Because Someone Needed To Do It

[Seraph]

Ok, so here is a good essay on Biblical mistranslation.
Have a read at it.

http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/bemaoms.html


To insist that the Bible contains "all of the word of God," and "the infallible word of God" conveniently ignores some very damaging facts to those people's belief system, and only to those people's belief system. You, who are literalistic, should turned a blind eye to the rest of this discourse but the rest, he that hath faith, wisdom, understanding and in constant communion with the Holy Ghost, read on.

Matthew 27:9-10 reads,

"Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelite, and they paid it out for the potter's field just as the Lord had commanded me."

The incontrovertible fact is there is no such passage in Jeremiah.

To assume the Bible contains all of what God revealed to man and word for words as God revealed it to man is extremely naive. It is saying man was able to preserve, collect and compile into one volume, everything that God revealed to man. That naive claim limits God's power and contradicts God's word that He CREATED ALL man, and LOVES ALL man UNCONDITIONALLY. That doctrine claims that God only cared for a small portion of Abraham's descendants. That naive claim says that God did not and still does not care about the millions of people living in the Orient, the millions of people living in India or ****stan, the millions of Arabs in the middle east who are the brothers and cousins of the Israelis. Instead, these people believe that God chose only a small band of twelve brothers through whom to communicate His will to mankind and hoped to hell everyone else heard about it. Sure, I can imagine God thinking, "Well, if not, no biggy!" These people contradict the very essence of God.

Where is the original Bible from which these literalists their information and proof? The fact is, no one has a copy of the original bible! The Bible was translated thousands of times by thousands of people and flunkies who had their own agenda.

[Case in point: King Constantine's contribution to Christianity. King Constantine was the Nobel Prize winner who astutely pronounced, after being jilted by his berdache, "It is a scientific fact that homosexuality causes earthquakes." Constantinople, the capital of Christianity for a couple centuries until about 600 A.D., after Muhammad had studied Catholic Christianity in Constantinople, he greatly like the city. Shortly thereafter, after receiving his first revelation and founding Islam, Constantinople was conquered by the Muslim Turks who wanted to conquer Catholic Christianity. Constantinople is today called Istanbul, Turkey. Christianity then rapidly moved to Rome, Italy (built on seven hills) which was the Great Babylon of that era, (see Rev. 17:9)]

Catholics have an additional 7 or 12 more texts to their bible than other Christians. Are they guilty of "adding to the Bible" or are Protestants guilty of taking away from the Bible. The fact is, not even the Catholics are missing some scriptures. There are about 10 texts referenced in the Bible which even the Catholics do not have! Strange! Especially in view of the fact that most Christians believe the Bible is the "infallible Word of God," why does the majority of Christendom lack, a minimum of at least twenty books?

If Christendom had everything that God ever said, the Christian World would know definitively, the answers to many many questions and man would not have to live by faith.

For the literalists who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, the King James Version also shows,

Zechariah 11:9
9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that (sic) dieth (sic), let it die; and that that (Sic) is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.

However, The New American Standard Version says,

Zechariah 11:9
Then I said, "I will not pasture you. What is to die, let it die, and what is to be annihilated, let it be annihilated; and let those who are left eat one another's (sic) flesh."


We'll ignore the cannibalism! Are the literalists saying that the double pronoun, "that that" is currently grammatically correct or was grammatically correct when revealed? If it was never grammatically correct in any language, are the literalists saying that God was telling man that it should be so or are they saying God was wrong? Did man record what God said wrong? Better still, are they willing to admit that man, the translator, goofed? Even if only a very innocent mistake, which other scriptures are the literalists admitting were botched by some, albeit well meaning but incompetent clerk? Or was it even the result of a clerk? Wasn't it the most learned people of that day?

The compilers of the New American Standard Version apparently found some documentation somewhere that says God did not say, "'that that' dieth, let it die," but rather according to the NASV He -- or was it he -- said, "What is to die, let it die." Which version are we to believe? The NASV the KJV? You can't have two different versions be "the infallible Word of God." What did God actually say?

The King James Version first published in 1611, wasn't even the first English translation. The First Calvin English Translation was published in 1578. However, we don't have the Calvin Bible. For some reason it and the text the translators worked from are lost. Instead, we now have seven of nine English versions, (The Tyndale published in 1526 - lost), (The Calvin English Translation published in 1578 - lost) The King James Version published in 1611, The Daby Version published in 1890, The Young Literal Version published in 1898, The New American Standard Version published 1901, The Revised Standard Version published in 1952 and The New International Version published in 1973. Additionally, in how many languages is the Bible translated? They all have a different twist to the same scripture. Are they equally "The Literal Word of God?" If not, which version is the revealed word of God's?

[Bluesky]

O my goodness.

Seraph, you are nicely avoiding my question. So I will not get drawn into yours until you answer mine. Deal?

I asked you, Show me the reasons why you believe the New TEstament was not written until 200 years after Christ. I want to see if there is any substance to your thought, or whether you are picking off cheap gimmies from infidel.org's website.

Do you actually THINK for yourself? My challenge had nothing to do with whether there are contradictions or grammatical mistakes in the Bible.

Folks, what Seraph is doing ehre is trying to control the dialogue.
She makes an assertion.
I challenge the assertion.
She ignores the challenge and makes another assertion.

That's no way to further the dialogue.. Shame.. I say.

I am currently in Que for a conference.. I will look in when I get back.

[Soundbear]

And there are many errors and assumptions in Seraph's post.

Seraph doesn't seem to be interested in dialogue, so there's not much point in addressing them.

[Seraph]

Thus is the whole point of THIS quote provided at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pearls%20before%20swine,%20Cast%20not

Cultural Dictionary

pearls before swine, Cast not

An adaptation of a saying of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. The entire passage reads, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

Note: The meaning of the passage is disputed, but seems generally to be that the followers of Jesus should pass his message on to those most likely to accept it.

Note: Generally, to “cast pearls before swine” is to share something of value with those who will not appreciate it.

END QUOTE

While there are many who would use the Religion boards to force others to follow what they think. I on the other hand ask people to question their own thinking.
No I'm not answering your questions, I would not do my child's homework either.

Rather than dissecting my conversation tactics and taking apart grammar, as I have quoted from someone else's site showing that these are not my ideas alone, why not take and invest enough time into actually arguing the context of that?
Oh, that's right. Where did I begin?
Yes, I recall now, Cast Not Pearls.

You do only USE the Religion boards. Does any one in your personal life actually tolerate your religious ideas?

I have no need to affirm my faith by displacing the ideas of others. If anything I stand to educate in the sight of ignorance, to which your display has been quite brilliant. In case you were wondering, yes, that may not be a good thing.

I will not brag, however, ok maybe I will. My faith has afforded me a position in my church where I now am making steps to change lives, teach, inspire and create hope.

This is my service to God.

Soonet is just what I do when I'm bored and feel like chatting people up in the Religion boards to see if anyone is worth talking to.

All you have done is thwart anyone's attempts at enjoying an actual adult religious debate with childish behavior, misplacement of gender pronouns and hurtful intent.

No wonder Gandhi does not like Christians.

I wish you weren't Christian sometimes. It is sad, it is.

The first reaction I get from most of my friends when I say that I am in my discernment for Ministry is "I never though you'd minister for a faith like Christianity, they're all so negative and hateful, it's so not you"

Then I have to say something like "My Church isn't like that" or "We're an affirming ministry" or "they need God the most"

Do you know how it feels to have to constantly defend the Christian faith because of people like you two who make us look like we suck?

The hardest part about my discernment is not finding my role in the Church. It's trying to get people to see that the church isn't what they see on the soonet boards, hoping we can still keep Christianity alive in spite of all the negativity created around it by people like you two.


Just to be clear to other sooneters, I AM a Christ Minded person. Until the time when more Christians are more Christ-Like, I will maintain that I live to be Christ-Like. Not Christian. Because you Christians, DISGUST ME.

[Bluesky]

We disgust you because truth disgusts you. The truth about Jesus disgusts you. Everything about the Bible disgusts you. Everything the Bible says, you give it a different meaning to suit your twisted sensibilities. You have designed your own religion and it has nothing to do with the Biblical Jesus. You are full of hatred and anger, and yet your words are saccharin sweet.

I see through your designs.

BTW Seraph, this discussion forum is not the real world. IN the real world, I know a number of Soonetters, and they know me. I don't think in the real world they find me disgusting. I am sorry you are so full of hate. I hope that changes for ya. It isn't healthy in the long run.

[NewCasa]

The first reaction I get from most of my friends when I say that I am in my discernment for Ministry is "I never though you'd minister for a faith like Christianity, they're all so negative and hateful, it's so not you"

Then I have to say something like "My Church isn't like that" or "We're an affirming ministry" or "they need God the most"

Do you know how it feels to have to constantly defend the Christian faith because of people like you two who make us look like we suck?

The hardest part about my discernment is not finding my role in the Church. It's trying to get people to see that the church isn't what they see on the soonet boards, hoping we can still keep Christianity alive in spite of all the negativity created around it by people like you two.

Just to be clear to other sooneters, I AM a Christ Minded person. Until the time when more Christians are more Christ-Like, I will maintain that I live to be Christ-Like. Not Christian. Because you Christians, DISGUST ME.

Seraph, I have to admit, I don't get this at all. First you say you defend the Christian faith and hope you can keep Christianity alive and then you say that you are not Christian and Christians disgust you. This sort of thing has been a theme of several other posts as well. It leaves me wondering as to what exactly are you beliefs.

On another thread you've stated that you are in training (whatever the fancy word is, I don't care) to become a Minister in the United Church of Canada. Well, to my knowledge, that is a Christian church. They believe in the Jesus story and they believe in the bible. I should know - that is the faith I was brought up in.

So how could someone who has been accepted as a Minister speak like this? Do you speak like this to the congregation? Because if you do I think your sermons must be quite confusing. Would it be possible for you to post one of your sermons? I only ask because I think it would shed a little light on what you actually believe and how you express that belief when you are not feeling defensive.

I mean no insults by the above, but I am quite perplexed and am just asking for a little clarity.

[theShadow]

"Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur are a type of delusion characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, or otherwise very powerful. It is a criterion for psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar mania. Delusions of grandeur are generally fantastic, often with a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious bent. In psychiatry, grandiose delusions are one of several diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia and bipolar mania. Delusions of grandeur are distinct from megalomania or narcissism, in that the sufferer does not have insight into his loss of touch with reality." -Wiki

[Soundbear]

That sounds about right, Shadow.

Skyblue nailed it too.

[Seraph]

Ok I'll make it clear.
People who use the Christian Faith to discriminate, or condone hatred disgust me.

I was talking to someone who used to have meetings in the GLBTQ community who is a retired Minister at the United Church. (yes a bisexual Minister)
He said that the attendance went from 8 people 4-6 people dropping in each night for a total of 8 attending semi regularly, but when it was no longer held in a church they had attendance over 30+ the next week.

People are AFRAID of the Church. Why? Because when you try to gain acceptance it's like eww let's close the door and lock out the *insert minority here* and it's like it's a social club for up tight middle class whites.

The people that go that aren't white middle to upper class feel like they don't fit in!

THIS IS NOT CHRIST LIKE.

The church is a place for EVERYONE.

I as a Minister make it my DUTY to make sure that the church is a SAFE and WELCOMING place for EVERYONE.

Unlike people on here, who are VERY UN-CHRISTIAN, who USE the bible for their OWN AIMS and DISCRIMINATE with MALICE and HATRED, I accept that JESUS DIED so that these people could STOP abusing GODS PEOPLE.

I'm Not Christian Like You (hate mongers and blasphemers, pharisees and hypocrites)

I'm Christian Like JESUS.

I Still Stand for GOD , JESUS, THE HOLY GHOST and most of all DIVINE LOVE.

You can't argue that with scripture, you can't debate that and THAT is why they hate me. They hate me because I have taken the tool they have used to manipulate, segregate, condone hatred and achieve their own aims and social status, control and to justify their own ideas of what they think the bible should be. Only to accuse others of that.

That's why I was just put in charge of several church programs. That's why the church and the whole congregation support me.

That's why I'll never consider people who use the bible to discriminate, argue or push their own ideas on people as Christians. But as long as the world thinks they are Christians, I will not be associated with these people

I will only be associated with my faith of being Christ Like.


Rather than debate all the scriptures and try to figure out the mistranslations and political inserts for control of a primitive society, I only ask one thing.

Would Jesus Agree? What would Jesus Say about that?
From what we know of the Savior, anything that contradicts him being a loving and forgiving person who accepts and who loves everyone, is bull. And anyone who uses this to justify their hatred and discrimination is as horrid as those who took part in the inquisition. I don't hate them. I LOVE them and PRAY that they will come to saving Faith and Grace in GOD. Through the acts of our Savior Jesus Christ who died for our sins.
Because as Blasphemy is sinful, and removes these poor souls from God, I pray that one day they will be with him.

A sin, is only a sin if it removes man from God.
Even if it's not written in the bible it's a sin to remove yourself from God through refusing to forgive and love others.

PERIOD.












Seraph, I have to admit, I don't get this at all. First you say you defend the Christian faith and hope you can keep Christianity alive and then you say that you are not Christian and Christians disgust you. This sort of thing has been a theme of several other posts as well. It leaves me wondering as to what exactly are you beliefs.

On another thread you've stated that you are in training (whatever the fancy word is, I don't care) to become a Minister in the United Church of Canada. Well, to my knowledge, that is a Christian church. They believe in the Jesus story and they believe in the bible. I should know - that is the faith I was brought up in.

So how could someone who has been accepted as a Minister speak like this? Do you speak like this to the congregation? Because if you do I think your sermons must be quite confusing. Would it be possible for you to post one of your sermons? I only ask because I think it would shed a little light on what you actually believe and how you express that belief when you are not feeling defensive.

I mean no insults by the above, but I am quite perplexed and am just asking for a little clarity.

[NewCasa]

Well Seraph, in it's way that answer makes some sense. Basically what I get is that you have an image of Jesus that you've decided is correct and you test everything against that. If even the bible goes agains that image you will reject the bible before you'll reject the image. I am not being critical Seraph, just trying to be succinct. I guess the next question would be: On what did you base this image you have of Jesus?

[Soundbear]

While answering that, please reconcile this story.

John 2:13-16
13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

[NewCasa]

Soundbear - seems to me that Seraph already said he didn't believe in the bible so I'm not sure why you'd be asking him to reconcile a part of the bible?

[Seraph]

It's not that I don't believe in the Bible.
I just have this lovely image of Jesus in my mind:
http://srbc-arnold.com/photos/Children/Jesus-Children-27%5B1%5D.jpg

Only he would be dark skinned, because I'm one for accuracy!

I can not see this man hating anyone. I can not hate anyone.

I reject anything that is not pure unconditional love and I do my best to deny myself any feelings of malice against anyone. These men have tried me to be sure by abusing my faith. As have those who have altered the Bible for their own political aims.

However I know the voice of God in my heart tells me that we are all human, imperfect and beautiful. Capable of so much. That Christ, the Savior became perfect and ascended. I want to be like Jesus.
Not like any pope or priest.

I want to see everyone for the good in them and nurture that good. Not damn their sins. I want to help people find peace and to be close to God.

The Bible inspires but it also condemns. I think it would be un-Christ-Like to condemn a sinner. Jesus forgives, he does not hate. That is my Jesus. I forgive. I do not hate.
I love everyone and pray that everyone may overcome and be one with God as Jesus is.

You want to argue that? Try and sleep. With THAT on your conscious. No Biblical truth can deny the Savior's Love for Everyone. I don't care how old it is or who wrote it Jesus is the last and final word and GOD is the First.
To Clarify it. Here's my version of the Bible.

God Created The World
God sent his son
His son gave perfect love and forgiveness
His son died for our sins
In heaven next to God, as one day his kingdom will come,
Guided by the light given to us by Jesus.

[NewCasa]

Seraph I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just trying to understand you. Some of the things you've said tonight help quite a bit with that. Thank you and good night.

[Bluesky]

"Here's my version of the Bible."

That pretty much sums it up, folks.

[Seraph]

"Here's my version of the Bible."

That pretty much sums it up, folks.

Someone who argues using another persons supposed weakness instead of their own strength eh?

It's ok Sky, you're only human and I forgive you:rainbow:

[Bluesky]

So you want to argue after all, eh?
Or do you only respond when you think you have a zinger of an answer?

Hypocrite.

I do not engage in ad hominem easily. People who have been here longer than you know that I hardly ever resort to name calling. But in this case, you truly fit the description, because you attempt to come across as pious and lovey, but your tongue is full of poison and deceit. Like those Pharisees of old, you are a blind leader of the blind, and will end up in a spiritual trainwreck, if you do not start dealing in truth, like many UCC ministers.

[Soundbear]

Seraph, you've taken the love of Jesus and ignored everything else. Your Jesus is not the One of the bible, a perfect sinless God, but a creation of your own mind. How bizarre is it to take part of the bible and believe the rest meaningless? Makes no sense at all.

I beleive the voice you believe to be God is the angel of light mentioned in the bible. I trust you know who that is.

[NewCasa]

Ok so I've got a question at this point - might sound like a dumb one, but here goes anyway:

Is the bible the ONLY source of information for Christianity?

[Bluesky]

Well, speaking for the Protestant side of Christianity, Yes. The only authoritative source. The Roman Catholic church believes that some traditions handed down through their belief in Apostolic Succession is also an authoritative source for Christianity. And that is basically what the big divide was over in the days of the Reformation, led by Martin Luther.

So in the Catholic Tradition, it is the Bible PLUS what the Magisterium decides is Sacred Tradition, and the Reformers went with Sola Scriptura (The Scriptures alone)

[NewCasa]

And basically anyone who is Christian but is not Roman Catholic is considered a Protestant right?

[Bluesky]

And basically anyone who is Christian but is not Roman Catholic is considered a Protestant right?

Those are basically the two categories. Although there are many cults that derive from both Catholics and Protestants who would probably deny being part of either 'wing'.

[Anapeg]

Ok so I've got a question at this point - might sound like a dumb one, but here goes anyway:

Is the bible the ONLY source of information for Christianity?

This, in essence is the crux of my problem with Religion. Why, was anything Biblical not mentioned by other notable authors of the day? A man feeding thousands with what should have fed a family, turning water into wine, etc. etc. ad nauseum would strike me as being noteworthy at the time. Corroboration is what is missing. It seems to me easy to be the authority when it is the only book mentioning anything about Earth shattering events, no?
Even in to-days jaded society something of that magnitude would be front page news, yet nothing was mentioned, or at least as far as I know. We have always passed on information starting with the cave men and their art.

[Bluesky]

Anapeg, you misunderstood. I said the Bible was our only AUTHORITATIVE source, but not our only source. There is plenty of literature from that period of time thath pointed to Christianity, described the Christian faith, or talked about Jesus.

But wer do not regard that literature as the source or basis of our faith.

[NewCasa]

Oh! Oh! Let me answer this one! I think I've got it! *raises hand*

The bible at the time actually WAS a whole bunch of separate books. It was the Talmud or whatever name you'd like to call the old testament plus it was a collection of eye-witness and later accounts of the Jesus story, plus a few other writings - the new testament. It was only 2 or 300 years after the death of Jesus that these stories became amalgamated under one book. So in a sense, there is corroboration built into the bible itself.

[Anapeg]

So in a sense, there is corroboration built into the bible itself.

So I can be my own corroboration, making me an expert? NO!


I did not think so. I look for a stand alone "Look what I just saw" moment from another trustworthy source.

[Bluesky]

No, NOCAsa, that is not the correct answer. Go to the back of the class.

I meant, there is corroboration of Christ's existence from the first century. Rabbinical writings, and historians (Josephus, Philo, et al.)
There was an explosion of literature from the followers of the first generation of Christians. Some of them we call the Early Church Fathers. I have all 33 volumes of their writings on my computer. And there is also some extant literature from critics of CHristianity, seeking to destroy its influence.

[NewCasa]

So I can be my own corroboration, making me an expert? NO!


I did not think so. I look for a stand alone "Look what I just saw" moment from another trustworthy source.

Ok - I'll try again here. Imagine it's 200ad, you're an early Christian and you want to do something good to support and expand your religion. You talk with your like-minded buddies and you all get together and go looking for stories about Jesus and other writings about the Christian faith.

When you get them all together, what you end up with is a bunch of 'testaments' (testimony?) by the apostles - basically each apostle has written his own account more or less in journal form. These have been pulled together from other cities, countries and maybe even other continents. They may not even all be in the same language.

So you put them all together into one book (another word for 'bible'). But, what you really have is a collection of journals all plunked down under the same cover, right? EACH ONE OF THESE IS STAND ALONE. Each one has been written by a different person, and often in different places since the apostles did their own 'diaspora' after the death of Jesus right? You've got Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. Each one has written his own account.

So, basically, what you've got is a whole bunch of 'look what I just saw' moments from a range of trustworthy sources - the apostles. Now, I would say that there would probably be at least two other records that could be used to substantiate this:

1) Court records from Herod's court.
2) Roman census records.

Herod's court records would show the sentencing of one Jesus of Nazareth and his subsequent execution. Probably not much more than a desultory note, but it'd substantiate at least that this happened.

The Roman census records would show a Jesus of Nazareth in at least one census. Actually, I believe the back story of Jesus' birth is that Mary and Joseph had been called to Bethlehem like pretty much everyone else in the land so they could take part in a census. Accordingly, the Roman census of Bethlehem (2 BC I believe was the birth year) would show Joseph and Mary, both of Nazareth and their newborn child, a son named Jesus.

I know that's not perfect corroboration, but given that each of the apostles' journals was written separately as their 'eye witness accounts' I'm thinking there would be some pretty decent corroboration going on in many facets of the story.

If we could prove that Jesus was born and then was executed that would be a very big step, don't you think? And then, given the accounts of the apostles we'd have to see about corroboration for some of the points in between, but with each corroboration parts of the story would become more believable, no?

Sky, are you aware of anyone looking into the census and court records in this manner? I'm sure it must have been done at some point, no?

[Bluesky]

The sacking of Jerusalem by Rome in 66-70 AD pretty much destroyed what records there were.
As far as proving he existed, that's already been done a thousand times. The onus is on the CHrist deniers to prove he didn't exist. That is, if you use the same standards of historicity that one uses for any other histroical figure.

[NewCasa]

No, NOCAsa, that is not the correct answer. Go to the back of the class.

I meant, there is corroboration of Christ's existence from the first century. Rabbinical writings, and historians (Josephus, Philo, et al.)
There was an explosion of literature from the followers of the first generation of Christians. Some of them we call the Early Church Fathers. I have all 33 volumes of their writings on my computer. And there is also some extant literature from critics of CHristianity, seeking to destroy its influence.

So you're telling me that the bible was written all at one time, place and author?

[Bluesky]

So you're telling me that the bible was written all at one time, place and author?

No, not at all. Where'd you get that?
I was talking about extra-biblical writings.
The Old Testament was complete and collated by the first century. The New testament was already recognized as a collection of sacred writings by the end of the 2nd century. But the writing of the gospels and the epistles all took place by various authors and various times by the end of the first century, most of them prior to 70 A.D.

[NewCasa]

No, not at all. Where'd you get that?
I was talking about extra-biblical writings.
The Old Testament was complete and collated by the first century. The New testament was already recognized as a collection of sacred writings by the end of the 2nd century. But the writing of the gospels and the epistles all took place by various authors and various times by the end of the first century, most of them prior to 70 A.D.

And I was talking about how the bible (new testament) could be corroborated from within itself since it really is written by many different authors at different places and times, several of whom attest to having been eye witnesses to Jesus' life and his death. You said I was wrong. Which part was wrong?

[Bluesky]

Ahh, now it gets confusing.
I thought you were trying to answer Anapeg comment was to say, No, that's not what I meant by corroboration. I would not use the Bible to answer an objection like the one Anapeg raised..

You were not wrong as far as the content of your post is concerned. Except maybe some of it is speculative.. i.e. we ahve no record of how it all happened.

We do know that church councils met to determine the various books of the New Testament.

[Anapeg]

And I was talking about how the bible (new testament) could be corroborated from within itself since it really is written by many different authors at different places and times, several of whom attest to having been eye witnesses to Jesus' life and his death. You said I was wrong. Which part was wrong?

Here in lies my problem. The authors of whom you 'speak' are all from within a clique. They all had an axe to grind so to speak. I seek evidential writings from out side this group. Either yourself or Blue made mention of a census, this would be wonderful. Or writings from others from outside Jesus group to say, "wow! Someone else with no connection made mention. Someone from "away" recognized some of these miracles of which Christians speak so freely. To date I've seen and heard nada, nothing, bupkiss. This is the "I'm from Missouri" moment I'm looking for.

This is where I upset our local Christians by looking for I believe they what call empirical proof. I don't think that I "don't believe" it is more I've not been convinced. One Book does not a history make. It takes more information from more diverse places, authors, etc. to convince myself. Good bad or indifferent, that's my standard and it will likely take me to my grave, and no further, apparently.

[Seraph]

"Here's my version of the Bible."

That pretty much sums it up, folks.


So you want to argue after all, eh?
Or do you only respond when you think you have a zinger of an answer?

Hypocrite.

I do not engage in ad hominem easily. People who have been here longer than you know that I hardly ever resort to name calling. But in this case, you truly fit the description, because you attempt to come across as pious and lovey, but your tongue is full of poison and deceit. Like those Pharisees of old, you are a blind leader of the blind, and will end up in a spiritual trainwreck, if you do not start dealing in truth, like many UCC ministers.



Oh Okay, you're just one of those UCC bashers, I forgive you. It's ok. Not many people understand the work of new affirming ministry.

Remember, we're on your side.

[Bluesky]

Oh Okay, you're just one of those UCC bashers, I forgive you. It's ok. Not many people understand the work of new affirming ministry.

Remember, we're on your side.

In your dreams.. or are they nightmares?

[Seraph]

Oh! Oh! Let me answer this one! I think I've got it! *raises hand*

The bible at the time actually WAS a whole bunch of separate books. It was the Talmud or whatever name you'd like to call the old testament plus it was a collection of eye-witness and later accounts of the Jesus story, plus a few other writings - the new testament. It was only 2 or 300 years after the death of Jesus that these stories became amalgamated under one book. So in a sense, there is corroboration built into the bible itself.

Oh don't say that! Sky has been asking me to back up that 2 or 300 years after the death part for ages, because I "made it up"
*giggle*


I don't feel like going back and educating people on well known basic history so be my guest!

[Seraph]

Ok - I'll try again here. Imagine it's 200ad, you're an early Christian and you want to do something good to support and expand your religion. You talk with your like-minded buddies and you all get together and go looking for stories about Jesus and other writings about the Christian faith.

When you get them all together, what you end up with is a bunch of 'testaments' (testimony?) by the apostles - basically each apostle has written his own account more or less in journal form. These have been pulled together from other cities, countries and maybe even other continents. They may not even all be in the same language.

So you put them all together into one book (another word for 'bible'). But, what you really have is a collection of journals all plunked down under the same cover, right? EACH ONE OF THESE IS STAND ALONE. Each one has been written by a different person, and often in different places since the apostles did their own 'diaspora' after the death of Jesus right? You've got Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. Each one has written his own account.

So, basically, what you've got is a whole bunch of 'look what I just saw' moments from a range of trustworthy sources - the apostles. Now, I would say that there would probably be at least two other records that could be used to substantiate this:

1) Court records from Herod's court.
2) Roman census records.

Herod's court records would show the sentencing of one Jesus of Nazareth and his subsequent execution. Probably not much more than a desultory note, but it'd substantiate at least that this happened.

The Roman census records would show a Jesus of Nazareth in at least one census. Actually, I believe the back story of Jesus' birth is that Mary and Joseph had been called to Bethlehem like pretty much everyone else in the land so they could take part in a census. Accordingly, the Roman census of Bethlehem (2 BC I believe was the birth year) would show Joseph and Mary, both of Nazareth and their newborn child, a son named Jesus.

I know that's not perfect corroboration, but given that each of the apostles' journals was written separately as their 'eye witness accounts' I'm thinking there would be some pretty decent corroboration going on in many facets of the story.

If we could prove that Jesus was born and then was executed that would be a very big step, don't you think? And then, given the accounts of the apostles we'd have to see about corroboration for some of the points in between, but with each corroboration parts of the story would become more believable, no?

Sky, are you aware of anyone looking into the census and court records in this manner? I'm sure it must have been done at some point, no?



I don't want to say anything I can't back up but it is well known that there is absolutely no historical reference to Jesus.
He's less provable than Merlin, King Arthur or Robin Hood. Who can actually be historically documented and are often looked at as fairy tales.

I've also heard rumor that Jesus is not his actual name. So that may help. Someone told me it once when I was sooo not paying attention to a long story by my old teacher at 3 in the morning as he so often woke me to give a lesson!

I wish I had paid closer mind now. It would have helped.

[Seraph]

The sacking of Jerusalem by Rome in 66-70 AD pretty much destroyed what records there were.
As far as proving he existed, that's already been done a thousand times. The onus is on the Christ deniers to prove he didn't exist. That is, if you use the same standards of historicity that one uses for any other historical figure.

So...prove it? Please. I need to see proof because I don't ever want to doubt the Jesus was alive. Do you know his other names?

*PS corrected all your spelling errs ;)

[Seraph]

No, not at all. Where'd you get that?
I was talking about extra-biblical writings.
The Old Testament was complete and collated by the first century. The New testament was already recognized as a collection of sacred writings by the end of the 2nd century. But the writing of the gospels and the epistles all took place by various authors and various times by the end of the first century, most of them prior to 70 A.D.
So ya already KNEW that and were yelling at me to prove it? *pfft* see why I don't pay you much heed in conversation!

[Seraph]

Here in lies my problem. The authors of whom you 'speak' are all from within a clique. They all had an axe to grind so to speak. I seek evidential writings from out side this group. Either yourself or Blue made mention of a census, this would be wonderful. Or writings from others from outside Jesus group to say, "wow! Someone else with no connection made mention. Someone from "away" recognized some of these miracles of which Christians speak so freely. To date I've seen and heard nada, nothing, bupkiss. This is the "I'm from Missouri" moment I'm looking for.

This is where I upset our local Christians by looking for I believe they what call empirical proof. I don't think that I "don't believe" it is more I've not been convinced. One Book does not a history make. It takes more information from more diverse places, authors, etc. to convince myself. Good bad or indifferent, that's my standard and it will likely take me to my grave, and no further, apparently.

Well if it would be received, I DO have historical evidence that someone who's life and times were Identical to those attributed to Christ. His name was not Jesus, but there are historically proven men in history who had the same life as Jesus. It's a story that's been in history for almost 10,000 years unless I am mistaken!

Jesus seems to be the modern version. I like it but sometimes the movie isn't as good as the book, ya know?

[Anapeg]

Well if it would be received, I DO have historical evidence that someone who's life and times were Identical to those attributed to Christ. His name was not Jesus, but there are historically proven men in history who had the same life as Jesus. It's a story that's been in history for almost 10,000 years unless I am mistaken!

Jesus seems to be the modern version. I like it but sometimes the movie isn't as good as the book, ya know?

At times I feel I ask for too much but it is that which I seek. To find references to Biblical stories from "outside" would go far in my book.(sorry for the reference)

[NewCasa]

I don't want to say anything I can't back up but it is well known that there is absolutely no historical reference to Jesus.
He's less provable than Merlin, King Arthur or Robin Hood. Who can actually be historically documented and are often looked at as fairy tales.

I would be interested to see your proofs of the historical/factual existence of Merlynn and Arthur. Robin Hood, not so much, but certainly the first two.

[NewCasa]

At times I feel I ask for too much but it is that which I seek. To find references to Biblical stories from "outside" would go far in my book.(sorry for the reference)

Actually, it was me who brought up the census, and given the level of efficiency of Roman beauraucracy I would say that the census documents from 75 years prior would not have been destroyed in the sack of Jerusalem, but would have also been found lying in duplicate in Rome.

[Bluesky]

So ya already KNEW that and were yelling at me to prove it? *pfft* see why I don't pay you much heed in conversation!

Now who has a problem with comprehension? Pfftt! ;)

You claimed the NT wasn't WRITTEN till 200 AD.

The evidence shows it was written well before the first century. We have evidence that the NT was COLLATED, recognized as a complete collection of sacred writings by the turn of the 2nd century.

[NewCasa]

The sacking of Jerusalem by Rome in 66-70 AD pretty much destroyed what records there were.
As far as proving he existed, that's already been done a thousand times. The onus is on the CHrist deniers to prove he didn't exist. That is, if you use the same standards of historicity that one uses for any other histroical figure.

A thousand times.... oh well - guess I missed the memo. Forever a doubter for lack of a memo. Sad actually. But for a nail the war was lost ;)

Sooooo....how come this guy couldn't seem to come up with proof?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article784417.ece

I am not challenging the existence of Jesus (in truth, I have a very open mind on this) but I am challenging your statement that it has been 'proven a thousand times'. If that were so, would this priest not just be able to pull the existing evidence, convince the judge and have done with it?

[Bluesky]

Well if it would be received, I DO have historical evidence that someone who's life and times were Identical to those attributed to Christ. His name was not Jesus, but there are historically proven men in history who had the same life as Jesus. It's a story that's been in history for almost 10,000 years unless I am mistaken!

Jesus seems to be the modern version. I like it but sometimes the movie isn't as good as the book, ya know?

Let's have the evidence.
Are you willing to discuss it if I can show you that there is no evidence?

[Anapeg]

Let's have the evidence.
Are you willing to discuss it if I can show you that there is no evidence?

I gotta pull up a chair for this one! Grab me a beer on the way past the fridge, babe!

[Soundbear]

Well if it would be received, I DO have historical evidence that someone who's life and times were Identical to those attributed to Christ. His name was not Jesus, but there are historically proven men in history who had the same life as Jesus. It's a story that's been in history for almost 10,000 years unless I am mistaken!

Jesus seems to be the modern version. I like it but sometimes the movie isn't as good as the book, ya know?

Fine, let's have it.

[Bluesky]

Well, I didn't say there are a thousand proofs. But I am sure the evidence that He existed has been posted a thousand times.

Here is some of it:

The Evidence from Roman or Roman Empire Sources
Suetonius, Claudias 25.4. De Vita Caesarum
Life of Nero 16.2
Tacitus, Annals xv.44.
Pliny the Younger, Epistles x.96-97.
Julius Africa.nus on Thallus
Lucian of Samasota, The Passing of Peregrinus.

Mara bar Sarapion.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.116-19
Josephus, Antiquities 20.200,
Josephus, Antiquities 20.200
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.7-8
Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.105-06
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17.

Rabbinic Sources and Evidence of Debate with the Church Fathers
b Sanh 43a and 107b
b ‘Abodah Zerah 27b, 16b-17a
Tosefta, Shehitat Hullin
‘Abodah Zerah 16b-17a
‘Abodah Zerah 27b
Justin, Dialogue 69:7
Justin, First Apology 30
Justin, Dialogue 108
Origen, Contra Celsum 1:68.
Justin’s Dialogue 69:7

Although some of these sources indicate a text written as distant as the 3rd century, some of these are sources that cite references that come out of earlier times. For instance Julius Africa.nus on Thallus.. Julius A quotes a m.a.nuscript her has, written by a historian who lived during the time of Christ's crucifixion, who confirms that on that day the sky went dark in the middle of the day. Which is what the Bible claims happened. Others are 'hostile' witnesses.

So, these proofs aren't going to mean much to you because you proably dont ahve access to these works. They are a list drawn up by one of North America's sharpest scholars, and to my knowledge has not been refuted.

[NewCasa]

Actually, I've been doing a little reading of my own here and come up with a couple of interesting articles. Anapeg, you might enjoy these:

http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-9.htm

http://www.historian.net/NTHX.html

Thanks for the post Sky and no, you never said 1,000 proofs. You said Jesus' existence had been proven 1,000 times.

Interestingly, reading through some of the material I'm indicating above I was reminded of a little bit of 'context' from something I've read prior - not even sure where I got it from but it sort of fits in. I read once that, around the time of Jesus and Herod and the initial Roman occupation there were actually two factions in the Jews - Herod was the leader of the ruling faction and the other faction (I can't recall names, sorry) was largely downtrodden by the faction in power. The story read that Jesus and his apostles were mostly all members of the downtrodden faction, which would actually give us a really good reason the Heroditans would want this 'upstart' put out of the way. In a sense, this would fit in well with the whole idea of the 'Christ', with the Jews at first calling Jesus the Messiah and then later saying that the Messiah hasn't really come yet.

[Seraph]

I would be interested to see your proofs of the historical/factual existence of Merlynn and Arthur. Robin Hood, not so much, but certainly the first two.

Look up Uther Pendragon (i think)

[Seraph]

Now who has a problem with comprehension? Pfftt! ;)

You claimed the NT wasn't WRITTEN till 200 AD.

The evidence shows it was written well before the first century. We have evidence that the NT was COLLATED, recognized as a complete collection of sacred writings by the turn of the 2nd century.

Then why fight about it, you just like fighting.

The book we have TODAY was written 200AD where they got the info from, who knows when it was written, it's old anyway ;)

[Seraph]

Fine, let's have it.

Kay just not right now I have soup on the stove and a salad to toss, just checking up so I don't have so much to read later.

I'll grab some info for you most likely when the kiddies are in bed tonight.

[Seraph]

Well, I didn't say there are a thousand proofs. But I am sure the evidence that He existed has been posted a thousand times.

Here is some of it:

The Evidence from Roman or Roman Empire Sources
Suetonius, Claudias 25.4. De Vita Caesarum
Life of Nero 16.2
Tacitus, Annals xv.44.
Pliny the Younger, Epistles x.96-97.
Julius Africa.nus on Thallus
Lucian of Samasota, The Passing of Peregrinus.

Mara bar Sarapion.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.116-19
Josephus, Antiquities 20.200,
Josephus, Antiquities 20.200
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.1.7-8
Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.105-06
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17.

Rabbinic Sources and Evidence of Debate with the Church Fathers
b Sanh 43a and 107b
b ‘Abodah Zerah 27b, 16b-17a
Tosefta, Shehitat Hullin
‘Abodah Zerah 16b-17a
‘Abodah Zerah 27b
Justin, Dialogue 69:7
Justin, First Apology 30
Justin, Dialogue 108
Origen, Contra Celsum 1:68.
Justin’s Dialogue 69:7

Although some of these sources indicate a text written as distant as the 3rd century, some of these are sources that cite references that come out of earlier times. For instance Julius Africa.nus on Phallus.. Julius A quotes a m.a.m****cript her has, written by a historian who lived during the time of Christ's crucifixion, who confirms that on that day the sky went dark in the middle of the day. Which is what the Bible claims happened. Others are 'hostile' witnesses.

So, these proofs aren't going to mean much to you because you probably don't have access to these works. They are a list drawn up by one of North America's sharpest scholars, and to my knowledge has not been refuted.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Give us proof that oh so underprivileged monkeys like us here hicks on the soonet cun git kay y'all?

I love correcting your spelling ;)

[Bluesky]

I don't mak spokkeing msistakes. They are all typos. :)

[Bluesky]

Follow NoCasa's links.

[NewCasa]

Look up Uther Pendragon (i think)

Uther the Pendragon, more correctly. Pendragon was a title, not a name. Sort of chief of chiefs - the chiefs being (you guessed it) Dragons.

I wasn't asking for references to other characters in the story. You offered a possibility of proof, so I was asking what you knew to that effect. Believe me, I know the story of Arthur extremely well and from many, many sources. Soooo....whatcha got?

[NewCasa]

Follow NoCasa's links.

Sky, in your experience, how do react to my comments regarding the Jewish factions and the Messiah? I'm quite interested in the historical aspects of this story and wonder what you've read that might substantiate those things. I'm trying to build a historical context since, to me if I can do that, the story becomes more believable in human terms.

[Seraph]

I gots a buddy with a masters degree in pre-world war European History who studied at Amsterdam who isn't online right now who spoke of proof.

I'd like to call my lifeline in on this one ;) He ain't answering.

[NewCasa]

I gots a buddy with a masters degree in pre-world war European History who studied at Amsterdam who isn't online right now who spoke of proof.

I'd like to call my lifeline in on this one ;) He ain't answering.

LOL. I'm patient. After all the story happened (if at all) about 1,500 years ago so I'm sure it won't go anywhere while you use your lifeline.

Your buddy would be a great guy to talk with. Post-Roman / Pre-Norman European history is fascinating.

[Seraph]

LOL. I'm patient. After all the story happened (if at all) about 1,500 years ago so I'm sure it won't go anywhere while you use your lifeline.

Your buddy would be a great guy to talk with. Post-Roman / Pre-Norman European history is fascinating.

That and he also has a masters in Philosophy, all my friends are very interesting!

I see the people I have in my life as amazing examples of humanity and constantly surround myself with such individuals as often as possible!