Vatican Very Concerned About The 1500-year-old Bible

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Oh boy...

Who exactly is this they you speak of? The people who painted the pictures I suppose....I may as well just stop now with this line of thinking....

If you want people who actually knew, the answers are out there and they aren't on paintings done by people who weren't there...But it's always aliens so why even try?

Must be the vatican!
Well he couldnt have been human so that only leaves alien, besides he rose up in the sky ftw!

So by your logic any "normal" person couldn't do this so it was aliens....?????

Um, that was by no means any normal person....But it is nice to see you believe that he went to heaven and was real...Maybe the rest will hit you later....Oh and when it does, he was no alien...Don't question the power of God.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Show me your god. Please..

Does he have a direct number to call ? or is it one of those.. leave a voicemail and hope he responds sort of deals>?

a reply to: Triton1128

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein Show me your god. Please.. Does he have a direct number to call ? or is it one of those.. leave a voicemail and hope he responds sort of deals>?Text

I have the number. Get a pencil and paper. Have you got the pencil and paper? Okay here is the number. No area code or prefix involved. ---- 53787 -- memorize that number. When you call just tell Him that I gave you His number. He will be happy to hear from you and He does love you. LOL

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Show me your god. Please..

This is when he's expected to toss his rod down and it swims off like a snake. Can't wait!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Proof of the Lord

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well the original Gospels were written in Greek. So why is Greek a credible language for original authorship, but not Italian?

The Gospels we have today came to us from Greek manuscripts but the originals are believed, by some, to have been in Aramaic and or Hebrew. We may never know but that is based upon the Jewish teaching that the first Christian congregation did not allow any Greek influence into their teachings and the first Christian teachers were the Apostles themselves.

James the Just was priest of first Christian Synagogue and he taught in the Hebrew/Aramaic liturgy. Greek influence did come into play some time later but the original congregation discouraged any Greek and absolutely forbid Roman influence of any sort. Roman influence entailed that most all Rome spoke and communicated by the Greek but the legalistic records were kept in Latin. At least this is my understanding.

The Gospel of Barnabas is mostly agreed as to have been penned in Italian about 1600 and in Spanish about 1800. By this I am led to believe that this Italian work was not by a Jewish means at all and not represented in any of the dead sea scrolls whatsoever. It is often confused with the Epistle of Barnabas from the 4th century but are two entirely different works.

I believe the intent of the Gospel of Barnabas was to destroy the work of Jesus and bolster Islam. My own opinion of course.

a reply to: Seede

So if you are going to argue that even the oldest versions of the bible that we have are translations, how can you say for sure that they are saying what they should be saying? Seems to me that even THEY would be untrustworthy translations.

It clearly was aliens. And now the Vatican sh#ts pants, because all their fabricated lies and history forgery is trashed by the real 1500 year old bible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Seede

So if you are going to argue that even the oldest versions of the bible that we have are translations, how can you say for sure that they are saying what they should be saying? Seems to me that even THEY would be untrustworthy translations.

Why is that Krazy? You know my stance on all this and I am not saying one way or the other.....Just wondering why you would claim they would be untrustworthy translations?

If a book was written today by let's just say 50 people listening to 1 person talking, would you think the same way?

Again, not saying you are wrong or right, just interested.....

I think you are really missing the point though if you are worried about others interpretations.....You aren't supposed to listen to anyone's interpretation and do that for yourself....Just sayin buddy

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Show me your god. Please..

This is when he's expected to toss his rod down and it swims off like a snake. Can't wait!

Why would I show someone who doesn't believe what God looks like? How exactly would you expect me to do this? I tell you what, I will push his image to you by Osmosis, you ready??

originally posted by: Triton1128
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Show me your god. Please..

Does he have a direct number to call ? or is it one of those.. leave a voicemail and hope he responds sort of deals>?

What's really cool? You don't even need to pickup the phone! You can do this all by yourself in the comfort of your own bed, couch, floor, whatever you would like....Best of luck!

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Seede

So if you are going to argue that even the oldest versions of the bible that we have are translations, how can you say for sure that they are saying what they should be saying? Seems to me that even THEY would be untrustworthy translations.

Why is that Krazy? You know my stance on all this and I am not saying one way or the other.....Just wondering why you would claim they would be untrustworthy translations?

Well if you were to go back and read what we were talking about instead of jumping into the middle of the conversation, you'd know that we were talking about the Gospel of Barnabus and Seede was saying that it wasn't a valid Gospel because it was written in Italian.

If a book was written today by let's just say 50 people listening to 1 person talking, would you think the same way?

Again, not saying you are wrong or right, just interested.....

I'd distrust any book written from memory of someone else talking. Though as to how MUCH I'd distrust, that depends on what the secondary source is saying the primary source said. It also depends on how verifiable the information is too.

I think you are really missing the point though if you are worried about others interpretations.....You aren't supposed to listen to anyone's interpretation and do that for yourself....Just sayin buddy

Actually I'm employing a debate tactic where I'm trying to get the person I'm talking to to see how his reasoning can be applied to other things that he accepts.

This is all so subjective and speculative, so I'll just throw this in the mix.

About 10 years after my mother died, she came to me in a dream for the first time. She said three things.

"The bible is the book of Satan, not God."
"The bible is the book of Satan, not God."
"Don't drink the water."

Could very well be true for all we know.

Here's the thing. Jesus may have existed. The words he spoke may well have contained phrases like, "We are all children of God," which in turn could have easily been miscontrued or miscommunicated into, "I am the child or son of God."

And again, as to the crucifixion, common practice in those days and times for a multitude of offenses, and most probably on a stake and not a cross.

Who knows. All in all, certainly not something I would base my life or bet my afterlife on, but to each his or her own.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Seede

So if you are going to argue that even the oldest versions of the bible that we have are translations, how can you say for sure that they are saying what they should be saying? Seems to me that even THEY would be untrustworthy translations.

Why is that Krazy? You know my stance on all this and I am not saying one way or the other.....Just wondering why you would claim they would be untrustworthy translations?

Well if you were to go back and read what we were talking about instead of jumping into the middle of the conversation, you'd know that we were talking about the Gospel of Barnabus and Seede was saying that it wasn't a valid Gospel because it was written in Italian.

If a book was written today by let's just say 50 people listening to 1 person talking, would you think the same way?

Again, not saying you are wrong or right, just interested.....

I'd distrust any book written from memory of someone else talking.

I think you are really missing the point though if you are worried about others interpretations.....You aren't supposed to listen to anyone's interpretation and do that for yourself....Just sayin buddy

Actually I'm employing a debate tactic where I'm trying to get the person I'm talking to to see how his reasoning can be applied to other things that he accepts.

I apologize buddy! You didn't quote what you were talking about....No offense meant buddy!

Like I said, just interested.....Even if it wasn't on the topic you were discussing....

So you don't believe a lot of history then I take it? Not just in this case but basically direct quotes of leaders/military/etc.....

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Who knows. All in all, certainly not something I would base my life or bet my afterlife on, but to each his or her own.

Care to elaborate? What WOULD you base your life/afterlife on then?

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
I apologize buddy! You didn't quote what you were talking about....No offense meant buddy!

It's fine. You do know you can click on the links to people's names in a post that says "a reply to: ..." and a window pops up with the entire text of the post that post is responding to right?

Like I said, just interested.....Even if it wasn't on the topic you were discussing....

So you don't believe a lot of history then I take it? Not just in this case but basically direct quotes of leaders/military/etc.....

Again, I said it relies on how verifiable the information is, but as a whole all history should be taken with a grain of salt. Humans are liars and we like to hide things we are ashamed of. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some TRULY nasty things in the past that have been covered up or that history isn't exactly like historians say it is (and it isn't, historians update the picture of the past all the time).

In fact, I'd say that being a TRULY honest historian is akin to its own science. You have to take into account every little thing someone said or did in their lives. Take into account the different types of sources (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and how meaningful they are to the account being studied. What the claims actually are and how they relate to other claims made in the same era. Verify any hard evidence.

Keep in mind, if your claims of deeds done in the past involves supernatural events, then you are going to get a strong measure of disbelief from me. Only because you need a tall order of supporting evidence to go along with those claims.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep in mind, if your claims of deeds done in the past involves supernatural events, then you are going to get a strong measure of disbelief from me. Only because you need a tall order of supporting evidence to go along with those claims.

Yeah but only for your piece of mind....I never try to swing your beliefs do I? I just give you why I or the reason for my own beliefs....

Yeah if interested in some "history" translations that went wrong, please see here:

www.lackuna.com...

That is only 5, there are MANY issues with not only translations of quotes but also the interpretations of them.....That's why it should all be taken with a grain of salt really.....It's what you personally believe in, or your translation....

Take into account the different types of sources (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and how meaningful they are to the account being studied. What the claims actually are and how they relate to other claims made in the same era. Verify any hard evidence.

Now this here though, doesn't other than "verify hard evidence" apply? Not the 1,500 year old one we are also discussing, are there other claims made in the same era that go against what is stated in the Bible? If so, by who or how many that makes you dismiss the idea of it actually being real?

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Who knows. All in all, certainly not something I would base my life or bet my afterlife on, but to each his or her own.

Care to elaborate? What WOULD you base your life/afterlife on then?

That's a private matter, so no, I don't care to elaborate.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Who knows. All in all, certainly not something I would base my life or bet my afterlife on, but to each his or her own.

Care to elaborate? What WOULD you base your life/afterlife on then?

That's a private matter, so no, I don't care to elaborate.

Respect.....Just asking.....

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Well the claims in the bible contain a lot of supernatural events. So it already gets a strike in book in the disbelief category, but there are even some less fantastical events that happened in the bible that don't align with outside sources. Herod's massacre of the innocents doesn't align with outside sources.