Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate

[hardheadjarhead]

Geez...I get such a kick out of your posts.

Excellent. I'd give you a greenie, but the engine says "nay," as I've allready given you one.

Can you cite your sources? That isn't a challenge...I'd love to read this stuff.


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh, while one generally agrees with the spirit of "Heretic's," post, and with the doubt about the wisdom of absolutely trusting the Gospels as, well, gospel, it would've been difficult for the Gospels to be based on mystery plays.

Please see:

http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=398

and:

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwc22/Medieval/english_mystery_plays.html

The "mystery," and, "miracle," plays are the products of early-to middle medieval culture--1100 or 1200 AD, and after.

 

[heretic888]

Geez...I get such a kick out of your posts.

Excellent. I'd give you a greenie, but the engine says "nay," as I've allready given you one.

Can you cite your sources? That isn't a challenge...I'd love to read this stuff.


Regards,


Steve

Good to know you find my rantings amusing, Steve-o.

As for sources...

Arguments for the mythicist position of the Historical Jesus debate:

- The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
- Pagan Christs, John M. Robertson
- The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Acharya S.
- The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?, Earl Doherty, http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
- The Lectures of Gerald Massey, http://www.africawithin.com/massey/gerald_massey.htm

Arguments for the gnostic/archetypal intepretation of Christianity:

- Psychology and Religion, Carl G. Jung
- Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor, Joseph Campbell
- Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution, Ken Wilber
- Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
- The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus, Neil Douglas-Klotz

Arguments for the perennial philosophy:
- The Perennial Philosophy, Adlous Huxley
- Why Religion Matters, Huston Smith
- Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World's Religions, Huston Smith

Hope that helps.

 

[heretic888]

Uh, while one generally agrees with the spirit of "Heretic's," post, and with the doubt about the wisdom of absolutely trusting the Gospels as, well, gospel, it would've been difficult for the Gospels to be based on mystery plays.

Please see:

http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=398

and:

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwc22/Medieval/english_mystery_plays.html

The "mystery," and, "miracle," plays are the products of early-to middle medieval culture--1100 or 1200 AD, and after.

While one most certainly agrees with the notion that mystery plays saw a resurgence during certain periods of the Middle Ages (no doubt due to the influences of Hermeticism, Orphism, and Neo-Platonism on religious culture at the time), the notion that mystery plays didn't exist in the time span of 300 BCE to 300 CE is, well, silly.

One would have to be sticking one's intellectual head in the ground to ignore the existence of the public plays performed in Eleusis concerning the goddess Demeter, or those in Egypt concerning the god Osiris, or even those in Rome concerning the god Mithras (which Justin Martyr himself referenced). O' course, Dionysus would provide the best example, and the Dionysian mystery cult was most likely developed analagous to Pythagoreanism (it is believed by some scholars that Pythagoras "created" the Dionysian cult by importing the Osirian model to a Greek audience).

Even The Bacchae has demonstrable examples of mystery play enactments. It dates to around 500 BCE.

C'mon, now, where did one think the term 'mystery schools' came from in the first place???

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks for the references.

I provide this in return...it won't teach you anything, Heretic, but you might get a kick out of it. Note the author. Who would thunk it?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/..._of_the_Mystery_Religions_on_Christianity.htm

Wikipedia has a good write up on the mystery religions, too, for those of us (like me) requiring a basic grounding in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_religion


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Thanks for the references.

I provide this in return...it won't teach you anything, Heretic, but you might get a kick out of it. Note the author. Who would thunk it?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/..._of_the_Mystery_Religions_on_Christianity.htm

Wikipedia has a good write up on the mystery religions, too, for those of us (like me) requiring a basic grounding in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_religion


Regards,


Steve

Thanks for the return references.

I've read the essay by Dr. King before, and it just tends to make me respect the man (and liberation theology) all the more. Still, even if the text is familiar to me its always good to have a revisit.

The wikipedia article essentially reiterates what I was trying to say in my last post about the existence of mystery schools and plays in Hellenistic culture. Thanks for the resources.

Ta.

 

[kenpo tiger]

It's fascinating to see that the ideology of religion doesn't really vary much from one to the next. I'd never heard of Mithraism prior to reading your (Herry) posts and those of one or two others (nods to HHJH), which I suspect was intentional due to the great similarities in the description of Mithra and the Almighty as interpreted by my religion. So, too, the references to Christ and Mithra having caves as a recurring theme and the eerie convergence (to my way of thinking) of Mithraic holy days with those of Christianity.

Tell me again why *some* think their religions are unique (in the sense that they're different from others). Seems to me, the more I read of other religions, the more they sound like mine in more ways than not.

As always guys, provocative!:supcool:

 

[heretic888]

It's fascinating to see that the ideology of religion doesn't really vary much from one to the next. I'd never heard of Mithraism prior to reading your (Herry) posts and those of one or two others (nods to HHJH), which I suspect was intentional due to the great similarities in the description of Mithra and the Almighty as interpreted by my religion. So, too, the references to Christ and Mithra having caves as a recurring theme and the eerie convergence (to my way of thinking) of Mithraic holy days with those of Christianity.

Tell me again why *some* think their religions are unique (in the sense that they're different from others). Seems to me, the more I read of other religions, the more they sound like mine in more ways than not.

As always guys, provocative!:supcool:

Hrmph. Good question.

My answer would be to take a gander at the wikipedia article that Steve linked. As it points out, the various mystery schools during the Hellenistic period were very tolerant and very open to one another --- to such a significant degree that the delineations between one another was very hazy. Syncretism, its called.

This held true for the early Christian gnostics, as well. They tended to be very open to other Christians and even to Pagans and Jews. Paul himself quotes from Pagan philosophers in his letters (the Platonic allusions being the most obvious). Darn tootin'.

The only difference we see is in the 'literalist' school of Christianity that emerged in Rome around the middle of the 2nd century (and eventually became the state religion of the Empire under Constantine). As the literalist Justin Martyr himself points out, the only real difference between his Christianity and the Pagan philosophies is that he maintains his god to have physically, literally existed. The mystery sages didn't think for a second their gods were historical beings. Neither did the Christian gnostics.

Of course, Justin later explains away the obvious parallels between his religion and the mystery schools by one of the most contrived arguments ever devised: diabolical mimicry. It was the same arguments fundamentalists used to combat evidence for evolutionary theory in the 19th century (i.e., the Devil created that evidence in advance for the sole purpose of tricking you!!). Its important to note Justin never denied the parallels and commonalities (even citing the Mithraic ritual of drinking wine and eating bread to mystically commune with one's deity), only said that they were Satanic tricks.

Personally, I'm more leaning toward the perennial philosophy. But, that's just me.

 

[Bester]

So, it's all a fiction. Still doesn't make faith invalid.

 

[heretic888]

So, it's all a fiction. Still doesn't make faith invalid.

Nope, although it does depend on what you mean by 'fiction' here...

I personally think faith has a very important function in terms of the mythic-membership self, role/rule conceptions, social personae, sociocentric connecitivity, con-op rationality, and so on. Please note that this 'faith' is not always theocentric in nature (as the Stalinists and Maoists kindly pointed out), and can take on some very ugly forms (both theocentric and secular).

In any event, 'faith' is an essential --- and unavoidable --- component of human development (both for good and ill).

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry to be pedantic--and accurate--but you playin' on my turf.

When you discuss "miracle," and "mystery," plays, you are discussing products of the medieval era in Europe.

Yes, there were previous discussions of miracles. yes, there were things like the Eleusian Mysteries, to which you allude.

However, the terms "miracle and mystery plays," are technical terms that apply to a very specific genre, in a specific place, at a specific time, and no amount of pretended, "hrmpfs," or attempted insults (one wrote, "attempted,") concerning sticking one's intellectual head in the sand change the meanings of the technical terms.

It's a relatively trivial point--one had noted considerable agreement, which apparently you do not find important--concerning literature and its history, but it is accurate.

Nor will claims that there are different ways to see this be of value--in this limited and technical sense, you're just plain wrong.

If we were you, we'd wallow in the agreement, and accept it. Otherwise, we go to the professional references...

 

[heretic888]

Sorry to be pedantic--and accurate--but you playin' on my turf.

When you discuss "miracle," and "mystery," plays, you are discussing products of the medieval era in Europe.

Yes, there were previous discussions of miracles. yes, there were things like the Eleusian Mysteries, to which you allude.

However, the terms "miracle and mystery plays," are technical terms that apply to a very specific genre, in a specific place, at a specific time, and no amount of pretended, "hrmpfs," or attempted insults (one wrote, "attempted,") concerning sticking one's intellectual head in the sand change the meanings of the technical terms.

It's a relatively trivial point--one had noted considerable agreement, which apparently you do not find important--concerning literature and its history, but it is accurate.

Nor will claims that there are different ways to see this be of value--in this limited and technical sense, you're just plain wrong.

If we were you, we'd wallow in the agreement, and accept it. Otherwise, we go to the professional references...

Wallow, I shall, although I personally think one is pulling hairs here.

I'm also surprised a Mr. Perfesser Point-Head such as yourself couldn't see the obvious humor and sardonism in the post in question. My comments concerning your use of third-person and "intellectual head in the sand" were obvious jokes. Y'know, tee hee, giggle giggle. Oh, piffle.

Ok, I shall ammend my previous statement. The Christian gospels were not in fact based on the mystery/miracle plays. Rather, they were based on the Hellenistic mysteries that just happened to have public plays, performances, and pageants accompanying them.

But, shhhhhhhh, they weren't mystery plays!! (even though they were plays and theatrics re-enacting existing religious mysteries and myths, and oh well, never mind..)

Tongue-in-cheekly yours,
"Heretic" (<< quotation marks, w00t!!!!)

 

[tongsau]

Time to weigh in here...

1) Conerning Josephus, he wrote his books close to 100 CE. This makes his documents nearly 70 years (more than a full lifetime at the time) removed from the events they purport to record. He's what you call a secondary source. And, considering he never cites historical sources for his claims, we can only assume he is going on popular legend at the time anyway.

b) The reference to "James, Brother of Jesus" while accepted by most scholars, doesn't hold out to critical examination. Josephus wrote to a Greek audience, to whom the term "Christ" would have had no meaning. Josephus himself would have had no reason to refer to "Jesus, who is called the Christ" as he never mentions him in any other extant accounts (the Testimonium Flavius being regarded as spurious almost universally).

2) The Talmud poses problems, as well:

a) It never makes any direct references to "Jesus", only vague allusions that Christian apologetics have drawn upon. The allusions in question are more commonly associated with a mystic/magician named Joshua who was accused of heresy and hung in the 1st century BCE. This Joshua was most likely one of the literary bases for the fictitious Jesus Christ character created in the 2nd century CE.

b) The Talmud itself dates no earlier than the 4th century CE.

3) Pliny the Younger writes after 100 CE, and tells us nothing about Jesus. He only mentions the use of Christian rituals of the time.

5) If Jesus is so historical, why does every event of his purported life --- without exception --- correspond exactly to events found in mystery school myths?? And why are early Christian apologetics like Justin Martyr forced to explain away this coincidences with contrived arguments like 'diabolical mimicry'?? Couldn't he simply quote Josephus and Tacitus to debunk the Christ-detractors (unless, of course, those forgeries had not been written yet)??

6) Why, furthermore, do the docetic/illusionist strands of Christianity (such as the Marcionite and Valentinian schools) --- which deny the literal, physical existence of Jesus on Earth --- seem so abundantly more commonplace in the first two centuries CE?? Why do the genuine letters of Paul reflect this docetism and themselves refrain from ever citing biographical details (or direct sayings) of Jesus??

'Nuff said.

1) What about the bone box, a custom dropped roughly 20 years after his death.
2) You must be unaware that Jesus is Yeshua Itsadak (sp) or Jesus of Nazareth in English. Personally I hate when we change the pronounciations in English. -Selavi

5) This is actually a biblical teaching. We are only allowed to draw from what we learn or distort from God's mouth. For instance we began to kill when he mentioned die. All things come from the Creator. All subjects orignate in his word. We have only expounded his message. This is a deep concept that requires much understanding of scripture. For small example.
Religions of the world all contain a common theme of Mother who gave birth to a god. And the mother is to be worshiped All peoples have this concept. Even some Catholics worship Mary. This all started because of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. Nimrod (his Hebrew name) was a killer who set himself up to be worshiped as the Sun god. He was, believed to be, struck down by God and a few years later his wife sired a child and said she gave birth to him incarnate. Set herself up as an object of worship. It was sometime around here that the Tower of Babel was destroyed and the people confused of thier common language and scattered. This is why the ledgend of "Etana of Kish" or NMHR the leopard tamer is worshiped today as Osiris, Ra and whatever else the sun god is called in other languages.
The tower footings are still in existence today.

6) I would have to guess that it was much easier to refute the early church due to less Dogmatic statements handed through the letters of Scripture. When John wrote his first letters he referred to many false branches of Christianity. Namely the Gnostics.

Regardless of the fact if you believe the Bible to be true. How do you explain how the big bang started. Where is it's center. Why can't the logic of this science be duplicated? How do you explain the proven science of a young earth and moon? How do you explain the salt level in the ocean, the oil reserve amount. How do you explain the fact that Humans who have supposedly been around 100s' of thousands of years only started to build structures around 2500 B.C. (give or take your dating method) Man has only been building for the last 5000 years? And we begin with things as grand as pyramids? How much change has there been in man in that time. We still understand the stories of the Bible. The humor of the bible. Man laughs the same. Thinks relatively a little worse. The average person today couldn't write a letter structured much like the Bible and not even as well as the Declaration of Independance. We are deteriorating. Not advancing. Medical science has to keeep us alive. But only a few hundred years ago it took plauges to kill us. Now we die from fried chicken and soy sauce.

 

[heretic888]

Oy vey. You just make this too easy...

1) What about the bone box, a custom dropped roughly 20 years after his death.

Three things:

First off, what relevance does this have to the fact that Josephus is not only a secondary source (as concerning the historical plausibility of Jesus Christ), but that his two extant references to Jesus are suspect (in varying degrees) of literalist Christian forgery?? What is the significant correlation here??

Secondly, sources please. Cite verifiable proof that this "bone box" custom was dropped during this time span.

Thirdly, stop collapsing causation and correlation. Better yet, take an introductory science class to understand the differences between the two.

2) You must be unaware that Jesus is Yeshua Itsadak (sp) or Jesus of Nazareth in English. Personally I hate when we change the pronounciations in English. -Selavi

Nope, you must be unaware that the term 'Yeshua ben Nazareth' (<< correct transliteration, by the way) is not found anywhere in the Bible or any early extant Christian documents.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Hell, even excerpts from the Greek version of the Torah, the Septugaint, are used to "refute" (snicker snicker ralph) learned rabbis in Israel. These excerpts differ significantly from the proper Hebrew translations, making the whole scene not only implausible --- but further highlighting that the authors of the New Testament could not speak nor write Hebrew. In addition, saying attributed to Jesus in this Greek New Testament indicate an ignorance of existing Jewish laws (in which he forbids women from divorcing, apparently forgetting women didn't have divorce rights at the time) and the wording of the New Testament indicate a bold ignorance of Israeli geography. Whoever wrote the New Testament was not only unable to read/write Hebrew, but had apparently never been to Israel or familiarized himself with its standing laws.

The term used to identify Jesus in said document(s) is Iesous. As people like Tim Freke and Pete Gandy have pointed out, this word is a forced transliteration of the Hebrew name Yeshua (properly transliterated as 'Joshua', not 'Jesus', in English). Meaning, it is a slightly altered version of the proper transliteration of Yeshua for the purpose of having the numerological value of 888 in the Greek gematria system. Even Christian apologetics like Origen and Irenaeus admit that Jesus' name has "magical significance", and is revered by the "Pagan sages".

Furthermore, the term "of Nazareth" is never used to identify Jesus in the Bible. The term "Jesus the Nazarene" sure is, but the Nazarenes were a Gnostic sect. It is a little known fact that the town of 'Nazareth' didn't even exist prior to the 300's, when the Church founded the town posthumously to fulfill the Biblical story. Josephus never mentions Nazareth in his description of Hebrew provinces, even citing areas that would have been of far lesser importance. No big surprise there.

5) This is actually a biblical teaching. We are only allowed to draw from what we learn or distort from God's mouth. For instance we began to kill when he mentioned die. All things come from the Creator. All subjects orignate in his word. We have only expounded his message. This is a deep concept that requires much understanding of scripture. For small example.

No, contrary to your erroneous claims to the contrary, the concept of 'diabolical mimicry' is not contained in the Bible. You clearly don't understand the actual content of this rather ridiculous argument, so I'll just direct you to its source: Justin Martyr, a mid-2nd century apologetic. Happy hunting.

Now, it could be argued that a similar concept, 'divine prefigurement' (which puts a more positive light on things than 'diabolical mimicry') is potentially in the Bible (albeit vaguely worded). But, that's another subject altogether...

Religions of the world all contain a common theme of Mother who gave birth to a god. And the mother is to be worshiped All peoples have this concept. Even some Catholics worship Mary. This all started because of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. Nimrod (his Hebrew name) was a killer who set himself up to be worshiped as the Sun god. He was, believed to be, struck down by God and a few years later his wife sired a child and said she gave birth to him incarnate. Set herself up as an object of worship. It was sometime around here that the Tower of Babel was destroyed and the people confused of thier common language and scattered. This is why the ledgend of "Etana of Kish" or NMHR the leopard tamer is worshiped today as Osiris, Ra and whatever else the sun god is called in other languages.

I suggest you stop relying on pre-existing, plagiarized myths from the Bible as a source of "history" and start relying on scientifically-verified data. The 'mother' archetype is very common in mythology, spread far beyond the confines of the Mediterranean. There is no plausible way, for example, that Native Americans were influenced by any Babylonian culture.

You might want to read up on a little Campbell, Jung, and Frazier on this one.

Oh, and by the way, in Engligh we call that sun god you were talking about by the name 'Jesus Christ'. Maybe you've heard of him??

The tower footings are still in existence today.

Prove it. Cite peer-reviewed, scientifically-validated sources. Of course, we all know you won't, since this particular claim is a steaming pile of hogwash...

6) I would have to guess that it was much easier to refute the early church due to less Dogmatic statements handed through the letters of Scripture. When John wrote his first letters he referred to many false branches of Christianity. Namely the Gnostics.

It is almost universally accepted that "John" did not write the apostolic letters attributed to him. Or, rather, that the author of the Gospel of John and the author(s) of the Letters of John are two completely different people. Furthermore, the third letter of John was written by a different author than the first two. And, the Revelation of John was written by yet another author.

By my count, that's four different "Johns" in early Christendom. Funny.

In any event, these letters are never cited by any apologetics until after the second century --- beginning notably with Tertullian (circa 207 CE), who himself later converted to the Montanist sect of Gnostics.

Therefore, its not surprising that these letters demonize Gnostic sects like the Simonian, Marcionite, and Valentinian --- the three aforementioned sects were well-established before the ideology behind the John letters, the literalist sect centered in Rome, had begun to take root.

So, again, the point remains: its a rather bizarre embarassmant to conventional Christian historians that Valentinianism and Marcionism were so proliferated and well-spread while literalists only existed in Rome (at least during Justin Martyr's time). Its also a bizarre embarassment that the first "bibles" found in Christianity are Valentinian and Marcionite collections. Its even further embarassing that Paul's authentic letters (more Galatians, less Pastorals) reflect this emerging docetic/gnostic ideology.

Regardless of the fact if you believe the Bible to be true. How do you explain how the big bang started. Where is it's center. Why can't the logic of this science be duplicated?

I personally think the manifest universe was initiated via kenosis (self-emptying) by a transcendent Spirit that is both nondualistically prior to, but not other than, phenomenal existence.

In any event, pointing out the "inexplicable" nature of much of the universe's mysteries doesn't somehow make your fictional paternal deity any more plausible.

How do you explain the proven science of a young earth and moon?

I don't really have to explain that which is not true. Unless, of course, you have a valid, peer-reviewed scientific journal that can corroborate any of your claims??

How do you explain the fact that Humans who have supposedly been around 100s' of thousands of years only started to build structures around 2500 B.C. (give or take your dating method) Man has only been building for the last 5000 years? And we begin with things as grand as pyramids?

Again, your knowledge of both history and science is deeply flawed. Pyramids were no the first 'scructures' created by humans, and we were building things long before 2500 BCE. Hell, even Neandertal artifacts and tools remain that predate that.

I suggest taking an Ancient Civilization class, and perhaps a few anthropology courses. You might learn a thing or two outside of your ideologically self-fulfilling lies.

We still understand the stories of the Bible.

You apparently don't.

The humor of the bible.

Yep, that whole slaughtering of the innocent first-born by the Angel of Death. Oh, and the conquering of non-aggressive civilizations because of a tribalistic belief in 'divine right'. Oh yeah, and the whole, "you may take slaves" part in Leviticus.

You're right. The Bible's a laugh a minute.

The average person today couldn't write a letter structured much like the Bible and not even as well as the Declaration of Independance.

Are you now suggesting the Bible was written by "average" people??

We are deteriorating. Not advancing. Medical science has to keeep us alive. But only a few hundred years ago it took plauges to kill us. Now we die from fried chicken and soy sauce.

Seriously, dude, go to school. You really need a few science classes under your belt.

Ta ta.

 

[raedyn]

The average person today couldn't write a letter structured much like the Bible

Cultures, languages, and writing styles change over time. Every generation has claimed that the one after them will be the downfall of civilization and while there have been some signifcant paradigm shifts over the centuries, there has yet to be an end to society.

An "average person" didn't write the Bible anyway. "The Bible" is many texts written by many different people spread out over a few centuries, which has since been translated, edited, added to, removed from, and translated again many many many times. It's not the Bible was the work of one person at one time. Even today, an "average person" working alone over a weekend would get a much different product writing a book than a team of people working over generations on that same book. And if you subscribe to the beliefs of some segments of Christianity and say the book is the literal word of God, written down by men who were "divinely inspired" - well, you still can't say that they were your "average person".

So to compare that work with someone's letter writing style is absurd, and it's hardly evidence of the deterioration of our entire species.

 

[heretic888]

Honestly, raedyn, I wouldn't take anything tongsau wrote in his last paragraph too seriously...

Among the things spouted out in rapid-fire fashion was the "young age" of the earth and moon, the notion that our immune systems are collectively breaking down (along with the assumption that our medical technology somehow does not constitute an evolutionary adaptation), and that the Egyptian pyramids were the first "structures" ever built by human beings.

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about. It would perhaps behoove individuals such as this to take a few introductory science courses to actually learn a little fact between the 101 myths.

In all seriousness, though, the entire last paragraph seems to be little more than a distraction device. Instead of arguing for the plausibility of Jesus Christ's historical existence --- or providing contextual proof that the Synoptics are the oldest Christian documents and that literalism is the "original" Christianity --- tongsau retreats into an "attack the messenger" type mode where he starts attempting to attack a bevy of alternative models, including big bang theory, evolutionary theory, and sociocultural development. This is clearly a mild ruse to "cover his own tracks", an attempt to conceal the obvious implausibility of his own position (which, in all likelihood, is believed in on the basis of blind faith).

Of course, its easy enough to see through --- but, I think you get the point.

Laterz.

 

[tongsau]

These are not merely attacks but logical thoughts that I can't ignore when I try to weigh your arguments.
Where are your sources? Prove that you exist based on peer reviewed documents. That's silly.
Anyone with have a brain can see the flaws in your bias. You believe that Jesus didn't exist and that is universally accepted. Well you are universally not paying attention to the start of this thread. Like the majority of people that argue against God/Christ you have not proven anything except to ramble off many unexcepted and some historical "write ins" that you claim are the reason you don't believe. It is a proven fact that man lies. And history with it. The Word of God can only be judged on it's own merit. not the "supposed" history. Time and time again the Bible has stood up to careful scrutiny and all that is left is a few archealogical proofs. 100 years ago there were thousands of unaccepted scienctific statements in scripture. All proven in the last 100 years to be true. There are a few left. But nowhere near the list that started. Some (Sproul) say only 5 are left to have scientific/archeological basis. Peoples we know didn't exist now found to have records, Ramsees not being found in any writings. Jews not showing up in Egyptian record etc. all proven in the last few years. We know that the words, regardless of your arguements, were written at the time they are attributed to the people that they say wrote them. All except a few like Hebrews, whose author is still unknown today. Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonian Exile. No deal with the prophecy fulfilled. Of course you dismiss this by saying the events didn't happen. So I ask you: How did they pull it off within such short a time when it didn't happen. Your rank was obviouly attained by argument. You are quite good at by the way. Thinking is your weak point.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Fact is fact -- it is proven, therefore it is a fact. Saying *proven fact* is redundant.

And, if man has been proven to lie, then are you saying that the Bibles -- all of them -- which are written by man -- are lies? Seems like you are.

I thought this thread died a natural death -- from exhaustion.

 

[tongsau]

All men have lied means that everthing they have ever said is a lie? Interesting intellect.

 

[heretic888]

These are not merely attacks but logical thoughts that I can't ignore when I try to weigh your arguments.
Where are your sources? Prove that you exist based on peer reviewed documents. That's silly.
Anyone with have a brain can see the flaws in your bias. You believe that Jesus didn't exist and that is universally accepted. Well you are universally not paying attention to the start of this thread. Like the majority of people that argue against God/Christ you have not proven anything except to ramble off many unexcepted and some historical "write ins" that you claim are the reason you don't believe. It is a proven fact that man lies. And history with it. The Word of God can only be judged on it's own merit. not the "supposed" history. Time and time again the Bible has stood up to careful scrutiny and all that is left is a few archealogical proofs. 100 years ago there were thousands of unaccepted scienctific statements in scripture. All proven in the last 100 years to be true. There are a few left. But nowhere near the list that started. Some (Sproul) say only 5 are left to have scientific/archeological basis. Peoples we know didn't exist now found to have records, Ramsees not being found in any writings. Jews not showing up in Egyptian record etc. all proven in the last few years. We know that the words, regardless of your arguements, were written at the time they are attributed to the people that they say wrote them. All except a few like Hebrews, whose author is still unknown today. Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonian Exile. No deal with the prophecy fulfilled. Of course you dismiss this by saying the events didn't happen. So I ask you: How did they pull it off within such short a time when it didn't happen. Your rank was obviouly attained by argument. You are quite good at by the way. Thinking is your weak point.

Once again, a rapid-fire spewing of untested, unverified claims -- most of which have been flat-out debunked by modern scholarship. Surprise, surprise.

Of course, tongsau doesn't even attempt to logically defend any of his positions. There is a veiled attack on the scientific method and the ability of human beings to "know" anything. Even a nice little reference to some stuff Descartes talked about (you cannot feasibly doubt the existence of your own mind).

But, nope. No actual citing of sources. No defending of one's position. Just more 'attack the messenger' type arguments. To say God must exist (which, by the way, I never actually brought up) because "science is crap" is a logical fallacy. Not to mention pretty silly.

And, of course, there is the ad hominem style personal attacks. "Thinking is your weak point," and all that silliness.

Diggin' a hole, I guess.