The Bible (a discussion)

But you are so easily confused, Frank.

I think not...and I think you think not also.

I think your sentence here was a rather mealy-mouthed attempt at an insult or a failed attempt at humor.

If it was a mealy-mouthed insult...try to stay way from that kind of thing. It is beneath you.

If it was an attempt at ironic humor...ahhh...well...sometimes humor fall flat.

It's a known fact that Jesus walked the earth, perfomed miracles, died on the cross, and I believe, due largely in part to logic and research, did in fact rise from the dead.

The proof is out there!! There's more evidence outside the Bible than inside to prove it's accuracy, and that Jesus fulfilled it's prophecies. How do we know this, BECAUSE THE ROMAN'S HISTORIANS WROTE ABOUT IT!!

There's more proof supporting the Bible than then there is that George Washington even existed.

But non-believers will always find away around it rather than take a real close look at the facts.

I was referring to a Talmudic comment, which I had read in some book was a reflection on an actual oath taken by exiled Jews in Babylon after the destruction of the second temple. That book is not with me anymore so I can't look up the reference for the historical oath to a Babylon king. I can't find it online either, which makes me doubt about the certainty of that historical interpretation...

The Talmudic passage is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

You can read the full tractate on the Jewish Virtual Library (Ketubot 110b and 111a) but most of it is about how much money to pay a divorced wife.

In essence, the 3 oaths say that the promised land is still somewhat promised but men should not do anything to secure the promise, e.g. they should not emigrate as a group or as an army to Palestine. God will care for that promised land stuff when and how he sees fit. Similarly, God will send a messiah in due time, but men should not fret about it and name this or that guy messiah (as some rabbis did in 130 with Simon Bar Kokhba).

This was useful I guess because the Jews didn't need yet another messianic war, after losing two or three in a row. The rabbis had to cool off messianic passions. In effect they say: forget about messianism and national liberation. God will take care of that.

The three oaths are nowadays the main basis for some orthodox Jews' opposition to Zionism. But the trick is: the third oath was that God was to see to it that the nations among which the Jews are exiled don't treat them too bad. Some say that side of the bargain was broken during the Holocaust, giving Jews a new right to come en masse to Palestine.

1st off, you pray to a zombie - kinda eeky! The bible is just a self aggrandizing fantasy storybook.

The rest of your stuff is just goobel-d-gook. Not a hint of truth in it. Jesus, if he existed, is known of very little. Just because books and stories have been written about a myth doesn't make it true - the person or the myths. Priests are not historians and do not carry a need for balance.

George Washington not existed - because why? Your most bold faced lies of all!

And yet, I still believe very dearly in that zombie - Jesus and believe (not know) he existed and still exists in a very strange cereberal form......

I gotta agree with Heath here.

The Old Testament mentions that there was an "Egypt"...and we know from the physical evidence that there was (indeed, still is) an Egypt.

And the New Testament mentions Rome...and the emeror of Rome...and we know from the physical evidence that there indeed was a Rome and that for much of its existence, it was ruled by an emeror.

Jesus H. Christ...what more proof do you want that Jesus rose from the dead?

http://www.jariiivanainen.net/canwetrustcriticismoftheBible.html

http://www.jariiivanainen.net/canwetrustcriticismoftheBible3.html

"Number of copies:

Caesar 10
Livius 20
Plato (tetralogies) 7
Tacitus (annals) 20
Tacitus (smaller volumes) 1
Plinius the Younger (history) 7
Thukydides (history) 8
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8
Herodotos (history) 8
Horatio
Sofocles 193
Lucretius 2
Catullus 3
Euripides 9
Demosthenes 200
Aristotle 49
Aristophanes 10
Homer (Iliad) 643
New Testament over 24,000




Interval between original
text and earliest copy

Work
Caesar 1,000 years
Livius
Plato (tetralogies) 1,200 years
Tacitus (annals) 1,000 years
Tacitus (smaller acts) 900 years
Plinius younger (history) 750 years
Thukydides (history) 1,300 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 800 years
Herodotos (history) 1,300 years
Horatio 900 years
Sofocles 1,400 years
Lucretius 100 years
Catullus 1,600 years
Euripides 1,500 years
Demosthenes 1,300 years
Aristotle 1,400 years
Aristophanes 1,200 years
Homer (Iliad) 500 years
New Testament 25 years"

actually as far as I can tell the earliest extant copy of a small portion of the new testament is about a century after what might have been the fact, not 25 years. plenty of time for mythmaking to creep in, and for a number of other books detailing what people believed were the facts to be written. it was only a couple centuries later that these other books were purged, because they didn't fit what the convention who purged them believed, even though they were what other branches of chrisitanity-to-be believed.

Bill, how do you know George Washington existed?

Also, did you skip over the part where the same Roman's that persecuted him wrote about him? Or do you expect me to believe that they just made it up?

Now that's funny!!

I'm not the liar, and I don't think you are either. I think you're just believing a lie.

Were you there?

Of course not

Let's simplify a little bit. But let me first start by saying I don't believe just because my mom told me to. I came to a point where I wanted to know if God was real. I wanted to know why, how, and so on and so forth. If there's one being that's responsible for everything, I wanted to get to know him. Years later, after many, many, readings, watching, and searching, I now do believe.

I don't condemn or judge anyone who doesn't. I just don't think you've looked hard enough, or long enough into it. Please don't take it personal.

Sometimes when you start a journey such as this one, funny, peculiar things tend to happen along the way, that are hard to explain away.

Back to simplifying things. Here's a question I asked myself years ago that helped spark my interest. What in the heck is a ghost? And before you say you don't believe in them either, remember, if 10 million people claim to have communicated with one, and only one was telling the truth, then ghosts exist.

„If 50 million people say something stupid, it is still a foolish thing.“
-Anatole France

Take a deep look into the making of The King James version of the bible, and the dead sea scrolls.

Also, look into who these people were listed above, what they wrote, and why.

Keep in mind when doing so, that not everyone could write back then. And ask yourself why would a scholarly person, one of few who could even write, waste time telling fairy tales?

If these scholars were liars, why lie about someone they didn't even want people to remember? They said "he existed". Wow, what a lie, and a stupid one considering their position, if that's the case. People took things much more serious then the last few generations do, back then.

C'mon, it's simple. I want to hear what a non-believer thinks a ghost is?

A figment of your own imagination?

So you don't believe in ghosts?

Why would I believe that the figments of your imagination are real?

Yes, I've often wondered that about Homer and Ovid and Virgil and other Greek and Roman story-tellers. Why on earth. . .?

Not to mention Cervantes, Shakespeare, Hoffmann or Victor Hugo... Such wankers!