Well, I'm only 15. BUT I HAVE FEELINGS I NEED TO EXPRESS!

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
The bible teaches quite straight out the marriage of a man to his wife, not wifes.

Hello Arella Mae,

Is Questioner also Cobbler?

i think it was 700 wives and 300 concubines

......... BS BS

That's your opinion, with your preconceptions of what harm is. Please stop crying.

......... etc etc ramble ramble

I think you should go so your mommy can hold you. There are far better arguments against Christianity.

Typical right christian BS, take a 15 year old boy, who decides to questions the bible then belittle him and address him as if he is a 2 year old needing his mummy instead of treating him like an adult and explaining where he maybe going wrong.

Oh I forgot you can't do that because the bible contradicts itself and was compiled, edited and updated by a sun worshipper in the 4th century

and anyway its loosely based on the teachings of Saul (The self-proclaimed Apostle, who never met the jesus),

sure you aren't even sure what Jesus name is (Iesus, Yeshua, Yeshu, Joshua, Yehoshua, Eesho, Eashoa etc etc)... or his title.

When you get that right maybe then you could start lecturing,

but what are you gonna lecture him with.... hey the worlds only 6000 years old and Noah packed all the dinosaurs into the ark, which was a box,

and God murdered the entire world in a childish whim (I think God needed his mummy there)....

blah blah blah or God made the earth before the sun,

The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart. This is because you have to expend energy to separate them. You have to pull against the gravitational force attracting them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of the whole universe, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy of the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

(Stephen Hawking, The Theory of Everything, p.111)

or how the sun circles the earth

and how god makes the universe appear old just to test us into not believing the earth is 6000 years old ???

I see someone deleted the post, oh well........

Religion can be degenerative to the intellect of human beings, and the it goes against thinking for yourself...

Actually he didn't research this on his own; he simply watched a video, stole all of their facts and didn't leave a citation. Suggesting himself as the author.

Video

You don't think I've questioned the Bible? Heck, I read 90% skeptic literature because most of what I find that "defends" Christianity out there is a big farce, and in the end many major points aren't addressed by apologetics. Every point that he has addressed has not only been addressed by traditionalists ten times for every grain of sand in this world, but I was kind of irritated to see it as the main argument. Usually it just accompanies as a lesser argument to a big argument, such as the problem of evil, or something like that.

The majority of allegations of biblical contradictions have been addressed. The Bible was compiled into a single book at the Council of Nicea in 325, but before then it certainly existed, and every copy we have since the apostolic age (earliest is mid-2nd century), as well as quotations from the Apostolic Fathers show a 98% textual similarity, with the 2%'s origins (or about 150,000 word variations) shown as variation such as from "Jesus Christ," to "Christ Jesus." No contextual variation in any sense. Sun worshipper? The only relationship between the sun and Jesus Christ is the fact that He is called the Sun of Righteousness in Malachi 4:2, and that Sunday is the Lord's Day.

g
Paul is the main thrust of the development of the theological Jesus, which in itself shoots down the not-too-rarely heard critic claim of no historical Jesus in his epistles, although Paul does describe some of Christ's history, such as the Last Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), and other in-between bits of information upon which he builds, or rather from which he expounds his theology. This in itself could be used to point to a very early date for at least one of the gospels, though it could be due to his encounter with the apostles in Jerusalem. In my opinion, the latter is most likely, not only because it's unlikely that any of the gospels were written in the 50's, but due to linguistic inconsistencies. So, an answer to your assertion, although Christianity is quite indebted to Paul, not only spiritually, but in the spread of the early Church, it's inconsistent to believe that he was the sole founder. This is due to the fact that although his main thrust is almost always theological, it's not always spiritual (i.e. The resurrection of the dead relies on a physical Christ).

For this reason it's suggested that Paul "hijacked" Christianity from the apostles in Jerusalem and established "Pauline" Christianity turning it from a Jewish-oriented community, to a world religion as its aim. It seems to be about the most plausible theory scepticism has to offer, especially when the non-Pauline epistles seem to concentrate on the significance of works, whereas Paul focuses on the importance of faith. Acts does have a narrative where Peter explains to the other apostles that the Gentiles are to be also saved, however this part was written by Paul. However, for this theory to work there are many issues to be worked out. The gospels' Great Commission for one, the narrative of the Pentecost which was written by Luke, not Paul, and the numerous messages of salvation for all people by the biblical Jesus.

Jesus is the English one. Iesus is the Latin one. Yeshua/Yeshu is the Jewish version of the English Joshua. I don't really see what your point is. His titles are many, although also having been shared by others, the context is definitely different: Anointed One (Daniel 9:27), Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2), servant (Isaiah 53), Messiah, Lord, God, king, King of kings, Lord of lords, etc.

This isn't exactly breaking news for traditionalism...In fact, in my opinion, this skepticism falls lower than that of Acharya S, which is not good, though better than arguments of outrage, and a copy-pasted list of "God killed X, and Y was sad, and Z shot his mom," contradictions.

Actually, today I watched a documentary by the history channel that has found ancient boats of those sizes; Greeks used them for carrying obelisks. The argument is that in 2X00 BC there wasn't the technology to make a boat 600ftx300ftx62ft to withstand the waves of a world-wide flood. I guess I'd have to go into it, although I've asked the dad of a friend of mine who has studied the matter and is in practice a shipbuilder, who told me that it would be possible, though it would be pointless (I was just expecting him to say, "Ah, you're thinking about Noah's Ark" any second).

Gilgamesh Epic
In Gilgamesh's journey, he met Utnapishtim. The elderly Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh the story of the flood. Warned by a god, Utnapishtim had made an ark and sealed it with pitch. Then he made his family go in and he shut the door.

Utnapishtim's story says it rained six days; the water rose only to the roofs of the houses. After the waters receded, the Utnapishtim story described him releasing a dove, a sparrow and a crow.

Yeah, that sucked for them.

Although I've read alot out of Hawking's, "Theory of Everything," and "Brief History of Time," and "Universe in a Nutshell," I'm fairly far away from being able to criticize the Big Bang. However, interestingly enough, the Inflationary Model, the current accepted beginning of the Big Bang theory, seems to depend upon a single philosophical proposition: that gravity is negative energy. This absurd notion is supported by the reasoning that it takes more energy to pull apart two particles in opposite directions due to gravity, resulting in the creation of matter.

Am I missing something, or does it take less energy to put two particles together as well due to gravity? And, by this theory, since distance weakens gravity, mass would also have to lessen in particles, which is not observed. Interestingly enough, Hawking states that "one can show" it.

It's funny how, when the Church was pressured to conform to the "science" of its day, it turned out to be false 1000 years later and is now blamed for "upholding" it. Reminds you of evolution today doesn't it.

I used to believe that because I didn't know anything, but I wasn't even a true Christian back then.

I did, because it was pointless to answer, but your response is refreshing.

Well the fact is we weren't there (Well I hope not), so we don't know for sure, evidence is lacking from the romans (actually theres non but a partially gforged document - 7 Dissertations given by Josephus the jew), and basically anyone else who lived at the time.

Earliest copies of anything to do with the Bible if seriously looked at confirm its editing.

The new testament should be looked at it with great caution. The Catholic church spent so much time destroying originals that there always seems to be something dodgey going on (they also had a habit of changing text to fit their purpose). The lack of pre-4th cent. evidence is worrying, (especially when bits are found that read something different from ours ( or turns out to be quite shorter than the versions we have today)), which points to add-ons and edits

Gospel of Mark is a good example, the shorter the version, the earlier it is

The John Rylands Fragment

This papyrus fragment dates from about 125AD. It contains sections of John 18:31-33 and 37-38. It is the probably the earliest bit of the NT that we have and pushed the accepted composition date of John back considerably when it was published., still 90 years after Jesus' death.

The Gospel of the Ebionites seems to be based on the Gospel of Matthew, with the exception of the nativity part, which could lead to a lack of nativity in the early version of Matthew, (many people think that it was a late addition into Matthew, possibly at the council of nicea to represent the Sun God Mthras's birth which is very similiar. (Born of virgin in stable/cave, on 25th december, etc etc))

The Gospel of the Nazoraeans is another version of Matthew, like the Gospel of the Ebionites, only fragments remain, but what is interesting is that both where written in Aramaic, which you may know is Jesus' spoken language.

Even when you look at more modern prints, for example "the two-volume King James Bible that was printed by John Baskett in 1716-1717" got nicknamed "The Vinegar Bible" due to a misprint, it titles Luke 20 as "The Parable of the Vinegar" instead of "The Parable of the Vineyard", it also gets called "The Basket Full of Errors", showing a complete lack of care in its creation. So imagine that it was the only surviving version in a 1000 years time, you will the get "Holy Vinegar" churches!!

Paul didn't hijack Christianity, as he wasn't a Christian, James the Just lead the Christians (Jesus brother, but not really his brother as Mary only had one kid and Joseph wasn't his father as god was etc etc), Paul led the Catholics, the catholics didn't steal the Christian name for quite a few hundred years later.

The point is what is his true Aramaic name? what was he actually called, similar to the translated word "God" of the old testament, there are several words all translated to the one, and nobody actually knows what the true one is.

Flood, not even worth getting into a serious debate about, there's always floods, many many traditions have them, if u look at alternative non-biblical text then you even get different Christian versions. Was there a flood, probably, there was a flood here last year, but I doubt God had anything to do with it.

What about quantum physics, all things are created from nothing, unless observed, so the universe is nothing.

There's still flat world societies……

Whats a true Christian, one mans true Christian is another mans devil.

rottie wrote:

Actually he didn't research this on his own; he simply watched a video, stole all of their facts and didn't leave a citation. Suggesting himself as the author.

Video

book marking this video, will watch later.

. . . I hope this isn't an allusion to the uneducated claim that Christians believed that the world was flat. Not only does Jesus express it's round (Matthew 12:39), but St.Thomas Aquinas, writing in the 13th century states it as a fact. . .

Matthew 12: 39?