[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Fujitsu

Genesis I and II do not give separate accounts or stories. The second is merely a more in-depth explanation. Jesus’ family tree is another that I can offer an explanation for if given more time, but I think that is beside the point. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide different accounts with different perspectives, each experiencing different parts of the life of Jesus. To me, these are not disjunctions, but rather, just a different side of the story.

You are a well spoken fellow, and I respect your views and opinions. And you are right – I am not willing to admit that I could be wrong, at least not on this: that Jesus’s life and resurrection happened as the Bible says.

And I pass no judgment to anyone who disagrees.

I never claimed they gave different stories, the story is the same, the order is different. Look closely, the discrepancy is there.

As it pertains to Jesus, there is also incredibly clear discrepancies. Which, as stated, range from the amount of time he spent in Jerusalem (3 days, or a year?) or upon which object he died (on the cross and carried off? on a stake? or on a tree?) which go beyond the offering of alternate perspectives of the same phenomena. They are describing different events. Now, and also as stated, this does not take away from the bible's validity as a whole, but, merely, means that the bible is not from without disjunctions, mistakes, and inter-author divergence. I.e., it has historicity

Originally Posted by Bpmartyr

I would add: the validity of an account of various witnesses is typically invalidated by exact rendering of the events. It suggest collusion.

To say that the various books of the Bible are corrupted from translation or even intentional alteration indicates a very limited amount of research on the subject. These books have been thoroughly scrutinized for ages by scholars from both the believing and skeptic point of view. Aramaic and Hebrew texts dating back thousands of years verify that what you read today is as it was then. The differences in the languages themselves can not be discounted but when studying them in the original language and comparing to the English translations they are in essence the same. Yes different strings of words are used to describe what in Hebrew may be just one word but that does not necessitate that they are incompatible to translation.

This is simplified and I am myself no scholar but I have spent countless hours comparing the various arguments from both sides. If it were really that simple to discount, I would have done so and gone on living a life for myself certain that once I am in the grave, there is nothing more; so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

I may be wrong ... but I sure hope that I am right!

As have I, and I am honestly a little surprised you implied my view stems from a lack of research. I've spent more time than I would care to mention studying the bible (as both a theological work, and a work of fiction). I can chronologically tell you which canons made it into the apocrypha and why, can you? It seems your idea of 'research' is applying your biased view of the bible to further reaffirm your reading of a primary text. If that's 'research', friend, we're all in trouble.

You are exactly right though, this book has been scrutinized by a vast number of people, stemming from vast religious backgrounds, who have purported the very points I was espousing in the first place. I choose to represent those views as closely as possible, using my intuition and predisposition towards skepticism, though I am quite sure you take the same approach when reading the bible.

[bpmartyr]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

As have I, and I am honestly a little surprised you implied my view stems from a lack of research. I've spent more time than I would care to mention studying the bible (as both a theological work, and a work of fiction). I can chronologically tell you which canons made it into the apocrypha and why, can you? It seems your idea of 'research' is applying your biased view of the bible to further reaffirm your reading of a primary text. If that's 'research', friend, we're all in trouble.

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

[VolcomX311]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

Word

[Irish Cannon]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bpmartyr again.

[Irish Cannon]

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them."

-George Orwell

I understand that George Orwell was not a spiritual man, and this quote doesn't necessarily pertain to any of this, but I always think of it when theology is discussed.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

Which canons made it into the apocrypha? The apocrypha are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. The canon is a list of Biblical books which establishes the names of books which are considered to be authoritative as scripture by a particular religious community.

Catholic bibles vary from Protestant in that they contain a set of books Protestants call "the Apocrypha".

I only assume your views on this particular subject stem from a lack of research by the caliber of the statements you put forth. Look, your obviously a smart guy who HAS done a great deal of study in various fields and perhaps even in this one. I know personally, I lack the time necessary to really spend putting forth detailed arguments as I am sure you do as well. I like you and respect you and didn't mean to come off like a prick or try to demean you. This is one of those subjects, ya know.

That being said, I still do not agree with you.

Sorry, I had not slept that day and the order was reversed. It was to be

I can chronologically tell you which apocrypha made it into canons and why, can you?

Which, that challenge would still remain. Questioning the caliber of my statements is fine, but, then, refute them. Pretty simple task. If they are of such a low caliber and lacking validity, then preparing a counter-argument would be quite easy, no? More rhetoric on your part in this department than objective knowledge.

[bpmartyr]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Sorry, I had not slept that day and the order was reversed. It was to be



Which, that challenge would still remain. Questioning the caliber of my statements is fine, but, then, refute them. Pretty simple task. If they are of such a low caliber and lacking validity, then preparing a counter-argument would be quite easy, no? More rhetoric on your part in this department than objective knowledge.

Naw, I'm out. This subject is too deep and I don't have the time. Your too smart for this old man anyway. The fight is yours!

[Mulletsoldier]

Haha, you're right.


My MulletSenses began getting the best of me. Sorry Snugglepuss.

[VolcomX311]

Originally Posted by bpmartyr

Naw, I'm out. This subject is too deep and I don't have the time. Your too smart for this old man anyway. The fight is yours!

That's not conceeding to a loss, that's called good character. Props to martyr

[MashedPotato]

Just a thought ....


Ever wondered if religions were created to control the people, or are reglions created to give people hope in times or hardship?

Either way most religious point to the same belief system

1) There is an all might god(s)
2) There is also a bad "god(s)" (for those who dont obey the laws of the land).
3) There is a book/set of "rules and stories", all of which are taken as given fact. (now im not saying non of them are true etc, just questionning why we demand evidence for everything else in life (i.e flaming someone who posts a fact on here with no evidence), yet are happy to accept at book as the given truth .... based on no hard evidence, per say.

Cant we all just have a religion that teaches us to be kind and moral for the sake of being kind and moral?

Just a thought.

Im not a religous man, and i do belive in a higher power (reminds me of another thread not long ago... ), and i also celebrate christmas, not because of the religious reason, but rather because i love seeing people get along and giving. Why cant we all be nice all year round, give for the sake of giving, not just for christmas.

My 10 cents ramble.

[Tiberius]

I like to picture Jesus as a 3 layer chocolate cake with a jetpack. Cus then he'd be really cool, but also extremely delicious.

[BLADE74]

Originally Posted by MashedPotato

Just a thought ....


Ever wondered if religions were created to control the people, or are reglions created to give people hope in times or hardship?

Either way most religious point to the same belief system

1) There is an all might god(s)
2) There is also a bad "god(s)" (for those who dont obey the laws of the land).
3) There is a book/set of "rules and stories", all of which are taken as given fact. (now im not saying non of them are true etc, just questionning why we demand evidence for everything else in life (i.e flaming someone who posts a fact on here with no evidence), yet are happy to accept at book as the given truth .... based on no hard evidence, per say.

Cant we all just have a religion that teaches us to be kind and moral for the sake of being kind and moral?

Just a thought.

Im not a religous man, and i do belive in a higher power (reminds me of another thread not long ago... ), and i also celebrate christmas, not because of the religious reason, but rather because i love seeing people get along and giving. Why cant we all be nice all year round, give for the sake of giving, not just for christmas.

My 10 cents ramble.

Religions were man made. They were created by humans and not by God. Basically any particular religion take a piece of the bible. torrah, etc and chooses to worship in a particular way to a particular passage. Not one will follow the entire book of stories and follow the worship in totality. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

Now as for the book having evidence. Of course it does! most prohecy's of the old told about hte new Testament and about 2300 have come to pass so far which is a little past half that were prophesized.

1. There is an almighty GOD not plural
2. There are people who worship false Gods (Lucipher, Buddha, Alah, etc) whcih in turn are presumed to be bad spirits
3. Leading with Faith and not by human intellect is what is intended by the almighty father to make us sinners worthy enough to have eternal life with him. The first Adam messed that up by choosing Eve over God so ALL were born into sin from there on out. Except Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary so that he could be WITHOUT sin and live a perfect life in order to teach us how to worship, pray, and praise God. There are reasons why we are baptized more than just at birth becuase there are a series of steps one must take to become cleansed and filled with the Holy Ghost which is the ultimate task in getting Right with God.

Lots of things and other religions make sense and have logic but God is not a logical God because logic is to easy for one to comprehend and would not make Him unique if we totally understood Him. If you really look at the religions and how most are the "I'm right your wrong attitude" You'll really see that religion was formed by the enemy called Satan to cause strife and lead us away from God.

All we are.......pawns in a Chess match between Satan and God

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by BLADE74

Religions were man made. They were created by humans and not by God. Basically any particular religion take a piece of the bible. torrah, etc and chooses to worship in a particular way to a particular passage. Not one will follow the entire book of stories and follow the worship in totality. Although I do find Pentecostals to do this in the closest way intended by God.

Now as for the book having evidence. Of course it does! most prohecy's of the old told about hte new Testament and about 2300 have come to pass so far which is a little past half that were prophesized.

1. There is an almighty GOD not plural
2. There are people who worship false Gods (Lucipher, Buddha, Alah, etc) whcih in turn are presumed to be bad spirits
3. Leading with Faith and not by human intellect is what is intended by the almighty father to make us sinners worthy enough to have eternal life with him. The first Adam messed that up by choosing Eve over God so ALL were born into sin from there on out. Except Jesus who was born of the Virgin Mary so that he could be WITHOUT sin and live a perfect life in order to teach us how to worship, pray, and praise God. There are reasons why we are baptized more than just at birth becuase there are a series of steps one must take to become cleansed and filled with the Holy Ghost which is the ultimate task in getting Right