Why is there no real proof of Jesus existing outside of biblical references?

Logarock
Never said an accurate translation substantiates veracity but was defending the veracity of translation which is another field and another area where the bible is attacked.

But that was not what the post you replied to was saying. I said that an accurate translationd does not susbtantiate veracity and you took off on a tangent.

reply to post by randyvs


Yea because that list contains EVERY piece of historical fiction ever... Come on, try at least a LITTLE harder with your replies...

Besides the link is to wikipedia and we are talking about the bible. If someone put the bible in that list, how long do you think a believer such as yourself would go on and edit that page by taking it off?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I was thinking the same about you.

Besides the link is to wikipedia and we are talking about the bible. If someone put the bible in that list, how long do you think a believer such as yourself would go on and edit that page by taking it off?

Your referrence, not mine.

reply to post by randyvs


Says the guy with the one line post full of grammatical errors.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock

 

Oh the bible fits the first definition just fine and let me tell you, it really is a terrible piece of literature as I've explained before. It makes so little sense, Christians cannot even agree on which parts to take literally and which points to take metaphorically or allegorically.

A terrible piece of literature based on what? Don't you mean its terrible as a collection of literary works or some of the books are terrible literature. It is a polyglot with works spanning hundreds of years.

Yea Christians don't agree on the literal and allegory questions anymore than americans and even supreme court justices agree on the meaning of the constitution even though its very clear.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Says the guy with the one line post full of grammatical errors.

Irrelevant. But I have fat fingys. Sorry, I hope you're not upset?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by randyvs

 

Says the guy with the one line post full of grammatical errors.

But you still know what he means.....don't you. lol

reply to post by Logarock


The difference between the bible and the Constitution is that the bible is supposed to be "the Word of God." I'd think that if God was trying to tell us something, He's make it a bit clearer as to what message he was trying to get across and at the VERY least clear up any misunderstandings that may arise from someone taking a certain passage literally that was meant to be a metaphor or say cherry picking a passage like this one:

20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

while ignoring this one from the same chapter:

20:9 "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9 KJV)

daskakik

Logarock
Never said an accurate translation substantiates veracity but was defending the veracity of translation which is another field and another area where the bible is attacked.

But that was not what the post you replied to was saying. I said that an accurate translationd does not susbtantiate veracity and you took off on a tangent.

edit on 8-1-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

You said that an accurate translation does not substantiate veracity. Which is true.

I said that some try to question the veracity of the translating i.e. that the thing was never translated properly to begin with. Which is another subject not a tangent.

Gots to use your noggin and read slowly if you must.

reply to post by Logarock

A terrible piece of literature based on what?

Definitions of "good" literature. As a writer who has studied the medium for four decades, I know what consistutes "literary fiction" and "pulp fiction." The Bible is mostly 'pulp fiction'-style......
glaring omissions, (Wait: what was Jesus doing for nineteen years after his temple audience episode? Oh. No answer.)

The Bible is a mess. If you ask people who have read "The Hunger Games" to tell the story to you, they would be 99% better at doing so than the 30,000+ 'interpretations' thought to be 'a unified and consistent Bible' by 'believers' in the 30,000+ denominations.

It wouldn't make "The Hunger Games" series true: but I'm relatively sure that among those who have read them, they'd all have the same idea of what it is about and wouldn't bicker amongst themselves about it's meaning. Or worship it.

Logarock

Krazysh0t
reply to post by randyvs

 

Says the guy with the one line post full of grammatical errors.

But you still know what he means.....don't you. lol

That is more a testament to me being used to the terrible grammar, the strange paragraph formatting, and just plain bad wording from some of the members of this site (kind of like how an ellipses is only supposed to have 3 periods and a space after it). When I first joined this site, things like abusing the enter key so that your posts appear like you are writing poetry used to drive me up a wall, now I just ignore it and chalk it up to them failing their typing class (and possibly English class cause an English teacher certainly wouldn't accept reports written like those posts).

reply to post by Logarock

Its the implications that trouble you. The implications of the Son of God being a slaughtered Lamb as a sin bearer for humanity.....

It's more than troublesome. It's a disgusting and dangerous myth.

.......it has very unnerving implications. Just thinking about it forces a changing perspective of God, the world and mankind, of reality as we see it.

No it doesn't. I don't believe in your God. My God needs/requires no such "blood sacrifice".

reply to post by Logarock

I know what you said but it had nothing to do with my post so why reply to it instead of just posting to the thread?

Besides, the point of the OP is proof outside the bible because a spot on translation doesn't substantiate veracity, which we seem to all agree on, so why are some still posting bible verses and pointing out how the text existed decades after the alleged event as if that proves anything?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock

 

The difference between the bible and the Constitution is that the bible is supposed to be "the Word of God." I'd think that if God was trying to tell us something, He's make it a bit clearer as to what message he was trying to get across and at the VERY least clear up any misunderstandings that may arise from someone taking a certain passage literally that was meant to be a metaphor or say cherry picking a passage like this one:

20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

while ignoring this one from the same chapter:

20:9 "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9 KJV)

I am absolutely dumbfounded. I assume, and correct me otherwise, your confusion here has to do with "their blood" and "his blood"?

If that's the case its a very simple matter of a plural and singular.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

20:9 "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9 KJV

Is this supposed to be one of those,

"Oh nooooooooooooooooo ! I can't believe the Bible would confirm
that the Creator has a right to judge his own creation !"

moments?

I happen to agree that any man who curses, kills, or wants to kill
his own parents, prolly isn't fit for eternal life. So you just keep bounce'n
off walls til head starts to bleed.

reply to post by Logarock


No, my confusion lies with the fact that Christians can use Leviticus 20:13 as proof that homosexuality is a sin while ignoring Leviticus 20:9 that says that someone who speaks out against their parents should be put to death. That is hypocritical to the extreme.

randyvs
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

20:9 "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9 KJV

Is this supposed to be one of those,

"Oh nooooooooooooooooo ! I can't believe the Bible would confirm
that the Creator has a right to judge his own creation !"

moments?

I happen to agree that any man who curses, kills, or wants to kill
his own parents, prolly isn't fit for eternal life. So you just keep bounce'n
off walls til head starts to bleed.

So a parent that beats their child or rapes them should continue to be honored (it is one of the ten commandments)? The child isn't justified in professing hatred, cursing, or even attacking their parent for the abhorrent actions of their parents? Not to mention if you agree with this passage, why haven't you put forth opinions that we should be killing these people like the passage states?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by wildtimes

 

I'm an agnostic too, but I've gotten so tired of explaining that to these guys that I've just given up and let them call me whatever they want. I guess in the Christian mindset, you either believe firmly that God exists or you believe firmly that he doesn't exist, no inbetween.

edit on 8-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

Im confused there really is no middle ground between god exists or he doesnt. Unless you did a timeshare thing he exists thursday thru sunday and every other holiday. I think Just the mere fact you're in this thread shows you have made up your mind dont you think? So Trying to defend yourself by saying you have an open mind is silly everyone has a bias. For some reason Christianity scares you or you wouldnt put in the effort to fight it. Can i ask why see some people fear religion because they see it as controlling. Others have been let down and lost faith and finally there is the thinker who likes to disprove things he cant explain with science.But it all boils down to either you believe or you dont.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

And the non-compliance with the food laws in that same book.

dragonridr
Do you really want to know why there is a catholic and lutheran version that is different or is this just a convenient way to bash christians again just curious?

Who did I bash???? Where and when? Quote it. Did you not read what I replied to?????

The claim was that the bible was true because they all agree and I pointed out that no, they actually do not. Hurt your feelings?