OK, this sums it up

[Truth is all]

Now, I have posted on many threads and I simply am having trouble keeping track. I was gone for a week and many of them got away from me. Therefore, I am regathering here.

The Historicity of the Bible is not in question here, we are simply assuming it is true, because though many of you would like to say it is all bull, some of the greatest secular historians have stated that it is a wonderfully accurate piece of history. You can argue with me on this too if you want. But consider these things first.

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.

Now, I will not be gone again since school is coming up. So i will answer regularly. Post away and please stay on topic, Thanks!

[Q777]

In this thread http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005667.html

"Of course [God] is interacting with us daily. You see people pull through diseases that were told that they would surely die. You see single mothers raising successful children. You see nature itself as a witness of His creation. You see love."

Could you elaborate on how God is interacting with us daily?

Could you present a recent well documented account occurrence of divine healing that has occurred (something that can't be attributed to probability)

And do you not claim that A single mother can not raise a successful child with out you Christain God?



[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 07-26-2006).]

[---Beany---]

I think it's possible that the bible is true, although not always in a literal sense.

I also think it's more likely that a lot of it is often misunderstood.

Personally I think J was the real deal as was B.

[Abrahim]

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.

Or what they say about what he said isnt true.

[Overman]

Can you list some of these secular historians?

And why would him being considered moral not make him a liar? What about all the catholic popes who were considered holy and moral who fucked children?

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:



The Historicity of the Bible is not in question here, we are simply assuming it is true, because though many of you would like to say it is all bull, some of the greatest secular historians have stated that it is a wonderfully accurate piece of history. You can argue with me on this too if you want. But consider these things first.

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.

"What is truth?" How often has history been rewritten to reflect the propaganda of the rulers? The Romans ruled Palestine and according to the bible, the Roman governor authorised the crucifixion of Jesus. No matter that the later Roman Catholics try to blame the Jews, it was by Roman authority and decree that jesus was crucified.

The Roman Emporer Constantine saw it was politically expedient to adopt xianity, so he decided on the final doctrines of the RC church. That's like if the Nazis had won the war, what version would they give of the genocide? Think about it check out Neo-Nazi beliefs. Who could rely on a religious system like the Rc's to tell the 'truth'?

Check out RC history, they killed/murdered/tortured to death millions. http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

They burned their books and tried to obliterate all othe stories about Jesus. However in spite of centuries of this despotism they failed and we see the Nag Hammadi library, The Essene gospels and many other alternative stories regarding Jesus have survived. Who would be most likely telling the 'truth', the persecutors or the people they murdered?

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html http://www.thenazareneway.com/ http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

Perhaps the truth is the Romans, to cover up their culpability in Jesus murder invented some 'truths' and adjusted history to make the bible 'interpretations/truths' fit their political agenda? http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pa...salvation.html

Or: Google 'Pagan Christs'

Namaste

[The_Big_Beef]

Well as we all know or should know is that the bible was not being written at the same time the events in the bible were taking place. long after the events in the bible took place, such as jesus and all his miracles, the bible began to be written. what this means is that most, if not all accounts of the bible are stories passed down from generation to generation over many many years. it doesnt take much time for stories to be altered at all if youve ever played the game "telephone" in a class room. its played where someone starts a sentence and tells it to the person behind him/her and it goes all the way around the class to the last person. about 2 minutes and 20 kids later the sentence has changed from "the sky is blue" to "babies cry at night" (that was something right off the top of my head) which is something completely different. and thats just a simple fuckin sentence. but the bible, were talkin about long detailed stories about all of the accomplishments of say jesus and dont forget if your trying to make someone sound good people have a tendency to embelish on certain topics to make whoever they are trying to talk about that much better. i think most of it if not all of it is bullshit.

[Truth is all]

Alright now you must understand that some of you are asking more thorough questions then others. Some will get answers immediately, some might take a while, but i will try my best to at least get one post in a day so be patient with me if you will and I promise i will get to all of you.

quote:Originally posted by The_Big_Beef:

Well as we all know or should know is that the bible was not being written at the same time the events in the bible were taking place. long after the events in the bible took place, such as jesus and all his miracles, the bible began to be written. what this means is that most, if not all accounts of the bible are stories passed down from generation to generation over many many years. it doesnt take much time for stories to be altered at all if youve ever played the game "telephone" in a class room. its played where someone starts a sentence and tells it to the person behind him/her and it goes all the way around the class to the last person. about 2 minutes and 20 kids later the sentence has changed from "the sky is blue" to "babies cry at night" (that was something right off the top of my head) which is something completely different. and thats just a simple fuckin sentence. but the bible, were talkin about long detailed stories about all of the accomplishments of say jesus and dont forget if your trying to make someone sound good people have a tendency to embelish on certain topics to make whoever they are trying to talk about that much better. i think most of it if not all of it is bullshit.

Now honestly, do some research for me ok? The entire new testament has been estimated to have been completed around 100 A.D. Mathews gospel was written shortly after 70 A.D. Mark around 64-65 and Luke shortly before 70 A.D. F.F. Bruce, pg 12, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Now this is a negligable amount compared to most historical documents. There is also the fact that people were still around from the time of Jesus, and if you remember, the christians were not exactly popular. Yet still there were no works that refuted christianity. But they had plenty of enemies. There were the jews who were constantly trying to look for something wrong with it. There were skeptics who were still around at the time of Christ who probably did not agree with him. There were the Romans who did not want a rebelion. There were also the Christians themselves who would not undergo such torture needlessly and also were around to witness the ressurection. Thus they would be very cynical if questionable papers arose about Christ or if myths were being formulated. If you consider the Galic Wars, Plato and Homer as reliable then I find it hard to believe that you would question Christianities historicity. Though it was noted by other historians as well. I will list those in a later answer so just keep your eyes pealed.

Your Friend

[Truth is all]

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Can you list some of these secular historians?

And why would him being considered moral not make him a liar? What about all the catholic popes who were considered holy and moral who fucked children?

Now Now, you know it is best not to assume. The whole catholic thing has been blown way out of proportion so give me evidence of several popes that have molested children and I will concur that the rumor is mildly true. As for the morality issue. He would contradict himself and therefore we, many many many years later, would see him as a liar because ... well his name would have been less important or everyone could see his lies clearly. Josephus, the Talmud, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus for starters. I will have to dig a little deeper to find more.

[The_Big_Beef]

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

The entire new testament has been estimated to have been completed around 100 A.D. Mathews gospel was written shortly after 70 A.D. Mark around 64-65 and Luke shortly before 70 A.D. F.F. Bruce, pg 12, If you consider the Galic Wars, Plato and Homer as reliable then I find it hard to believe that you would question Christianities historicity.

Where did i ever say that i thought homer was reliable? i know that he wrote a bunch of stories like the Illiad and the Odyssey right? i also know people actually believed those stories as true. those were his famous writings and basically people back then sort of considered those as what the christians today condsider the bible (im sure there were more than just those but those are his famous epics). but he made those epics up from his head not actual accounts anyways. im not sure about plato or the galic wars so enlighten me if you want on that subject otherwise ill just look it up later. did you ever think that jesus' apostles wanted to build him up so that people would accept him as something more than just a human that stood for all the good things in life and more of say like a god or somethin to that effect?