The Bible: Guide to Heaven or Scripture of Death?, page 7

privacy

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

reply posted on 4-8-2010 @ 10:30 PM by Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by balon0
The NT was written at the end of the 1st century; written by followers of the apostles who did meet Jesus personally.

No it wasn't.
The NT was written by various unknown persons as late as about 150 CE or so.

Essentially, we do not know who wrote ANY of the Gospels or the Catholic epistles. The Gospels were all written anonymously by unknown persons who never met Jesus - that is the consensus of modern NT scholars such as Brown and Crossan and Schnelle etc.

NONE of them were written by ANYONE who ever met an apostle of Jesus.
We do NOT HAVE a SINGLE claim to have met an apostle of Jesus.
There is NO evidence of ANY kind that ANYONE ever met anyone who met Jesus.
Which is why you didn't quote any such claim.

Why can't you quote ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of someone claiming to have met an apostle? (Please - no CLAIMS and BELIEFS that OTHER people met so-and-so.)

Can you quote me one clear example of a Christian writer clearly identifying himself and claing to have met Jesus personally?

No.
Because there are NONE.

In fact - all we have is STORIES about people meeting Jesus.
Stories written by unknown and unnameds person.

Originally posted by balon0
But this brought up a new question. Just how much of the NT is the truth? How much was lost in translation? Did a little more searching and came across this article...
Going back to history, of course we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Nosense
The NT was written in Greek by Greek speakers.
The MSS we have are Greek.
There are no translation issues, we have the original language of the MSS.

We have no actual evidence Jesus even existed.
But believers can confidently state what language he spoke!
What a joke.

What language does Santa Claus speak?

Kap

reply posted on 4-8-2010 @ 10:37 PM by Kapyong

Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
First, that is one person's opinion, not all scholars.

No,
it's not one person at all.

It's the consensus of modern NT scholars - Brown, Schnelle, Fitzmyer, Helms, Normin Perrin, Crossan etc. but have NO IDEA who those pesons ever are, do you?

You just dismiss them all as "opinion" when they don't agree. Even though this clear evidence has convinced the majority of modern NT scholars. You totally failed to address the clear and obvious reasons.

You totally avoided being wrong about Cerinthus too.

Oh well -
You've never studied Gospel history at all, and you have appear to no intention of doing so.

Feel free to keep on preaching your faithful beliefs - plenty of believers here to lap it up...

Kap

reply posted on 4-8-2010 @ 10:39 PM by Kapyong

reply posted on 4-8-2010 @ 10:47 PM by Funkydung

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by ReVoLuTiOn76

I agree that Jesus was a man of peace. But the Bible cleary makes statements advocating violence against people who do not fall into the faith. And lets not forget that the "Christian" God is the same God of old testement. Can you follow faith in Jesus (God in human form) when God is cleary in favor of violence against non-believers?

i always cringe when i see someone saying that "see god killed alot of people in the old testament so he must a murderous killing god" when most of the time these people do not understand what the circumstances where back then.....they do not understand the whole story...dive into the subject of the "giants roaming the earth" and the Nephilim of the old testament and then people will start to understand why there was a cleansing. theres a lot more to the story than just god killed a bunch of people in the old testament so he must be a killer not a lover.

reply posted on 4-8-2010 @ 10:48 PM by adjensen

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
First, that is one person's opinion, not all scholars.

No,
it's not one person at all.

It's the consensus of modern NT scholars - Brown, Schnelle, Fitzmyer, Helms, Normin Perrin, Crossan etc. but have NO IDEA who those pesons ever are, do you?

Funny how the bit that you posted, then, is all the work of Robert Kysar. No mention of the rest of them. That kinda seems like the definition of "one person's opinion", doesn't it?

Oh well -
You've never studied Gospel history at all, and you have appear to no intention of doing so.

Both parts of that statement are incorrect. But thanks for your assumptions.

reply posted on 4-8-2010 @ 10:57 PM by babloyi

reply to post by Kapyong

Originally posted by Kapyong
I thought it was quite clear.

There were NO witnesses to Jesus.
There are NO claims to have met Jesus.
There are NO books written by anyone who met Jesus.
There was NO person to see Jesus and "believe with their eyes" at all.

You are very certain of yourself. There are NO witnesses to Jesus? There are NO, there are NO, there are NO?

...How do you know?

[edit on 4-8-2010 by babloyi]

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 05:27 AM by AshleyD

THREAD NOTICE.

Please get back on topic. This thread is not about the historicity of religious figures or the accuracy of the texts.

Any posts that derail the topic further will be removed as off topic. Thank you.

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 10:16 AM by timepolarity

It's already been noted, the differences between the Old and New Testament - and how attributing the Old Testament to the values of Christianity is ignoring a great upheaval in the laws observed by worshipers of God.

However, there's an additional point to be made. These examples you cite are not general commandments of God to be observed for the rest of time, but commandments to the people of Israel in a specific context. This is probably over generalized, but you have to understand that God chose the people of Israel, and propelled them to success and dominance in human terms so that when the Messiah was delivered, the message could be heard. Generally, it was not that God said kill everyone that doesn't believe, but rather - kill anyone that challenges Israel, and the worship of me. The unspoken completion of that sentence was, "...until my son can be delivered."

This, as I understand it, is what Christians believe. While there might be some fringe Christians that do not have this interpretation, I believe most Christians are appalled at acts of violence, and believe that this sort of justice can only be dealt by God.

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 02:23 PM by sheepslayer247

reply to post by Funkydung

What were the circumstances? What is the whole story? I may not know, but neither do you.

Once again, I must restate that this thread was not started to debate the accuracy of the Bible or to compare/contrast the NT over the OT.

I only wanted to point out that all religions are left to the winds of interpretation because there is no proof to confirm what has been written. I believe Islam has been bastardized to serve a non-religious purpose. Christianity is not immune to the same fate. This thread is proof that interpretation can make any religion serve whatever purpose anyone so desires.

We believe what we want to believe. But when those in power use the interpretation of religion to incite fear and to validate war, we have a problem.

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 03:46 PM by adjensen

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Your point, however, is not limited to religion. Witness the "one man's revolutionary, another man's terrorist" adage. Reality is always open to manipulation and misdirection, it is up to us to verify and correct, if that's important to us.

A question, though, and this may be part of your point, or outside of it -- I read that you are bothered by the portrayal of Islam in American (I assume) media, and thus its image for the American people. Do you recognize the similar misuse of the religion by those who profess to believe and teach it, in the way that they convince their followers to commit heinous acts, such as suicide bombings of innocent people? Which of these, do you believe, is the greater evil, and which does more damage to Islam?

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 04:13 PM by sheepslayer247

reply to post by adjensen

Very good question. I agree that it is up to each individual to educate themselves and make a choice based on fact. Unfortunetly, most Americans are slaves to the boob tube and the talking heads form their opinions for them. So for most of us it is hard to verify what is the truth when we naively accept most news as fact.

Of course I am supposed to say that using one's religion to incite violence is the greater evil. I do see how teachers of Islam can and do use the religion to incite violence. It would be silly for me to state otherwise. And I have never stated differently.

But since you are a Christian let me ask this: Since lying and murder are both a sin, how does a Christian decide which is more of a sin? Are there degrees of sin? I think not. To lye is to sin, just as murder is a sin. No difference except in the results each one brings.

With that in mind I believe anyone who lyes or murders in the name of any religion, or in an attempt to demonize a religion, is in no way "Godly" or worthy of any god's acceptance. I cannot state that one does more damage to Islam, or Christianity, than the other.

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 04:58 PM by adjensen

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Sorry, I guess that my question came out being more accusatory than I had intended. You're not "supposed" to say anything -- if there was a real effort to mislead people and to start a crusade purely on the basis of that, I think a case could be made either way.

However, there is a key point that you may be overlooking.

If there were no occurrences of Islam being used to do heinous acts, but an entity represents that there are, this is lying.

If there are such occurrences, if an entity represents that there are, this is not lying.

If that's all that they talk about, they are truthful, but misleading.

If that's not all they talk about, but all you hear, then the issue is your perception, not their bias.

I believe that this last one is the case in America. They are reporting truthful information, both positive and negative, but one's eye is naturally drawn to the negative, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion.

As for your question of lying versus murder, you're correct, sin is sin (well, many Christians believe in "degrees" of sin -- in Catholicism, for example, venial sin is separated from mortal sin) but there are obvious factors that make one worse -- I can retract a lie I tell about you, but I can't undo your murder.

reply posted on 5-8-2010 @ 05:18 PM by sheepslayer247

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by sheepslayer247

If that's not all they talk about, but all you hear, then the issue is your perception, not their bias.

I believe that this last one is the case in America. They are reporting truthful information, both positive and negative, but one's eye is naturally drawn to the negative, for reasons beyond the scope of the discussion.

I think we agree after all. It just took some time to work out the minor details. I would say that I think there is a bias though. Not so much as to say it was completely one sided, but a bias just the same. Add a little bit of bias with a inclinatiion towards negativity mixed with a little fear and you have a false perception of truth.

It has been a good discussion and thanks for taking part.

reply posted on 10-8-2010 @ 08:05 PM by CIPHER0019

Greetings of Peace and Love, In a world that is submerged in Propaganda, and theologies and rituals. Within any moment in time can be manipulated to fit personal agendas, Whether Paganism, Christianity, Buddhism, Scientology, Islam, Tao-Ism, Etc, the End result gives us hope that what we decide to practice gives, a peace and knowing that our lives reach some form of satisfaction relevant to grant contentment of mind and spirit. To quote various scriptures and not have religious tolerance for all would be similar to an As- with books.

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >> ^^TOP^^