Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Christianity Explored Course Update
97 Answers
I went to the first session of St Marks gospel which as I'm sure you know starts with the prophecy of Isiaah, on which the Christain myth depends.
I told them the whole prophecy is a lie and a fabrication, which made me very popular, at least with the other students.
I told them the whole prophecy is a lie and a fabrication, which made me very popular, at least with the other students.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
idiosyncrasy, //People will die for what they believe to be true ….//
Belief does not equate to fact.
None of the chroniclers you mention were contemporaries of Jesus. They wrote from hearsay – just as Paul wrote from hearsay – and extended the story to suit his own agenda. Christianity is Paulism.
I’m afraid the accounts from Mark and Matthew are conflicting. The ‘carpenter’s son’ and ‘the carpenter’ are not the same thing at all. It doesn’t automatically follow that a son adopts his father’s trade – and I don’t think Jesus did.
I didn’t say Jesus was illiterate. For the reason I’ve given, I think Jesus was probably rather educated.
//This is an indication to us of how severe his suffering was.//
…. but the point is Luke didn’t write it. However, have you noticed that from birth to death, the story tugs upon heartstrings? A tried and tested tactic for hooking people that still works today.
I would like some further information on your numbered claims – in particular number 2 where you state // Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date//
How do you rationalise accounts of the darkness that descended at the crucifixion, or of holy men, or as many versions of the bible would have it, ‘saints’ rising from their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem? Who were these people – and don’t you find it odd that there are no other records of those astonishing events? Saints are a Christian concept, as are the churches that Jesus is alleged to have mentioned, that would be built upon the rock that was Peter. The church was actually built upon the man that was St Paul.
I feel that your purpose in researching the bible is solely to justify your belief to yourself, whereas mine is to discover the truth of the story hidden beneath. Unless you acknowledge that the New Testament is contradictory, which it is, and that the texts have been altered many times – and we know without doubt that they have – you cannot be objective in your study. If part can be rationally disputed, then the whole must be called into question.
Belief does not equate to fact.
None of the chroniclers you mention were contemporaries of Jesus. They wrote from hearsay – just as Paul wrote from hearsay – and extended the story to suit his own agenda. Christianity is Paulism.
I’m afraid the accounts from Mark and Matthew are conflicting. The ‘carpenter’s son’ and ‘the carpenter’ are not the same thing at all. It doesn’t automatically follow that a son adopts his father’s trade – and I don’t think Jesus did.
I didn’t say Jesus was illiterate. For the reason I’ve given, I think Jesus was probably rather educated.
//This is an indication to us of how severe his suffering was.//
…. but the point is Luke didn’t write it. However, have you noticed that from birth to death, the story tugs upon heartstrings? A tried and tested tactic for hooking people that still works today.
I would like some further information on your numbered claims – in particular number 2 where you state // Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date//
How do you rationalise accounts of the darkness that descended at the crucifixion, or of holy men, or as many versions of the bible would have it, ‘saints’ rising from their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem? Who were these people – and don’t you find it odd that there are no other records of those astonishing events? Saints are a Christian concept, as are the churches that Jesus is alleged to have mentioned, that would be built upon the rock that was Peter. The church was actually built upon the man that was St Paul.
I feel that your purpose in researching the bible is solely to justify your belief to yourself, whereas mine is to discover the truth of the story hidden beneath. Unless you acknowledge that the New Testament is contradictory, which it is, and that the texts have been altered many times – and we know without doubt that they have – you cannot be objective in your study. If part can be rationally disputed, then the whole must be called into question.
Modeller@
Regardless of the fact that you seem to speak with authority, answer me this. If the Bible is a lie then why, in the face of all efforts over the centuries has it been preserved. Many thousands of copies of Tyndales translation were burned in the 16th Century and even more recently in 1960 in Colom bia and Puerto Rico. At one time it was a death sentence to hold a copy of the Bible. Even today in China, if you are found in a public place to have a copy of the Bible you are arrested.
If it is that the Bible writers are charlatans and fakes, why can you read the Bible and see the honest mistakes and faults of its writers. Unlike autobiographies of today where faults and mistakes are dismissed as immaterial because they give false impressions.
You prefer to look to imperfect men and their so called theories rather than looking to the source of all wisdom and knowledge. However knowledgeable they may be, experts in any field may have conflicting ideas and shifting opinions.
Although the Bible is a very old book, it is noteworthy that many ancient Bible manuscripts verify it. There are literally thousands of these ancient manuscripts in libraries and private collections throughout the world. They prove that today’s Bible has withstood the ravages of time and has been accurately copied and transmitted down to our day.
Although many of Jesus’ disciples were simple men and women, possibly with limited education, they did have another God-given asset at their disposal. Regardless of their background, all were endowed with reasoning power and thinking abilities.
Regardless of the fact that you seem to speak with authority, answer me this. If the Bible is a lie then why, in the face of all efforts over the centuries has it been preserved. Many thousands of copies of Tyndales translation were burned in the 16th Century and even more recently in 1960 in Colom bia and Puerto Rico. At one time it was a death sentence to hold a copy of the Bible. Even today in China, if you are found in a public place to have a copy of the Bible you are arrested.
If it is that the Bible writers are charlatans and fakes, why can you read the Bible and see the honest mistakes and faults of its writers. Unlike autobiographies of today where faults and mistakes are dismissed as immaterial because they give false impressions.
You prefer to look to imperfect men and their so called theories rather than looking to the source of all wisdom and knowledge. However knowledgeable they may be, experts in any field may have conflicting ideas and shifting opinions.
Although the Bible is a very old book, it is noteworthy that many ancient Bible manuscripts verify it. There are literally thousands of these ancient manuscripts in libraries and private collections throughout the world. They prove that today’s Bible has withstood the ravages of time and has been accurately copied and transmitted down to our day.
Although many of Jesus’ disciples were simple men and women, possibly with limited education, they did have another God-given asset at their disposal. Regardless of their background, all were endowed with reasoning power and thinking abilities.
Naomi@//I feel that your purpose in researching the bible is solely to justify your belief to yourself, whereas mine is to discover the truth of the story hidden beneath.//
No, I research the Bible to prove to myself that what I believe in is the truth and that there is a God who cares.
//but the point is Luke didn’t write it. //
Ah, but he did. Can you prove otherwise? Were you there when he wrote it? Who says Luke did not write it?
Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul, He was the writer of the Gospel and also Acts. He was well educated and the fact he was a doctor is noticeable by his use of medical terms. Luke 4 v 38 and Acts 28 v 8
It is true that he does not speak of being an eye witness to Christ which may suggest he became a believer after Pentecost 33CE.
//churches Jesus is alleged to have mentioned, that would be built upon the rock that was Peter. The church was actually built upon the man that was St Paul//
Wrong. Who did Jesus speak to at Matthew 16 v 18?
In order to understand the meaning here, we must start reading from Matt. 16:13. Christ asked the disciples, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Peter answered "You (referring to Jesus) are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Then Christ responded,"You are Peter (Petros, meaning little rock) and upon this rock (petra which means very great rock) I, (Jesus referring to himself) will build my church."
So where most people assume that Christ said he was building his church on Peter, they are wrong. The Great Rock, is Christ, upon whom the Church is built. Not Peter.
No, I research the Bible to prove to myself that what I believe in is the truth and that there is a God who cares.
//but the point is Luke didn’t write it. //
Ah, but he did. Can you prove otherwise? Were you there when he wrote it? Who says Luke did not write it?
Luke was a physician and a companion of Paul, He was the writer of the Gospel and also Acts. He was well educated and the fact he was a doctor is noticeable by his use of medical terms. Luke 4 v 38 and Acts 28 v 8
It is true that he does not speak of being an eye witness to Christ which may suggest he became a believer after Pentecost 33CE.
//churches Jesus is alleged to have mentioned, that would be built upon the rock that was Peter. The church was actually built upon the man that was St Paul//
Wrong. Who did Jesus speak to at Matthew 16 v 18?
In order to understand the meaning here, we must start reading from Matt. 16:13. Christ asked the disciples, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Peter answered "You (referring to Jesus) are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Then Christ responded,"You are Peter (Petros, meaning little rock) and upon this rock (petra which means very great rock) I, (Jesus referring to himself) will build my church."
So where most people assume that Christ said he was building his church on Peter, they are wrong. The Great Rock, is Christ, upon whom the Church is built. Not Peter.
//Ah, but he did. Can you prove otherwise? Were you there when he wrote it? Who says Luke did not write it? //
I do
The Gospels do not identify their authors within the texts
The earliest Gospels do not name their authors on the top
The 'authors' are simply traditional attributations that evolved in the early years of the church.
Now let me ask you a question about the Bible
How did it come about? who decided which books were in - which books were out
Who decided 'Luke' was to be part of the bible but the Gospel according to Thomas was not?
There are many books excluded
http://
Given this can't you see that actual flesh and blood men sat down and did an editing job and decided what should be in the Bible?
that it's the work of man not God?
I do
The Gospels do not identify their authors within the texts
The earliest Gospels do not name their authors on the top
The 'authors' are simply traditional attributations that evolved in the early years of the church.
Now let me ask you a question about the Bible
How did it come about? who decided which books were in - which books were out
Who decided 'Luke' was to be part of the bible but the Gospel according to Thomas was not?
There are many books excluded
http://
Given this can't you see that actual flesh and blood men sat down and did an editing job and decided what should be in the Bible?
that it's the work of man not God?
idiosyncrasy, //No, I research the Bible to prove to myself that what I believe in is the truth and that there is a God who cares.//
That’s what I said. You research it, ignoring the bits that don’t suit, to justify your belief to yourself.
//"You are Peter (Petros, meaning little rock) and upon this rock (petra which means very great rock) I, (Jesus referring to himself) will build my church."//
Nonsense! You know Peter wasn’t the foundation of the church, and Jesus certainly wasn’t. He was dead – and the principles he promoted certainly weren’t those that Paul encouraged. I don’t believe that Jesus ever said it –churches, for the reason I’ve given, weren’t in his remit - but Paul was the ‘rock’ – and a big one at that!
That’s what I said. You research it, ignoring the bits that don’t suit, to justify your belief to yourself.
//"You are Peter (Petros, meaning little rock) and upon this rock (petra which means very great rock) I, (Jesus referring to himself) will build my church."//
Nonsense! You know Peter wasn’t the foundation of the church, and Jesus certainly wasn’t. He was dead – and the principles he promoted certainly weren’t those that Paul encouraged. I don’t believe that Jesus ever said it –churches, for the reason I’ve given, weren’t in his remit - but Paul was the ‘rock’ – and a big one at that!
Modeller@The message of the Bible is the same regardless of which version you read. There are some versions that use the language it feels helps its readers. It does not alter the true message.
For example over time, certain words change their meaning - gay used to refer to people who were happy and joyous; today it means something completely different.
Dumb used to refer to those who could not speak; today is refers to someone who is stupid, or "thick".
There are translations that help the meaning of the scriptures to be more easily understood.
Naomi@No. You are wrong. Paul is not the "Rock". Does Petra or Petros mean Paul? No. it means Peter. On the meaning of this term Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 76) remarks: “Petros denotes a piece of a rock, a detached stone or boulder, in contrast to petra, a mass of rock.”
Therefore Peter is the one Jesus spoke to and Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith. I think you need to do more research but there again, you are only following the so called authorities who only use their own interpretations. The Bible was written and inspired by God's Holy Spirit. Therefore to have full understanding you need to call on the Holy Spirit through prayer. But you have to be sincere in prayer.
For example over time, certain words change their meaning - gay used to refer to people who were happy and joyous; today it means something completely different.
Dumb used to refer to those who could not speak; today is refers to someone who is stupid, or "thick".
There are translations that help the meaning of the scriptures to be more easily understood.
Naomi@No. You are wrong. Paul is not the "Rock". Does Petra or Petros mean Paul? No. it means Peter. On the meaning of this term Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 4, p. 76) remarks: “Petros denotes a piece of a rock, a detached stone or boulder, in contrast to petra, a mass of rock.”
Therefore Peter is the one Jesus spoke to and Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith. I think you need to do more research but there again, you are only following the so called authorities who only use their own interpretations. The Bible was written and inspired by God's Holy Spirit. Therefore to have full understanding you need to call on the Holy Spirit through prayer. But you have to be sincere in prayer.
Jake@
Do you believe archaeology? If you do, then you will find that archaeologists have unearthed much information that proves the Bible true. Places and events that historians and other so called experts claimed to not exist or occurred, have since been found to be so.
The Bible refers to a number of books that are uninspired, These would have been journals compiled from state records these may include:
Book of the Wars
Book of Jashar
The book of the covenant.
As to the writers, they are named in some of the books they penned.
Reading the Psalms many have the inscription - A Song by.....
In Habbakukk, he says "The oracle which Habakkuk the prophet saw." ASV
Many other prophets refer to themselves by name.
Do you believe archaeology? If you do, then you will find that archaeologists have unearthed much information that proves the Bible true. Places and events that historians and other so called experts claimed to not exist or occurred, have since been found to be so.
The Bible refers to a number of books that are uninspired, These would have been journals compiled from state records these may include:
Book of the Wars
Book of Jashar
The book of the covenant.
As to the writers, they are named in some of the books they penned.
Reading the Psalms many have the inscription - A Song by.....
In Habbakukk, he says "The oracle which Habakkuk the prophet saw." ASV
Many other prophets refer to themselves by name.
Ideo You are wriggling ! //They prove that today’s Bible has withstood the ravages of time and has been accurately copied and transmitted down to our day. //
Now you say
//Modeller@The message of the Bible is the same regardless of which version you read. There are some versions that use the language it feels helps its readers. It does not alter the true message.//
You cant have it both ways . It's either been accurately copied or its not.
You now admit it's not !
Now you say
//Modeller@The message of the Bible is the same regardless of which version you read. There are some versions that use the language it feels helps its readers. It does not alter the true message.//
You cant have it both ways . It's either been accurately copied or its not.
You now admit it's not !
idiosyncrasy, in your eagerness, you are missing the point completely. I am very well aware that Paul doesn’t mean rock – I was speaking metaphorically. He said it to Peter meaning that Peter, whose name means ‘rock’ would be the founder of the church. Had Jesus been talking about himself, he could have said it to anyone – but for obvious reasons, he specifically chose Peter. However, that aside, as it transpired neither Peter nor Jesus was the ‘rock’ upon which the church was built. Paul founded the church – hence metaphorically speaking one would be quite correct in saying Paul was the ‘rock’ upon which the church was built. If Jesus ever said it, which I doubt, he got it wrong – and playing with words to suit an agenda doesn’t change that.
Modeller@ I am not admitting it is wrong in any shape or form. Language has changed over the centuries. Either you are playing at being dumb or you are! You are playing on words. I said the message of the Bible has not changed.
From the very beginning until now, the message is the same. It is only by means of the Kingdom of God that the problems on this earth will be removed, and that Satan the Devil will be totally destroyed.
Take for example a child. You can teach a child many things but if you spoke to it in adult language it would not understand. You have to adjust your language (words) so that the child gets the message and understands. The same with the language of the Bible. The message has been accurately transmitted through the ages, but depending on the language of the day, (or people) it has been adjusted accordingly.
Naomi@ // Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date//
You say you have studied the Bible, then you should know. You don't really need me to tell you.
From the very beginning until now, the message is the same. It is only by means of the Kingdom of God that the problems on this earth will be removed, and that Satan the Devil will be totally destroyed.
Take for example a child. You can teach a child many things but if you spoke to it in adult language it would not understand. You have to adjust your language (words) so that the child gets the message and understands. The same with the language of the Bible. The message has been accurately transmitted through the ages, but depending on the language of the day, (or people) it has been adjusted accordingly.
Naomi@ // Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date//
You say you have studied the Bible, then you should know. You don't really need me to tell you.
/Do you believe archaeology? If you do, then you will find that archaeologists have unearthed much information that proves the Bible true./
Nothing in the bible has ever been proven true. There may have been corrobotative evidence that some of the events described in the bible took place but that doesn't make them 'true' any more than what you read in the newspapers is true.
Nothing in the bible has ever been proven true. There may have been corrobotative evidence that some of the events described in the bible took place but that doesn't make them 'true' any more than what you read in the newspapers is true.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.