The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

edge said:
It's funny how even on their deathbed, when all is over at that last moment of life, that the staunchest of skeptics accept Jesus just in case it's real.
Click to expand...


I plan to reject Jesus on my deathbed, just in case he's real and just happens to be a sadistic jerk.
 
Well, no one under 25 is to live here and I love that idea.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Belz... said:
The books included in the new testament were NOT composed anytime near Jesus' alledged death. I would appreciate some contemporary evidence, but so far none has surfaced. That's the only point I am making.
Click to expand...

Well, certain New Testament texts (some of Paul's letters, for example) were probably composed within 20 years or so of Jesus' supposed death. (The very latest NT text must have been composed no more than a century after that death, and probably earlier). Yet there are many events and characters of the ancient and even the medieval world known to us only from accounts written down a generation or more (sometimes much more) after the alleged facts. And that only goes to the date of composition; if you're also talking about the interval between probable composition and earliest extant manuscript, the New Testament fares better historically than just about any other ancient texts.
 
edge said:
It's funny how even on their deathbed, when all is over at that last moment of life, that the staunchest of skeptics accept Jesus just in case it's real.
Click to expand...
If there is a heaven after death for christains, why do they do all that praying in the foxhole?

Paul

:) :) :)

Their going to heaven, so what is the problem, or is it they don't really buy into it either.
 
edge said:
It's funny how even on their deathbed, when all is over at that last moment of life, that the staunchest of skeptics accept Jesus just in case it's real.
Click to expand...

Which ones? name them.


It is funny how believers invent deathbed recantations of people like Sagan and Darwin.
 
Mr Clingford said:
Would you point me in the direction of academic historians who don't think there was a historical Jesus.

One can evaluate the evidence and make your own judgement but unless one is trained and experienced in that particular field it might not be as valid as the experts. I happen to have a couple of Robin Lane Fox's books from my study of Philosophy and Theology at university where his work is far from way out.
Click to expand...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

At every point where Jesus should be tied into the history of his time (Herod's slaughter of the innocents, Roman Census, the post-crucifixion appearance of dead people, etc.) we find absolutely no evidence of these events ever occurring. It's not proof-positive, but it's enough to make you seriously wonder.

(I know wiki-tags are my friend, but cutting and pasting was simpler. Call me lazy. I won't deny it :) )
 
Jesus, we're going to have keep an eye on this kind of stuff...

fowlsound said:
It is funny how believers invent deathbed recantations of people like Sagan and Darwin.
Click to expand...

The Atheist said:
- but the constant attempts to put the likes of Einstein (you, Egde) and Bertrand Russell (many catholics) into the class of late-life converts just shows you up for the pathetically weak individuals you are.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
I just can't resist calling that the most inane defense of a historical Jesus I've ever seen.

(let it be known, however, that I am agnostic as far as this subject is concerned. I don't know, and don't really care beyond historical curiosity, whether he actually existed. But to claim that there is evidence for his existence beyond the bibble itself is ludicrous.)
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming that at all.

What I'm saying is - and it's a highly appropriate analogy - that Socrates and Julius Caesar are exactly the same as JC in a historical sense. None of them left any original scripts and all of our knowledge of them is gained from second-hand reports. As CEO pointed out - the bible isn't one book. I think you'll find even the muslims acknowledge Jesus as one of their prophets.

To me, especially as an atheist, it makes sense that there was a bloke called Jesus at around that time. Life of Brian. This Jesus guy may have been a very early faith-healer who achieved some spectacular placebo cures. He sure as hell wasn't a god, or any relative thereof, but I'd lay short odds that he did wander around on about shortly after year 0.
 
prewitt81 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price
Click to expand...

You've given these as examples of "academic historians", but Doherty is not an academic, and Price is arguably more theologian than historian.


prewitt81 said:
At every point where Jesus should be tied into the history of his time (Herod's slaughter of the innocents, Roman Census, the post-crucifixion appearance of dead people, etc.) we find absolutely no evidence of these events ever occurring. It's not proof-positive, but it's enough to make you seriously wonder.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's right. This is just me, but my version of the historical Jesus thesis assumes that the magical bits didn't happen. It doesn't at all predict that we should find evidence of post-Crucifixion zombie sightings or whatever.

I wouldn't necessarily expect to see evidence of a massacre of innocents. As we've discussed in other threads, there's no reason why the killing of a dozen or two children under Herod would stand out.
 
Last edited:
nails3jesus0 said:
lol that god is such a kidder!

ok, Here is a whopper of a contradiction.

The ten commandments tell us not to kill,
yet god tells us to kill people for all kinds of minor things, like breaking the sabbath.
Click to expand...


I didn't realise that the penalty for breaking the sabbath was death. Where did you find that scripture?

You may also note that in the 10 commandments one who were killing were doing so for greed and selfish reasons and taking what was not theirs to take.
Gods punishment for serious wrongdoing was death. This cleansed the nation of Israel, keeping it Holy before YHVH. God gives life, surely he has every right to take it from those who offend Him.

Psa 37:9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD,they shall inherit the earth.
Psa 37:10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
Psa 37:11 But the meek shall inherit the earth;and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
King James Version

Mel
 
Melanie I am going to urge you to reconsider arguing the bible on this forum. Those on this forum that delight in arguing scripture are not only ex-believers but have a better grasp of the bible than most priests.

However, if you want the answer to your question, then please look up the following verse:

Exodus 31:12-15 NLT

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'
Click to expand...

Again, if you aren't up on your bible, you will have your arguments handed to you on a platter here. Also, you would want to cite which translation you are using, just to have everyone on the main page.

ETA: I see you have king james version on there. Sorry I missed that.
 
Last edited:
edge said:
It's funny how even on their deathbed, when all is over at that last moment of life, that the staunchest of skeptics accept Jesus just in case it's real.
Which is all right, but the harm they do all of there lives, such a shame.
We just witnessed a 93 year old man do this and then die.
Click to expand...

As others have already said, so? What relevance does this have to anything?

Tell me something, edge. If I made a hypothesis, which I did not believe to be true, yet fitted all available data, and sustained all attempts to falsify it, and which I then went on to say was wrong, does that mean that the hypothesis is wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom