Jump to bottom

Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Scary web site! (Page 4 of 5) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=26554" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Scary web site! (Page 4 of 5)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Scary web site! <span class="small">(Page 4 of 5)</span>\

 
DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-15-2005 18:22

Jade: there is little in your post coherent enough to respond to. One of the things that needed to be addressed, briggl took care of.

Another is this:

quote:
I know you would rather be a Pengunite than a Christian, Right? That would be more logical for you to believe.



It is equally logical, based on the evidence.

Again you try to use the fact that a lot of people beleive in jesus as a means of aying it must be true. This is moronic.

quote:
In the end it really doesn't matter how you were able to understand, dissect, make fun of or prove scripture is false, because that is not where the heart of Christianity lies.



Which is exactly what we have said to you - you don't care about the reality, you want your beleif to be true and so to you, it is. That's fine. That's up to you. But you can't try to argue that the facts add up, and then when they don't just say 'oh well it doesn't matter anyway'

quote:
So if the cannon of scripture was never introduced and there were never ever any bibles handed out, would we still have a Christian faith? Yes, we would because the first 300 plus years proves it.



Again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. As I stated above, and briggl reiterate, the scripture that is today known as the bible existed starting in the mid-late 1st century, and growing up through the early-mid second century. The teachings of christianity were based on these texts (and vice-versa, of course). You cannot, therefore, talk about 300 years prior to scripture, as there was no 300 years between christ and scripture.

jade
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-15-2005 18:44
quote:
Again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. As I stated above, and briggl reiterate, the scripture that is today known as the bible existed starting in the mid-late 1st century, and growing up through the early-mid second century. The teachings of christianity were based on these texts (and vice-versa, of course). You cannot, therefore, talk about 300 years prior to scripture, as there was no 300 years between christ and scripture.



Again you are so totally wrong and showing your ignorance on the subject. There has never, ever been any changes to the pre-portestant catholic bible since from the original canon of scripture dating back toe the 3rd century. There is only the king james verson and the Catholic bible.

King James bibles have deletions of books, modifications and translations from the orignal catholic bible.

(Edited by jade on 09-15-2005 18:45)

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 09-15-2005 19:17

I think not...

100+ Versions of the Bible
Catholic Encyclopedia: Version of the Bible

Dan @ Code Town

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-15-2005 19:21

^ Ouch!

I felt that from here...

briggl
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: New England
Insane since: Sep 2000

posted posted 09-15-2005 20:26
quote:
DL-44 said:

Again you are showing your ignorance of the subject. As I stated above, and briggl reiterate, the scripture that is today known as the bible existed starting in the mid-late 1st century, and growing up through the early-mid second century. The teachings of christianity were based on these texts (and vice-versa, of course). You cannot, therefore, talk about 300 years prior to scripture, as there was no 300 years between christ and scripture.



quote:
Jade said:

Again you are so totally wrong and showing your ignorance on the subject. There has never, ever been any changes to the pre-protestant catholic bible since from the original canon of scripture dating back to the 3rd century. There is only the king james verson and the Catholic bible.


What does that have to do with the fact that you cannot fit 300 years of Christian faith into a period of time that is less than 200 years?




(Edited by briggl on 09-15-2005 20:29)

jade
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-15-2005 20:42

I think the view that I am trying to convey is that the original text before tanslations cannot be changed or revised after the offiical cannon was closed in the 3rd century. They fact that the early church intended to put the faith inspirations on book form does not change the truths. Whether you get the greek, hewbrew, etc versions does not change the gospel message. To get a better understanding of faith for all followers the translators were careful not to put different words that may lead followers to err in the original meaning to stress the central message of Christ ministry.

NoJive
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: The Land of one Headlight on.
Insane since: May 2001

posted posted 09-15-2005 20:42

I'm an utter failure when it comes to math but without the help of a calculator even I can come up with the answer to that one.

So what's your excuce Jade?

jade
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: houston, tx usa
Insane since: Mar 2003

posted posted 09-15-2005 20:44

Sorry. I really meant 300 yrs. Not 200.

Diogenes
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-15-2005 21:15

How many time has it been pointed out to her that the 'scriptures', 'bible', etc have been, bowdlerized, mistranslated, delibertly changed, etc even unto modern times?

She is intellectually incapable of accepting facts which counter her life-long brain-washing.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-15-2005 21:28

There are so many things wrong in what you are saying that I cannot bear to address them again - I've addressed them all many times before. I will touch on this:

quote:
I think the view that I am trying to convey is that the original text before tanslations cannot be changed or revised after the offiical cannon was closed in the 3rd century.



1) "original" texet is a very vague thing. We have *no* original texts whatsoever for the bible.

2) before which translations? the texts we have were all translated and reworked many times

3) the 'official' canon was not sealed by the catholic church untl the 16th century, actually. As for the agreements reached by *some* groups of churches, which did give us the same collection that was later declared offical, that happened in the 4th century, not the 3rd.

4) To quote (or paraprhase) Bert Ehrman, scholar, author, Oxford proffesor, "there are more differences in the texts of the known versions of the new testament than there are words in the new testament"
Sounds to me like that means there were some changes and revisions happening

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 00:41
quote:

DL-44 said:

1) "original" texet is a very vague thing. We have *no* original texts whatsoever
for the bible.


It is correct that we have no original documents. I think the earliest fragment dates to 129CE? But what we do have is hundreds of copies that clearly point to original texts that had to exist by the end of the 1st century. And those texts contain all of the major Xian doctrines.

All of this talk about changes and mistranslations is really misleading IMO. Sure there are hundreds of versions of the Bible and each one of them can be compared with the early texts. All of that sort of scrutiny is available for all to study.

I've said this before and I'll say it again regarding the NT documents. The current debate is much less about their historical reliability and much more about whether the claims found within them are based in actual events. Of course, the most important one is the resurrection because the entire faith hinges on that one event. The reason is that if it did not occur, then all of Jesus' teaching could only be that of a man, not God. He specifically predicted he would rise from the dead in 3 days.

Part of the reason I believe the resurrection did occur is because of what the Apostles did after that event. I cannot fathom why all of them would go to the lengths they did without some extraordinary event or motivation. I believe the way they lived and died by the gospel goes against human nature as I've come to understand it. They gained nothing tangible from their holding to their claims, nothing tangible by way of what one would expect like luxury, riches, and prestige. They received scorn and faced imprisonment, torture, and for all but one a painful execution. This is very compelling for me.

--------
Ok some catch up from a ways back up there:

DL, I think the authorities did have much reason to produce that body. I'm not talking about the Romans but the Jewish leaders. They went out of their way to silence this troublemaker Jesus and what did they get after the crucifixion but more troublemakers. And they turned up right in the middle of the celebration of Pentecost just days after Jesus' death. It would have been very annoying and problematic for them just as Jesus had proved to be. It would have been extremely easy to put it all to rest by simply pointing out Jesus was just a man lying in a tomb.

quote:

briggl said:

It makes all the sense in the world because there is no evidence. All there is
is some writings from people who want us to believe based on faith.


Fair enough. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one then.

quote:

Ruski said:

...the concept of trinity is an example, it did not come to be until about 4th
century...and the main theology of Christianity as we know today, was dictated
by a man (Saul/Paul) who hasn?t even met Jesus himself...


The trinity while never being called that in the early text is apparent for anyone who cares to read it. I think what you are referring to is the fact that it became an "official" doctrine in the 4th century which I would agree with.

As I stated earlier in this post, the main doctrine of Xianity can be placed decades after Jesus walked the earth, not centuries. I'll have to look up the details of how we know that, I don't have it on the top of my head.

quote:

WebShaman said:

I suspect this is one of the major reasons why Jews do not embrace the New
Testament...


WS, the NT was written by Jews. Jews don't accept it? Only some of them do. Historically speaking, virtually the entire early church consisted of Jews who did not see the same problem you're pointing out between the Old and New Testaments.

quote:

Arthurio said:

When you die you just DIE. Poof! Game over! The machine broke.


Quite possible, Arthurio, quite possible. What fascinates me about your post is why we humans are not comfortable with this reality. Our longing for legacy and immortality continues to support, at least in my mind, that we may have been created for such.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Diogenes
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 02:26

Nope;

quote:
Our longing for legacy and immortality continues to support, at least in my mind, that we may have been created for such.



This longing was created in you by religion to support religion.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 03:06
quote:

Bugimus said:

Part of the reason I believe the resurrection did occur is because of what the Apostles did after that event.



Of course, we're still relying on the same set of texts for our documentation of what the apostles did....
We can't say that one part of the story is true becuase of what happens in a different part of the story...

Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 03:12
quote:
the 'scriptures', 'bible', etc have been, bowdlerized, mistranslated, delibertly changed, etc even unto modern times?


This is a fact.

Who deny's this?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

Diogenes
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 03:19

Jade denies it, read her posts.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 03:31
quote:
Jade denies it, read her posts.


Dio, If I may?

quote:
There has never, ever been any changes to the pre-portestant catholic bible since from the original canon of scripture dating back toe the 3rd century. There is only the king james verson and the
Catholic bible.


Blindly you are admitting changes of the bible.

You are merely stating your choice of biblical interpretaion.

Hypocrit comes to mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 03:34

Zynx, it is beside the more important point that we have access to very early versions of what was written in the 1st century. It's a very important fact that often gets overlooked because it's easier to dismiss it all than to have to do any serious investigation.

Anyways, DL, the reliability of the documents themselves is as good as, and actually better, than any other work of antiquity. Therefore I think we can take many of the basic accounts found there to be credible. I'm not necessarily throwing in the more remarkable claims of deity and miracles but certainly the descriptions of the ministry and travels of Jesus as well as the geographical and cultural information. When it comes to the travels of Paul's missionary journies, for instance. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that he made those trips.

So I'm not sure we should treat everything found there with equal credibility.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 03:43
quote:
Zynx, it is beside the more important point that we have access to very early versions of what was written in the 1st century. It's a very important fact that often gets overlooked because it's easier to dismiss it all than to have to do any serious investigation.


My point Bug, is that CHANGES, have occured within the bible. This is FACT. And if you chose to live by the "early versions", and others chose to live by the "later" versions, both of you must admit that the bible has changed, from it's first creation(Pun intended).

quote:
Therefore I think we can take many of the basic accounts found there to be credible.


Credible, meaning FACTUAL?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" You are no match for Lord Gorlok! "

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 04:21
quote:

Bugimus said:

Zynx, it is beside the more important point that we have access to very early versions of what was written in the 1st century. It's a very important fact that often gets overlooked because it's easier to dismiss it all than to have to do any serious investigation.




Not really. We have a couple of scraps from the second century, maybe about credit-card size, with very little content to look at, and therefore nothing of a scope to compare with later versions.

The earliest significant portions of text that exist are from some time in the 4th century.
That is hardly a timeframe during which I would be comfortable in saying that nothing could have changed or evolved, or that the content would remain - giving the benefit of the doubt for a moment and saying that it might have begun - credible.

quote:

Anyways, DL, the reliability of the documents themselves is as good as, and actually better, than any other work of antiquity.



I really don't see how that can be said. I also don't see how it would be relevant. When we look at other ancient documents, we *assume* they are full of elaborations, exagerations, and outright fabrications. It's a given. So when we accept something that is written in antiquity, we do so knowing that the majority of it will *not* be accurate, and many aspects of a person will be greatly exagerated or wholly fabricated.

To say that somehow, given the timeframe between the events, and the writing of the stories of these events, and given the timframe between the writing of them, and the earliest actual copies of the texts, and given the inherent nature of such stories, to say that *these* texts somehow escaped such a process is unfounded and goes back, again, to the 'i want it to be true' syndrome. Can we "prove" it didn't happen, as Jade would challenge? Of course not. But we don't have to.

quote:

Therefore I think we can take many of the basic accounts found there to be credible. I'm not necessarily throwing in the more remarkable claims of deity and miracles but certainly the descriptions of the ministry and travels of Jesus as well as the geographical and cultural information. When it comes to the travels of Paul's missionary journies, for instance. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that he made those trips.



Certainly there are going to be aspects of reality in it. This was written with the intent of having it believed. It would not be written without plausible or even without factual information being incorporated. That would serve no purpose at all, and these texts were obviously wirtten with a purpose.

[/quote]

quote:


So I'm not sure we should treat everything found there with equal credibility.



Agreed. For instance, that whole 'resurection' thing has no credibility at all

Diogenes
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 05:55

The very use of the word 'version' acknowledges the fact the things were changed; "ver·sion Listen: [ vûrzhn, -shn ]
n.


A description or account from one point of view, especially as opposed to another: Your version of the accident differs from mine.

a. A translation from another language. b. often Version A translation of the entire Bible or a part of it.

A particular form or variation of an earlier or original type: downloaded the latest version of the software from the Internet.

An adaptation of a work of art or literature into another medium or style: the film version of a famous novel. "

It does not mean "verbatim copy", which is what folks like Jade need to believe.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-16-2005 10:20
quote:
WS, the NT was written by Jews. Jews don't accept it? Only some of them do. Historically speaking, virtually the entire early church consisted of Jews who did not see the same problem you're pointing out between the Old and New Testaments.



Bugs, it was not written by Jews who followed the Jewish Faith - they were converts to the teachings of Jesus. And if you are going to be using such phrases as "the early church" then you are quite frankly admitting the point and are aware of this. Whether or not they saw the same problem or not is nowhere documented. How then can you say they did not see the same problem I am pointing out? If they had any contacts back to their old religious base, then they might have known - I have no idea how widespread such knowledge was back then among regular followers of the Jewish Faith and the Torah was, etc. If they knew of the Laws laid down for the determining of what a Prophet was and what a Messiah was, then obviously they were aware of this problem. I largely suspect, however, that back then the Rabbis probably kept such information among themselves - but I have no proof of this, other than how secretive the Jews are about the inner workings of their Faith and Beliefs.

quote:
Anyways, DL, the reliability of the documents themselves is as good as, and actually better, than any other work of antiquity.



I would like to know just what you are using as a comparison here, Bugs. I can name a few things from Ancient times that are very reliable - way more reliable than the Bible, for instance. Since you are including as a blanket statement "any other work of antiquity", then I would like you to show proof of this.

Cuneform clay tablets found in Iraq, for instance, are so much more reliable than anything found in the Bible, it is not funny. That alone shoots down your blanket statement. We can also talk about Papyrus sheets of documents that the Egyptians recorded, that are more reliable. There are examples of Greek Works, that are more reliable. The Chinese have documentation that would make the Bible writers green with envy, when it comes to reliablility. All are "works of antiquity".

Do I need to add more?

(Edited by WebShaman on 09-16-2005 10:21)

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 15:49

Of the original versions from about 400AD we have around 14K copies of the original NT manuscript. There about 150k variations here. This is a ton of variation. But, a variation is not what you might think. A single word was misspelled in 3k manuscripts and this accounts for 3k variations. Many of these changes are the order of words, misspellings, and gramatical errors. But with the 14k copies, you are able to get a concensus.

This is important, you can get a mathematical consensus. So argueing about the changes after the fact is not all that important. The important period is really from death 35AD to around 400AD where it was standardized. Everything afterwords is not all that important.

Those 400 years are important, that is a lot of time, with a whole lot going on.

Now, with these changes and these translations, we can easily argue that this book is not something that is bound by a perfection of god. This book has differences, from the beginning. There are some problems with it. I can look at my bible right now and see the footnotes where there are two meanings to a given word at least once ever 10 pages.

For example, In the first page of genisis you will read about the spirit of god flowing over the land. Spirt can also be translated as "the wind." Depending on who you are talking with, this issue with the translation can be very important. So, it can also be argued that the translations can cause a whole lot of confusion, and do interperate many differences.

One thing that I will point out is that what is commonly called "The Message," or might be the idea behind the words, is very much intact. You can definately not say that all the words are correct, but the idea is intact, and has made it down through the last 1600 years.

This whole thing goes on just to point out that it is not very fair to argue the bible over the last 1600 years, but I would also point out that it is very fair to argue about the time period between death 35AD to when the book was agreed upon in 400AD.

** Note my years might float +-100 years.

Dan @ Code Town

Diogenes
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 16:32

Sans comment: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-16-2005 17:38
quote:
When you add up all of the following facts, the case for the existence of Jesus as an historical person becomes rather remote: 1) there are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in any contemporary source outside of the New Testament (which is really not a contemporary source, as it was written from 30 to 70 years after Jesus supposedly died), 2) There is no evidence that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus' mother supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there, 3) the existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth of Christianity (were the Hindu gods real'?), 4) the New Testament accounts do not provide a real "biography" for Jesus until you look at the Gospels. The earlier Pauline epistles imply only that he was a god, and 5) the biblical accounts of the trial and death of Jesus are logically self-contradictory and legally impossible. Jesus could not have been executed under either Roman or Jewish law for what he did. Whatever you call what he did, it was not a capital offense under either system. Rather, it looks like someone is trying to make Old Testament prophecies of the death of the Messiah come true by fabricating a scenario which simply doesn't make sense legally.



From The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell

This is really, really good. I never really considered these points.

This is also pretty good -

quote:
It's inconceivable that no one at the time bothered to write down anything about the most important person in the whole of human history. Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It's considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about this Jesus; no one painted a portrait of this Jesus; no one drew a sketch of this Jesus; no one cast a coin depicting this Jesus; no one made a statue of this Jesus; no one makes any reference whatsoever to this Jesus.

from Evidence that Jesus Never Existed I think we tend to underestimate how far along the Romans were with communication methods, and the availability of schooling in the way of writing, reading, etc. Also something that I never really gave much thought to.

I take it that the third link, So what about Jesus? is somehow...a mistake? Or is it supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, coming last after the other two links, so that when one reads what is posted there, one has a good chuckle?

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 18:14
quote:

WarMage said:

it is very fair to argue about the time period between death 35AD to when the book was agreed upon in 400AD.



Correct. For the most part, changes after that point would be minor and trackable. However, we're not talking soley about grammatical and spelling errors. We do have many examples of a scribe adding his own twist to the story, or omitting significant portions of the story, and other things like that.

The whole point I've tried to make is in regard to two time periods:

1) that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the gospels (between 50 and 80 years or so...)

2) that between the time of those writings and the time of Constantine (another 200+ years), when the bishops became more coherently connected, and things became more standardized (and more and more things which had previously been church doctrine had been declared heretical), which is the time that we start seeing significant portions of intact biblical texts.



(Edited by DL-44 on 09-16-2005 18:19)

Diogenes
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 18:32

Balance, WS, just balance.

As well, I thought it interesting to show the sort of rationalizing the faithful are subjected to and urged to adopt.

Were she a little more literate, jade might have writted that apologia.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bugimus
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: New California
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 09-16-2005 21:17
quote:

Zynx said:

Credible, meaning FACTUAL?


Certainly some of them, yes. It should be considered fact that the man Jesus Christ walked this earth and that the NT was written about him. Many of the details found there are, of course, to be scrutinized and tested.

Zynx, I've never said there have been no changes additions, scribal errors, differences in the copies we have, etc. I've maintained that we know a great deal about the New Testament and the early texts that it must have been based on. So through careful study an research we can get a very good view of the message the original authors intended to record.

quote:

DL-44 said:

We have a couple of scraps from the second century, maybe about credit-card
size, with very little content to look at, and therefore nothing of a scope to
compare with later versions.


I looked up the one I was referring to. It's a fragment from the gospel of John and it is the earliest we have. It contains material from chapter 18. It has 5 verses, 3 on one side and 2 on the other. It's about 2.5 x 3.5 inches. It dates around 100-150 CE.

quote:

WarMage said:

This whole thing goes on just to point out that it is not very fair to argue the
bible over the last 1600 years, but I would also point out that it is very fair
to argue about the time period between death 35AD to when the book was agreed
upon in 400AD.


Your point is extremely well taken. I am pleased to see general agreement on this. It may not seem important to argue the reliability of the documents from the 4th century on but all you need do is look back through the many threads on this topic to see it is not commonly understood. I consider this progress in our collective understanding of the topic at hand.

Also, you can just imagine how substantial the discovery of that fragment from John's gospel was when it was discovered in 1934. There were many German theologians who were very skeptical of John's gospel but this showed it was around much sooner than they thought. It was also discovered in Egypt which was quite remote from where it was probably composed somewhere in Asia Minor.

Let's focus on the period from crucifixion to the 4th century then. I'll see what I can dig up in that regard different from what's already been said.


WS, I'll get back to your points when I get a bit more time.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Diogenes
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-16-2005 22:32

Why should it be considered FACT a man named jesus christ walked the earth and that the NT was written about him?

There is absolutely no historical evidence to substantiate this, quite the contrary.

No, you cannot quote the bible to prove your point...circular reasoning...the bible enjoys no credibility whatsoever as an accurate source of anything and most especially as regards the myth of xist.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-17-2005 00:25
quote:
It should be considered fact that the man Jesus Christ walked this earth



I must caution you here, Bugs. I would tend towards maybe accepted by many, but not factual, at least not until some factual evidence is unearthed proving it.

Though I tend to believe that a man named Jesus of Nazareth did live (and die) - I do not believe there was a man named Jesus Christ as described in the NT. These are two totally different things - one has a lot of circumstantial evidence (the first one) - and though no direct evidence exists, there is circumstantial evidence, albeit small. The second has absolutely no evidence, whatsoever supporting it, be it direct or circumstantial.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-17-2005 02:06

I think that is an important distinction to make, though for me the issue is linguisstic.

"Jesus Christ" is not a full name - it is a first name followed by a title. Just as "Mahatma Gandhi" is not a full name - it is a title followed by a first name.

Whether Jesus is to be called christ, and what that means, is an issue that goes on yet another tangent

Diogenes
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Right behind you.
Insane since: May 2005

posted posted 09-17-2005 03:40

Right, properly speaking one should say; "Jesus the christ".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ

Intersting, if a bit hysterical; http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_jesus.htm

I always wondered about this; http://www.christianorigins.com/etymology.html

Surely this is the last word: http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc11/christ.html

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-17-2005 05:45
quote:
Certainly some of them, yes.


Seriously? I just don't see it that way.

Facts back then were passed onto the masses, with a "teller", and a "scribe". This "teller" would have picked his "scribe". That did not guarantee that this "scribe" was wise, intelligent, nor understanding in the MANY ways of writing.

"Scribes" back then, would elaborate upon the stories they were told/given. This was not done so much as a scribes vanity, as it was a scribes lack of understanding of the ancient language, they we scribing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

(Edited by Zynx on 09-17-2005 05:50)

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-17-2005 10:02

Zynx, that is one of the worst examples of fallacy passing for a post that I have seen in awhile here.

You really, really need to first research the stuff, before posting.

Now, pull that foot out of your mouth, and go out and research it. Shoo!

Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-20-2005 20:17

Maybe you are defending the bible as factual?
Maybe your saying that the bible was not written by scribes?
Maybe you know of a person who was there, and you have his diary.
Maybe you just believe the whole book.
Maybe I was not specific enough, about which sections of the bible I find questionable.

But no matter what I think, you seem to know exactly what I meant, and this perceived, falsely I might add, knowledge you think you have of me is wrong, and that I need to go do more research. This is the second time you have posted with this manner of thinking.

How do you get that head through the doorway?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

WebShaman
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Happy Hunting Grounds...
Insane since: Mar 2001

posted posted 09-20-2005 22:15

Just go research Literacy and the Roman Empire.

Come back when you are done.

Thank you.

DL-44
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: under the bed
Insane since: Feb 2000

posted posted 09-21-2005 04:22
quote:

Zynx said:

Maybe you are defending the bible as factual?
Maybe your saying that the bible was not written by scribes?
Maybe you know of a person who was there, and you have his diary.
Maybe you just believe the whole book.
Maybe I was not specific enough, about which sections of the bible I find questionable.



Maybe you have a point.
Maybe some day you'll learn how to get it across effectively.

Until then, I am left with nothing to go on, and nothing in your posts lately that can even be responded to in any meaningful way other than this.

Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-22-2005 21:59
quote:
Just go research Literacy and the Roman Empire.Come back when you are done.Thank you.


Not sure what the Roman Empire had to do with those who wrote did or did not write the bible.

Here's a better site with one explanation.
http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/scribes.htm
" Basically, what is being told through the prophet is that the scribes have made changes in the Law of Yahweh in their writings. Does this mean that the text of Scripture containing the Law has been altered by the scribes to change its meaning? Does it mean that they have written misinterpretations of the Law?

Who are the scribes?

Halley's Bible Handbook states that "scribes were copyists of the Scripture. Their business was to study and interpret, as well as copy, the Scriptures. Because of their minute acquaintance into the Law, they were also called lawyers, and were recognized authorities. The decisions of leading scribes became oral law, or 'tradition.'"

Considering how meticulous the scribes were in their copying, there is probably less likelihood of their altering of the text. However, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. There is some evidence of this having been done on occasion. An example is the altering of Yahweh's name to LORD, L-rd, or Jehovah.

There is more evidence of the misinterpretation of the Law by the scribes. Yahshua made reference to this.

From Smith's Bible Dictionary we read, "They devoted themselves to the careful study of the text, and laid down rules for transcribing it with the most scrupulous precision. As time passed on, 'the words of the scribes' were honored above the Law. It was a greater crime to offend against them than against the Law. The first step was taken toward annulling the commandments of God for the sake of their own traditions."

It would appear that there may have been personal gain for scribes in their misinterpretation of the Law. Their status in society was very high. They were the ones who supposedly best knew the Law.

There had been warnings against adding to or taking from the Law prior to this time. References include Deuteronomy 4: 2, Deuteronomy 12: 32, and Proverbs 30: 5-6. Apparently, the scribes of Jeremiah's day had not heeded these warnings. The references do not mean the "Bible" as some Christians believe, but the Law. Where a version uses "Word," it means the Law. Yahweh stressed the importance of obeying the Law. This is clear in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. In Deuteronomy 28: 45 is a warning of what will happen if people do not keep the Laws of Yahweh. "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

WarMage
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Rochester, New York, USA
Insane since: May 2000

posted posted 09-22-2005 22:15

If you look about 30 or so posts up to my last one you will see that it addressed everything you mention here. However you seem to come to some different conclusions than what that which is mathematically based.

Dan @ Code Town

briggl
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: New England
Insane since: Sep 2000

posted posted 09-22-2005 22:44
quote:
Not sure what the Roman Empire had to do with those who wrote did or did not write the bible.


Have you never heard of the Holy Roman Empire? The Holy part refers to the Catholic Church. The Holy Roman Empire had a great deal to do with forming Christianity into what it is today, including helping to revise biblical texts into the form that they currently have.


Zynx
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: In the Midsts
Insane since: Aug 2005

posted posted 09-22-2005 22:44
quote:
If you look about 30 or so posts up to my last one you will see that it addressed everything you mention here. However you seem to come to some different conclusions than what that which is mathematically based.


Mathematically based?

I don't consider, after researching who did or did not write the bible, that very little, if any of it is factual. Other than describing events arch-e-o-logical known to have happened.

So while I see where I was wrong, I don't see where I was completely off topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" The world today is such a wicked thing "

« Previous Page1 2 3 [4] 5Next Page »

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu