Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Helen]

Of course.
The written eye-witness accounts were the evidence.

We know that there wete no written eyewitness accounts. You should perhaps reread your threads.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

There is more evidence for some of the events in the Iliad, and, for that matter, in Beowulf, than there is for all of the supernatural stuff in thr bible.

So, you believe that, but not the Bible?
You seem to have an agenda.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

A few 2000 year old fables.

Is there any history that old that you accept?

 

[Helen]

So, you believe that, but not the Bible?
You seem to have an agenda.

Yes, because there are multiple historical abd other sources, and sources that are not dependent on each other. There are also archeological fibdings.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Exactly. What are your thoughts about the linguistic and intertextual capabilities of those who tried to make it all fit together, all those centuries ago? And did they by chance have any agendas that could have meant that they were biased?

I agree that there was bias involved. The canon was assembled by the western/Latin church. (RCC)
Had the Bible come from the east/Greek-speaking church it would have had a different bias. (more to my liking)

 

[Helen]

Is there any history that old that you accept?

Of course there is, but the bible is fiction, not history.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

We know that there wete no written eyewitness accounts. You should perhaps reread your threads.

What was written in the Gospels was based on the oral tradition of eye-witness accounts.

 

[Helen]

So not written eyewitness accounts, just hearsay. At best.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Rusty Tyler said:
Is there any history that old that you accept?

Of course there is, but the bible is fiction, not history.

How did you determine that the others were NOT fiction?
You seem to have some bias.

 

[zooterkin]

Where is the conflict. You neglected to mention that.

A fun exercise: try to reconcile the different accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels. How many women, how many angels, was the stone in place or moved away, etc?

Certainly some Christian apologists have tried, dancing around the issues with footwork that would make Michael Flatley jealous.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

So not written eyewitness accounts, just hearsay. At best.

I wouldn't frame it that way, of course.
Have you read the new testament?
It's an impressive book.

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 NIV
The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things,
but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,
16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[catsmate]

Is there any history that old that you accept?

Yes, plenty. But the xzian bible isn't history

 

[Rusty Tyler]

So, compare the accounts to arrive at a conclusion. Why dismiss the whole thing over differing reports?
You seem to have an agenda.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Yes, plenty. But the xzian bible isn't history

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[acbytesla]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Why should Cat or anyone address your questions?

You're great at asking questions and ignoring the answers. You don't even consider them.

 

[acbytesla]

So, compare the accounts to arrive at a conclusion. Why dismiss the whole thing over differing reports?
You seem to have an agenda.

Because if the book was written by a god, it would be perfect without contradictions. Instead it was written by men and men make stories up.

 

[JayUtah]

You seem to have an agenda.

This is becoming an obsession with you.

 

[Olmstead]

I wouldn't frame it that way, of course.
Have you read the new testament?
It's an impressive book.

1 Corinthians 2:15-16 NIV
The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things,
but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,
16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

I know there's no God, with 100% certainty,
but explaining the philosophical proof to you would be a waste of time, since you're too afraid of the truth. You simply deflect with irrelevant nonsense or play dumb whenever someone challenges parts of your precious delusion.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Why should Cat or anyone address your questions?

You're great at asking questions and ignoring the answers. You don't even consider them.

Not to mention ignoring that quite a number of us have described our christian upbringings and familiarity with the bible, which is exactly where we came across the inconsistent and contradictory stories. And that we have looked in to the history of the area and found that recorded history does not accord with many of the bible stories.

 

[acbytesla]

Rusty Tyler said:
Is there any history that old that you accept?

Not anything supernatural and what we might accept would be tentative

How did you determine that the others were NOT fiction?
You seem to have some bias.

You keep deliberately ignore the point. Ancient historical events are extremely difficult to verify. And the superstitious nature of ancient mankind led to a lot of conflation of fact and fiction. There are many supernatural tropes in ancient stories. The Bible includes lots of them.