at the very least see my position as more reasonable than the idea that there is a God Who brings people into existence and then fries them for eternity for not believing in Jesus when they couldn't believe to begin with. I mean, that God should torture Himself for eternity before He tortures anyone He created. Right?
O.K. Fillmont, but I do hope you could study up on the kind God I know rather than going through life with misconceptions foisted upon you by mainline churches, even if you won't be seeing my God
The problem is that the god you know isn't supported by any texts, or anything evidence at all, really. That is why I'm an atheist. I would love to study up on your god, but there is literally nothing to study up with.
There is a reason that the mainstream churches are mainstream - for the most part, their position is supported by the same bible you claim is correct. The mere fact that the Bible is so malleable, and that it can mean so many different things, shows that it in fact means nothing. It is a fiction, and people reading it will gleam what they want from it, and form their own fictions based on their preconceptions.
I would hope they would at the very least see my position as more reasonable than the idea that there is a God Who brings people into existence and then fries them for eternity for not believing in Jesus when they couldn't believe to begin with. I mean, that God should torture Himself for eternity before He tortures anyone He created. Right?
One last quote: your idea of God is, in fact, more reasonable than that of mainstream Christians.
But the most reasonable God, and the only way for your god to not seem evil to me, would be for God to simply explain his point of view and let us decide, freely, if we want to stick around in the afterlife. If nonexistence isn't an option, then he is, indeed, a terrible god.
When someone spews nonsense and by nonsense I'm mean using the Bible to refute science and you clearly don't know history from a hole in the ground. I find you are the one taking cheap shots. Cheap shots at the work put in by scientists and cheap shots at historical accuracy.
The problem is that the god you know isn't supported by any texts, or anything evidence at all, really. That is why I'm an atheist. I would love to study up on your god, but there is literally nothing to study up with.
I could give you some links.
Quote:
There is a reason that the mainstream churches are mainstream - for the most part, their position is supported by the same bible you claim is correct. The mere fact that the Bible is so malleable, and that it can mean so many different things, shows that it in fact means nothing. It is a fiction, and people reading it will gleam what they want from it, and form their own fictions based on their preconceptions.
I agree with your statement above in part. But what caused me to see things differently from the mainstream christendumb was the Bibles I use are much closer to the original manuscripts. For instance, the NIV (jokingly called the New Inconsistent Bible, used what is called "dynamic equivalency" which is just another term for "we will translate this in accord with our doctrines rather than what it really says."
The Concordant Literal is much much closer to the originals than the KJV or any other Bible since it uses one thought for just one word in the mss. This takes out the "malleableness" from it. The final work can be checked by concordances and the texts from which it is translated rather than relying on "scholarship."
When someone spews nonsense and by nonsense I'm mean using the Bible to refute science and you clearly don't know history from a hole in the ground. I find you are the one taking cheap shots. Cheap shots at the work put in by scientists and cheap shots at historical accuracy.
Thanks for the response. But I don't know why you posted that toward me since I have never used the Bible to refute science. I actually like science.
God's Truth For Today! - Author Index (http://www.gtft.org/Library/index1.html - broken link)
From the above two links you'd get a closer picture of my beliefs. It is far different than mainline Christianity.
Ah! I thought you meant links to arguments that the Bible is real. I'll bookmark these and peruse them later, to get a better idea about what you believe. I still contend that it doesn't really matter which translation you use, because the initial texts are all works of fiction in the first place, but it is always good to get different viewpoints.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But have a good day all the same!