If the Bible has been edited, then why leave in the bad bits about God?

[methamaniac]

You wrote: "IMO people wouldnt be willing to die for a known fabrication." Forgive me if you use English entirely differently to the rest of us, but it seems you are implicitly connecting the idea of people dying for their beliefs and the veracity of those beliefs. If that isn't what you were saying, you must speak more clearly.

Yes that is what I wrote.
Why would the apostles and people of Jesus's time be willing to die for a known fabrication?
Does dying for a known fabrication seem logical to you?

You wrote in response first to stated quote:

That's pretty much begging the question. Peoples willingness to die for their beliefs doesnotmake what they believe in true. Its a tautological statement.

and again I will state that I never said that.
I never said dying for a belief makes your belief true.
I said, people/apostles dying for a known fabfication doesnt seem logical to me.
What about you?
( did you miss this quote?)

If you were the apostles would you go to your death for a made up man?
That just isnt logical to me.

I'm hoping a nice pair of context will clear up your blurry bias vision.

On another note,
I find it very amusing watching people doing their very best to deny Jesus existence.
It reminds me of a video I seen a while back of an agnostic and an atheist debating same topic.

Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesu…: http://youtu.be/WUQMJR2BP1w

And no, this short video doesnt itself doesnt prove Jesus existed.
I just find it funny watching someone desperately trying to disprove something they dont believe in.
You're next tinke bell ?

 

[ebola?]

This is getting ridiculous. People are willing to die for mistaken beliefs on a regular basis. People also tend to reinterpret death in the past so as to fashion mythical martyrs, as such is very useful in rallying people together to undertake social action.

ebola

 

[ForEverAfter]

I just find it funny watching someone desperately trying to disprove something they dont believe in.

I'm not desperate, nor am I struggling to disprove something I don't believe in.

Suicide bombers die in the name of Islam, believing that they will be rewarded in heaven.

So, based on your logic, they truly must be rewarded in heaven. Or, they wouldn't bother.

Right?

Peoples willingness to die for their beliefs doesnotmake what they believe in true.

I never said that... I never said dying for a belief makes your belief true.

Although you didn't directly state it, you have - undeniably - been implying it.

I said, people/apostles dying for a known fabfication doesnt seem logical to me.

Illogical to the extent that it wouldn't have happened: that's what you're saying (in the context).

IMO people wouldnt be willing to die for a known fabrication.

You believe literally in the Bible. You can't believe literally in all holy texts, because they contradict each other.
People die in the name of religion all the time. So, what in the living fuck are you talking about?

JESUS was the devine nature of God manifested in the flesh. Whats hard to understand about that?

What is so hard to believe in a man who supposedly existed 2000 years ago, who was executed by the Roman Empire for claiming to be God, who performed miracles, who rose from the dead, who raised the dead, who was born of a virgin - despite the fact that there's no historical evidence supporting his existence? What is so hard about believing in the son of an infallible and all-knowing God, who created a religion that directly (and inadvertently) resulted in the death of millions of people?

Nothing.

You're right.

It makes perfect sense.

 

[methamaniac]

This is getting ridiculous. People are willing to die for mistaken beliefs on a regular basis. People also tend to reinterpret death in the past so as to fashion mythical martyrs, as such is very useful in rallying people together to undertake social action.

ebola

Ebloa,
You have astonishingly and fantastically missed my point for a fourth time now.

People arent willing to die for a KNOWN frabrication on a "regular basis".
The people around the time of Jesus would have easily been able to know if Jesus Christ was an actual man or not.
Here is where one (apply only if true) is free to deny the first Martyrs of Christ.
But let me point out,
It kinda puts one in same camp as holocaust deniers.

 

[ForEverAfter]

There is nothing astonishing or fantastic about ebola's interpretation of your comments. You don't bother to check spelling or grammar and your spelling and grammar are horrible. This makes it very difficult to read what you're writing and understand it. I often have to decipher your sentences. You should, out of respect for your readership, make sure that what you've written is as easy to digest as possible. I've told you this before. But you make no effort to improve your communication. And you continue to blame others for "misinterpreting" what you've written.

You are the common denominator, in the sense that at least four people "misinterpreted" what you wrote.

It is not astonishing. It is not fantastic.

It's not us.

It's you.

The people around the time of Jesus would have easily been able to know if Jesus Christ was an actual man or not.

What does "around the time of Jesus" mean? How would people easily know that Jesus was a real man, 80 years after his death?

Here is where one (apply only if true) is free to deny the first Martyrs of Christ.
But let me point out,
It kinda puts one in same camp as holocaust deniers.

There is an enormous amount of evidence about the holocaust.
Significantly more than than there is about the first Martyrs of Christ (which, btw, nobody is denying the existence of).

Denying the fact that Jews were Egyptian slaves is more along the lines of denying the holocaust.
(...except for the fact that they weren't slaves and that it's entirely fabricated.)

 

[Ninae]

One possibility I saw for the Hyksos leaving Egypt was they crossed a reed sea

This makes me think of that cringe-worthy "Like Moses had power over the sea you have power over me"

 

[Journyman16]

Ebloa,
You have astonishingly and fantastically missed my point for a fourth time now.

People arent willing to die for a KNOWN frabrication on a "regular basis".
The people around the time of Jesus would have easily been able to know if Jesus Christ was an actual man or not.
Here is where one (apply only if true) is free to deny the first Martyrs of Christ.
But let me point out,
It kinda puts one in same camp as holocaust deniers.

Let's leave out references to the Holocaust OK? It's just emotive and probably should be added to Godwin's Law.

Who is it you think not only knew Jesus was a real person and also died for him? Near as I recall the deaths came much later and it would be like saying you know Sherlock Holmes was a real person because we've heard so much about him. If someone is dead, these days we have records and photos etc. but back then it was word of mouth or maybe a hand crafted scroll or papyrus.

The people around the time of the Christ mostly couldn't read so word of mouth would be a big thing. Only the wealthy such as the Christ was reputed to be would have been tutored in reading and writing and we don't even have evidence of that in the bible.

By his wealth I mean, even if Joseph WAS a carpenter, he would have been doing pretty well - it was a valuable trade. But there are some who put forward evidence that the word translated as carpenter has been, deliberately perhaps, mistranslated and Joseph was perhaps a Mason... and we know the kinds of influence Masons have had across the centuries.

There is also some interesting evidence from the Essenes side of things, that Mary, for example, was one of 10, and she was chosen by lot to be the mother.

And while I have no stake in the whole 'dying for a fabrication' I also took you to be saying that people dying for something is evidence of truth. Just saying...

 

[Ninae]

You dont find it odd that the argument of Jesus of the time period of Jesus was the question of his divinity and not the question of his existence.
I mean wouldnt the first thing a Jewish Jesus denier want to get on the record if Jesus didnt exist is "hey, jesus cant be God because Jesus isnt real"

LOL

I can't believe how this argument has detoriorated into the usual "isn't or isn't it" "was he or wasn't he" that most automatically fall into. As mentioned there is no reason to beieve he never existed. That would be a lot of fuss for something that never existed and sounds more like some strange conspiracy theory that would have little chance to be taken seriously.

It's not like at the time the powers that be were for his existence in any way (they soon got rid of him). It was only after his movement had grown for centuries and it seemed like it was something that would just grow and grow and there was no way to keep it down someone got the idea if they couldn't fight this then they could at least make it into their advantage. And so the revision of the bible which we have to live with, and that was mostly politically motivated, no doubt.

 

[ebola?]

Ebloa,
You have astonishingly and fantastically missed my point for a fourth time now.

I'm not misunderstanding you; I'm disagreeing with you. And that's an okay thing. . .

The people around the time of Jesus would have easily been able to know if Jesus Christ was an actual man or not.

And here is the crux of the matter, why we've been talking past each other for over a whole page of this topic. I disagree. People are routinely captivated by and motivated to follow charismatic leaders of all sorts, including those who claim to be divine prophets. This is the wellspring of the development of new religions (which typically start out as "cults"). When followers of any given cult face the death of its founder, they stand at a cross-roads, where they can either disband or ritualize the practices and edicts of their prior leader and mythologize his/her memory. And such embellishments can include confabulation with other people.

This is what became of the followers of Yeshua.

It kinda puts one in same camp as holocaust deniers.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. . .nope.

ebola

 

[Journyman16]

This makes me think of that cringe-worthy "Like Moses had power over the sea you have power over me"

Not sure where that is from... it's not something I can recall hearing before.

My memory has let me down just a little - the Red Sea, Sea of Reeds wasn't an Egypt thing, it was the Hebrew...

However, apart from the matter of the number of people is an even more significant issue.

The problem is that the biblical account never refers to the Red Sea by name. In fact, nowhere in the entire Old Testament Hebrew text is the body of water associated with the exodus ever called the "Red Sea." Instead in the Hebrew text the reference is to the yam suph.

The word yam in Hebrew is the ordinary word for "sea," although in Hebrew it is used for any large body of water whether fresh or salt. The word suph is the word for "reeds" or "rushes," the word used in Ex. 2:3, 5 to describe where Moses' basket was placed in the Nile. So, the biblical reference throughout the Old Testament is to the "sea of reeds" (for example, Num 14:25, Deut 1:40, Josh 4:23, Psa 106:7. etc.).

 

[Ninae]

Not sure where that is from... it's not something I can recall hearing before.

Written especially for Gwyneth Paltrow.



Anyway, I have no real personal attachment to Christianity. I just love what I perceive as the eternal Christ independent of his incarnation as "Jesus". At least that's who I can call on in an hour of need and receive healing energy from.

I have to say I feel kind of sorry for sincere Christians, though, it's like their not owed any respect and anyone can say the most dreadful things to them. While if someone were to post the same kind of thing about a jewish or african faith they would probably get banned for gross abuse. I guess the underlying rationale would be something like Christianity is mainly for people of European origin so they deserve it (or reverse prejudice).

 

[methamaniac]

I'm not desperate, nor am I struggling to disprove something I don't believe in.

You're doing a good job of showing you're not desperately trying to prove something you dont believe in.
?
Why exactly are you trying so hard to disprove something you dont believe in?

Suicide bombers die in the name of Islam, believing that they will be rewarded in heaven.

So, based on your logic, they truly must be rewarded in heaven. Or, they wouldn't bother.

That's the logic you want my logic to be captian.
We're talking about existence of Jesus not Divinity and Heaven.
And people of the same time period don't die for a man they know didn't exist.
Hold up a sec, let me ask something...
do you believe a man named Muhammad existed?
Does one have to have been there to know he existed?

Although you didn't directly state it, you have - undeniably - been implying it.



Illogical to the extent that it wouldn't have happened: that's what you're saying (in the context).

Yes, illogical to extent it wouldn't have happened.
People dont die for known fabrications.

You believe literally in the Bible. You can't believe literally in all holy texts, because they contradict each other.
People die in the name of religion all the time. So, what in the living fuck are you talking about?

How about let me tell you what I believe from now on, ok?
I literally believe in the Bible. I literally believe if you read it you will literally/exactly be revealed what is suppose to be revealed to you.

What is so hard to believe in a man who supposedly existed 2000 years ago, who was executed by the Roman Empire for claiming to be God, who performed miracles, who rose from the dead, who raised the dead, who was born of a virgin - despite the fact that there's no historical evidence supporting his existence? What is so hard about believing in the son of an infallible and all-knowing God, who created a religion that directly (and inadvertently) resulted in the death of millions of people?

Nothing.

You're right.

It makes perfect sense.

Not sure if this is really a question but
we're talking about a man named Jesus' s existence remember? Not his Divinity.

But to your question,
I was responding to you basically saying you cant fathom how Jesus could be God.

There is nothing astonishing or fantastic about ebola's interpretation of your comments. You don't bother to check spelling or grammar and your spelling and grammar are horrible. This makes it very difficult to read what you're writing and understand it. I often have to decipher your sentences. You should, out of respect for your readership, make sure that what you've written is as easy to digest as possible. I've told you this before. But you make no effort to improve your communication. And you continue to blame others for "misinterpreting" what you've written.

You are the common denominator, in the sense that at least four people "misinterpreted" what you wrote.

It is not astonishing. It is not fantastic.

It's not us.

It's you.

I can't help you read into a simple sentence what you wanted.
I've made several attempts to clarify.
Captain spelling/grammar
if it's that hard on you to personally understand my post then may I humbly suggest you don't respond.
Or you may ask for clarification,and I will try to help ya.
Or
Neither. Your choice.

What does "around the time of Jesus" mean? How would people easily know that Jesus was a real man, 80 years after his death?

Are you denying Nero put Christians to their death?
I think im seeing where the confusion comes in.
Hmmm, all starting to make sense now.

there is an enormous amount of evidence about the holocaust.
Significantly more than than there is about the first Martyrs of Christ (which, btw, nobody is denying the existence of).

And there are still those that deny. The comparison stands.

Denying the fact that Jews were Egyptian slaves is more along the lines of denying the holocaust.
(...except for the fact that they weren't slaves and that it's entirely fabricated.)

ok......

 

[Ninae]

I do think there can be a racial/cultural agenda behind it.

But even worse I think can be the ones who are raised in this culture themselves. And I understand this very well. It's like you're force-fed this remote doctrine before you even have the rudiments to understand it. And it's the same old thing again and again. So you start to get bored, then you get fed up, and you can start to feel like someone are doing a brainwashing-job on you. And at that point many become very rebellious, and either reject Christianity or all of religion as a whole.

Having said that, if I was NOT in favour of Christianity to thrive that is also how I would do it.

 

[Journyman16]

Nero wasn't born till after the Christ supposedly died on the cross - by the time he was Emporer and started in on Christians it would have been several decades after Golgotha. Unless he took into killing old folks, the chances are good the Christians he was killing had no personal knowledge of a living Jesus either.

Plus Nero was killing Christians in Rome, not Judea, so they're even further removed from knowing what was true or not - Paul (or Josephus) did a superlative job in constructing a religion, but it was all hearsay, including his supposed conversion.

 

[ForEverAfter]

^+1

Merry Christmas, everyone.



(Skip the "captain" stuff, meth.)

 

[Ninae]

You protest a bit too much.

If you really believed there was no Jesus the idea of him shouldn't bother you much. You should be feeling happy you at least have a legitimate object for your hatred. Otherwise you would be looking pretty stupid.

But if you really believed Jesus didn't exist why would Christianity even matter to you? Is it that you have so much concern for Christians? Or are you someone who if the debate turned to the question of his divinity would argue that as much too? Because you can't really have it both ways.

 

[swilow]

^There do exist some good reasons to passionately deny the existence of god/christ. It strikes me a logical to try and remove the foundations of an organisation/s responsible for much sufferring and delusion throughout the world. Our society, legality and morality are all derived from religious faith which, to the non-religious, is like letting lego-men decide whats for dinner. The foundations of such can be weakened by cementing the idea that this is all pure fiction. Not saying I agree with such a crusade, though I do in principle- I just think its a waste of time.

It kinda puts one in same camp as holocaust deniers.

Hmm,Godwin's Law anyone?

TBH, that surprises me as a comment from you meth....

 

[her01n]

I think the Pilate argument is pretty nice. n I have no doubt that the NT is a real collection of events.
The Bible isn't the only historical evidence for its history.

 

[ForEverAfter]

if you really believed Jesus didn't exist why would Christianity even matter to you?

The functionality of Christianity doesn't revolve around whether or not Christ was a real person.

It is less confusing (read: functions better) as a religion, if it isn't taken literally.

While I don't identify as Christian, Christianity is important to me regardless of whether or not it's central figure was historical or allegorical in nature.

It's frustrating talking to Christians about their religion, sometimes, because they are often more concerned with the details than the message.

The Bible isn't the only historical evidence for its history.

Well said!

 

[Ninae]

It strikes me a logical to try and remove the foundations of an organisation/s responsible for much sufferring and delusion throughout the world.

But this would also be a lie if those foundations are true and that's not really the way to acomplish anything of worth.

Aside from that, what great religion isn't? It's just the one in your own backyard. Or do you have an aspiration to remove the foundations of every religion in the world?