The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

Originally posted by Kapyong
But -
NONE are contemporary,
some are not even about Jesus,
some are obvious forgeries.
There is NO hard contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.
NONE.
Jesus was a myth.
Kap

Kapyong, you have been misinformed.
Paul the Apostle was contemporary. Even critical scholars believe that Paul existed and wrote some books of the New Testament.

The ones here are about Jesus, www.garyhabermas.com...

If you are referring to Josephus being a forgery, then my friend Glenn Miller has this to say:
"Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate.
By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!).
One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus. He writes:

"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)"

Jesus is real.

reply to post by texastig

If you did miracles and rose from the dead then I'd listen to you.

But what if I claimed to rise from the dead and then wrote it in a book? What you're believing are accounts copied from older versions about Jesus written decades upon decades after his death by Greek speaking scribes. Call me a doubting Thomas but I don't believe just because a book says its true.

Then you have history.

History bears out almost none of the Biblical stories and in those situations where the Bible mentions real people and events it also throws in unsubstantiated supernatural elements for which there is no evidence. Its like a special effects blockbuster "based on a true story" where lot's of supernatural sci-fi embellishments have been added.

Then you have prophecy.

Which is vague and open to wild interpretation and self-fulfillment. Prophecy of any kind fails on every level and Biblical prophecy is notoriously vague, cryptic, or metaphorical.

Many men have in the past have taken your position. They are gone but the Bible still remains.

So because a book will outlive me that somehow makes it valid? Lord of the Rings, The Cat in the Hat and Harry Potter are just three examples of books that will outlive me. So The Cat in the Hat must be the inerrant word of God.

Voltaire, a skeptic who destroyed the faith of many people, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth.

Yeah, and, so, what? I could care less about what Voltaire said. Even if every Christian in the world admitted that the Bible isn't the word of God the book would still be around because despite all the BS it contains there are some fun myths in the book. We still have Norse myth, Zeus is still kicking around and while not many (if any) believe he's real it doesn't mean the myths die out. So Voltaire made a fairly foolish call - doesn't prove the validity of the Bible.

Look I used to believe the Bible too but when you actually read it in plain simple terms, not rationalizing away the stuff that doesn't make any sense, it, well, doesn't make much sense.

Bible believers claim the Bible presents Gods perfect moral code but the Bible says that

People who work on the Sabbath should be killed.
Women who aren't virgins at marriage should be put to death.
Witches should be killed.
Rape victims should have to marry their attackers.
Practicing Freedom of Religion is a sin
Slavery is okay
Genocide is okay if God commands it

And yet I see nothing about pedophilia in there, not even in the ten commandments. Even rape didn't make into the ten commandments, but honoring the Sabbath did (and making statues of gods)... and that's the best a perfect God could come up with?

I end my argument with the wonderful word of God in 2 Kings 2:23-25

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

Remember kids, if you make fun of a prophet for being bald the mercy of the Lord will be immediately revoked from you in favor of being ripped limb from limb and reduced to a puddle of gore by bears BUT God still loves you

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
Um,
you keep claiming stories in a BOOK are actually true !

They sure are true.

Originally posted by Kapyong
There are NO contemporary historical sources for Jesus at all.
None.
Just sources for BELIEF in Jesus decades later.
A completely different thing.

You've been misinformed.
Paul the Apostle was a contemporary source.
According to historical scholars decades are acceptable.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Rubbish.

The ancient "non-Christian" sources say otherwise.

Originally posted by Kapyong
NONE of the late, forged alleged references to Jesus mention any of that.
Which is why you didn't quote these "sources".
Kap

You assume to much. If someone wants the sources I'll give them to them so they can go look them up.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
But what if I claimed to rise from the dead and then wrote it in a book? What you're believing are accounts copied from older versions about Jesus written decades upon decades after his death by Greek speaking scribes. Call me a doubting Thomas but I don't believe just because a book says its true.

In the historical world decades are fine and accepted by historians. Paul the Apostle wrote his stuff before the Gospels were written. Critical scholars believe that Paul existed and even wrote some of the books of the New Testament.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
History bears out almost none of the Biblical stories and in those situations where the Bible mentions real people and events it also throws in unsubstantiated supernatural elements for which there is no evidence. Its like a special effects blockbuster "based on a true story" where lot's of supernatural sci-fi embellishments have been added.


1. The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
2. The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
3. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible.
4. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
5. Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Which is vague and open to wild interpretation and self-fulfillment. Prophecy of any kind fails on every level and Biblical prophecy is notoriously vague, cryptic, or metaphorical.


Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.
The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.
However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).
For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of BETHLEHEM from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during the same period.
They concluded that the chance of one man being born in Bethlehem was one in 300,000, (or one in 2.8 x 10^5 - rounded),
After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.
To illustrate how large the number 10^17 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :
If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They'll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would've had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom (Idem, 106-107).
In financial terms, is there anyone who would not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10^17? This is the kind of sure investment we're offered by god for faith in His Messiah.
From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107) - the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17!
Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish.

reply to post by texastig

Paul the Apostle wrote his stuff before the Gospels were written.

I agree with this, however Paul's writings do nothing to prove that Jesus was the Messiah or supernatural in any way. The four Gospels are vastly different and some directly contradict each other. They were written by people already convinced of Jesus being divinely sent and were open to the elaborations that stories undergo between the time they are spread orally and written down by scribes. The copies of the Gospels we do have are not even originals, they are copies of copies.

I never said the Bible didn't mention real names, places and events at times. It does mention them but that doesn't mean its accurate. The Odyssey mentions real places but it also mentions gods and goddesses and monsters. Furthermore the supernatural elements would need to be proven in order for the Bible to be the word of God. None of the supernatural events in the Bible have ever been proven to have happened. Many of the stories are laughable if taken literally.

Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah.

Except that Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies. Most prophecies claimed by modern Christians to refer to Jesus are contained within other stories, are quote mined and taken out of context such as when Matthew brings up Hosea 11:1 which is a reference to the Israelites Exodus from Egypt. Matthew's account is the only one which mentions fleeing to Egypt and the flight to Egypt would have actually forced Mary, Joseph and Jesus to go through Herod's domain where he was supposedly killing kids.

For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah,

The verse says no such thing. It says a great one will come out of the CLAN of Bethlehem. It says nothing about a Messiah or birth in the city of Bethlehem.

You're calculations of probability are meaningless as it has not been shown that Jesus fulfills Messianic prophecy.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
So because a book will outlive me that somehow makes it valid? Lord of the Rings, The Cat in the Hat and Harry Potter are just three examples of books that will outlive me. So The Cat in the Hat must be the inerrant word of God.

I'm talking about the Bible. Everyone knows that the Lord of the Rings, etc.. aren't historical.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Yeah, and, so, what? I could care less about what Voltaire said. Even if every Christian in the world admitted that the Bible isn't the word of God the book would still be around because despite all the BS it contains there are some fun myths in the book. We still have Norse myth, Zeus is still kicking around and while not many (if any) believe he's real it doesn't mean the myths die out. So Voltaire made a fairly foolish call - doesn't prove the validity of the Bible.

There's more evidence for the New Testament than Zeus. Why don't you apply the same standard that you put on the Bible to other books of antiquity?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Look I used to believe the Bible too but when you actually read it in plain simple terms, not rationalizing away the stuff that doesn't make any sense, it, well, doesn't make much sense.

What happened to you that you don't believe it anymore? Did people misinform you without you getting more evidence? Do you think that God let you down about something?
The Bible makes perfect sense. It tells us how we got here, why we are here and what we are to do.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Bible believers claim the Bible presents Gods perfect moral code but the Bible says that
People who work on the Sabbath should be killed.

That's God's law. That's what He set up for the Jews and no one else.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Women who aren't virgins at marriage should be put to death.

Deu 22:21b
"because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."
There's the word "evil" again.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Witches should be killed.

Evil again.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Rape victims should have to marry their attackers.

Book, chapter and verse please.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Practicing Freedom of Religion is a sin

Book, chapter and verse please.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Slavery is okay

God did not approve of slavery in the Old and New Testament.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Genocide is okay if God commands it

If your referring to the Jews fighting when they went into Israel, those were giants and they were pure evil.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
And yet I see nothing about pedophilia in there, not even in the ten commandments.

You misrepresenting again. The Ten Commandments are summed up as this. Love the Lord thy God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Even rape didn't make into the ten commandments, but honoring the Sabbath did (and making statues of gods)... and that's the best a perfect God could come up with?

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I end my argument with the wonderful word of God in 2 Kings 2:23-25

23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

Remember kids, if you make fun of a prophet for being bald the mercy of the Lord will be immediately revoked from you in favor of being ripped limb from limb and reduced to a puddle of gore by bears BUT God still loves you

As I have said before. God is a God of justice. Don't you understand that?
The original word for lads are those around 20 years old.
These young men actually presented a threat to Elisha and were cursing him. What Elisha did was out of self-defense.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I agree with this, however Paul's writings do nothing to prove that Jesus was the Messiah or supernatural in any way.

Paul is speaking about Jesus being the Messiah and being raised from the dead.
Act 13:30-33
30. "But God raised him from the dead,"
31. "and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people."
32. "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers"
33. "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
" 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The four Gospels are vastly different and some directly contradict each other.

Give me the contradictions.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
They were written by people already convinced of Jesus being divinely sent and were open to the elaborations that stories undergo between the time they are spread orally and written down by scribes. The copies of the Gospels we do have are not even originals, they are copies of copies.

What about the ancient "non-Christian" sources for Christ?
We don't have the originals but the copies are superb. What we have to day is the same as they had back then.
There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence.
125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls they found the complete book of Isaiah and it matches what we have today.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I never said the Bible didn't mention real names, places and events at times. It does mention them but that doesn't mean its accurate. The Odyssey mentions real places but it also mentions gods and goddesses and monsters. Furthermore the supernatural elements would need to be proven in order for the Bible to be the word of God. None of the supernatural events in the Bible have ever been proven to have happened. Many of the stories are laughable if taken literally.

Back to Paul. Paul is accepted by critical scholars. Paul wrote that Christ rose from the dead.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Except that Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies. Most prophecies claimed by modern Christians to refer to Jesus are contained within other stories,

Never heard of that. What other stories?

1. Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; fulfilled in Matt. 2:1-7; John 7:42; Luke 2:47).

2. Messiah is to be preceded by a Messenger (Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1; fulfilled in Matthew 3:1-3; 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17).

3. Messiah is to enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; fulfilled in Luke 35-37; Matthew 21:6-11).

4. Messiah is to be betrayed by a friend (Psalms 41:9; 55:12-14; fulfilled in Matthew 10:4; 26:49-50; John 13:21).

5. Messiah is to be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; fulfilled in Matthew 26:15; 27:3).

6. The money for which Messiah is sold is to be thrown “to the potter” in God’s house (Zechariah 11:13; fulfilled in Matthew 27:5-7).

7. Messiah is to be silent before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; fulfilled in Matthew 27:12).

8. Messiah is to be executed by crucifixion as a thief (Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10; Isaiah 53:5,12; fulfilled in Luke 23:33; John 20:25; Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27,28).

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
are quote mined and taken out of context such as when Matthew brings up Hosea 11:1 which is a reference to the Israelites Exodus from Egypt. Matthew's account is the only one which mentions fleeing to Egypt and the flight to Egypt would have actually forced Mary, Joseph and Jesus to go through Herod's domain where he was supposedly killing kids.

You have a problem. You claim that when God kills kids, God is so bad. But when Herod killed them you say "supposedly".
What is wrong with Matthew being the only one talking about Jesus coming out of Egypt?

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
The verse says no such thing. It says a great one will come out of the CLAN of Bethlehem. It says nothing about a Messiah or birth in the city of Bethlehem.

Micah 5:2e
"whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting."
That sounds like Jesus. Reminds me when Jesus said this:
Jhn 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
You're calculations of probability are meaningless as it has not been shown that Jesus fulfills Messianic prophecy.

How can they be meaningless? You have:
1. Professor Stoner.
2. Twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.
3. Professor Stoner encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair.
4. Professor Stoner submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).

That is facts.

reply to post by texastig

I'm talking about the Bible. Everyone knows that the Lord of the Rings, etc.. aren't historical.

The Bible says that a man built a giant boat and managed to two of every animal in the entire world in order to save himself and his family from a horrific flood in which a vengeful deity planned on slaughtering every man woman child and beast. That's not historical, its ludicrous and without any evidence to back it up.

There's more evidence for the New Testament than Zeus.

There's evidence that the people the New Testament mentions probably did exist, yes, but that does not mean the supernatural elements are real. Just like Troy was discovered to be a real place but that doesn't make Athena or Poseidon real by extension.

What happened to you that you don't believe it anymore? Did people misinform you without you getting more evidence? Do you think that God let you down about something?
The Bible makes perfect sense. It tells us how we got here, why we are here and what we are to do.

Basically what happened was I stopped going to Church and read the Bible on my own. I'd always had questions about the Bible and there wasn't a single believer that had any of the answers. So I started reading it myself instead of buying into the Pastor's own take on the verses. I didn't want to be spoon-fed. What I found was a book plagued with errors. For years I'd ignored many of the errors telling myself they weren't there or making up some rationalization to save my psyche from the overwhelming cognitive dissonance. I told myself to question the book was to question God. But then, slowly but surely, I realized that to question the Bible is to question man's perceptions, depictions and interpretations of God. The Bible isn't God and it definitely isn't perfect.

I realized that the Bible sometimes makes God seem evil in order to scare people into believing and that questioning the validity of the Bible was the only way to know for sure if I was living a lie. The book is riddled with self-contradictions, morally reprehensible nonsense and brain exploding paradoxes.

There's the word "evil" again.

So you think fornication, sex before marriage, is evil enough to be punishable by death? That's absurd. If God didn't want us to have sex before marriage he would have made us biologically incapable of doing so.

That part about a rapist marrying their victim is in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The Bible is filled with these primitive sorts of statutes and precepts which make anyone living the modern day cringe. The idea that a loving God might have given these rules is an insult. If God is love he doesn't want rape victims to marry their attackers and he wouldn't put it in a supposedly "perfect" book.

You seriously don't know which verse prohibits Freedom of Religion? Its the FIRST COMMANDMENT of the 10. Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me. According to many fundamentalists the 10 Commandments are part of God's perfect moral code.

those were giants and they were pure evil.

I'm aware there is mention of giants in the Bible but MOST of the peoples the Israelites wiped off the planet were not specified to be giants. No group of people, no matter how tall in stature, is pure evil. I'm sure Hitler told his followers the Jews were pure evil and therein lies the problem. Those in power can say "Hey, this group of people worships a different god, they're culture is different and God says their evil, let's conquer them" ... So the decree of "God" is a petty tool for conquest, hatred and bloodshed.

The Ten Commandments are summed up as this. Love the Lord thy God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that, the Ten Commandments do not say that. Either way there isn't a single restriction against pedophilia in the entire book. God must have missed that one

These young men actually presented a threat to Elisha and were cursing him. What Elisha did was out of self-defense.

You're fabricating nonsense now. The verse says nothing about them physically threatening Elisha. They were insulting him for being bald, that's what the verse says. Doesn't matter if they were 10, 15, 20 or 45 Elisha summons bears to slaughter them in cold blood for no other reason than he has been insulted and God does nothing to stop it.

Paul is speaking about Jesus being the Messiah and being raised from the dead.

Right but speaking about such things doesn't make them true just like writing them in a book doesn't make them true.

Give me the contradictions.

Well the most obvious are the stories in Matthew and Luke about Jesus birth, one says he fled to Egypt for his life and the other claims he just went off to in Nazareth. Matthew and Luke disagree on the timing for the birth of Jesus. While Matthew claims that Herod was in charge and wants Jesus killed Luke claims that Quirinius was Governor of Syria. It is known that Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until AFTER the reign of Herod the Great.

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died nearly ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. According to Raymond E. Brown, most modern historians suggest, that Luke's account is mistaken.[11]

Source

Matthew and Luke again disagree on the subject of Joseph's father. Luke lists his name as Eli while Matthew seems to think he was named Jacob. How could such a mistake occur if the Bible were perfect and inerrant? Why would God allow such if this really were HIS word?

What about the ancient "non-Christian" sources for Christ?

What about them? I never claimed that Jesus didn't exist merely that the miracles and supernatural elements are embellishments added to the story. To me those supernatural aspects detract from Jesus's profound message.

Paul is accepted by critical scholars. Paul wrote that Christ rose from the dead.

Right, its accepted that he existed and wrote what is attributed to him... this proves the supernatural stuff how? Just because the man existed doesn't mean he was writing a historical account, he was just as biased belief as all the early Christians.

I debunked Micah 5:2 in my latest post please don't make me repeat myself.

Isaiah 40:3 - Makes no mention of a Messiah or Jesus and is usually taken as a prophecy about John the Baptist. It doesn't offer any insight as to who it might be talking about and when read in context with the rest of Isaiah 40:3. This is not a Messianic prophecy.

Malachi talks cryptically about a messenger but makes no mention of a savior, a son of God or a Messiah.

Zechariah 9:9 is a bit more on target but if you read verse ten it suggests that this King will disarm the nations and rule over a massive kingdom from "sea to sea" but Jesus never does that. In fact Jesus says he comes not to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34. Also, do you honestly think Jesus was the first guy to ever ride into Jerusalem on a Donkey? Also Matthew makes a hilarious blunder in his version by having the disciples bring Jesus a Donkey AND a Colt and ride both of them. Apparently he didn't even understand the "prophecy" he was editing Jesus's life to fulfill.

The speaker in Psalm 41 identifies himself as someone in need of mercy. Read Verse 4. Taken in context this has nothing to do with Jesus but if you rip it out of context to suit it to your needs well... yeah.

Psalm 51 once again has nothing to do with Jesus unless you think, that like verse 12 says, Jesus considered hiding from his enemies. Later in verse 16 God saves the person but God didn't save Jesus. In context there is nothing prophetic about this let alone Messianic. Everyone has been stabbed in the back by at least one friend.

The story in Zechariah has nothing to do with Jesus being the Messiah and neither do the 30 pieces of silver. Those are related to Judas and as for where they were thrown that has WHAT to do with Jesus again? Seems like the author of Matthew wasn't very good in picking prophecies.

Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel as a metaphorical individual (as part of something called the “Servant Songs”) Go back a few chapters and you will see. Verse 8 mentions the afflicted man having descendants but I doubt you'd want that to apply to Jesus, wouldn't want the savior fraternizing with the opposite sex unmarried would we? Verse 10 mentions his offspring again.

Messiah is to be executed by crucifixion as a thief

Well actually he was crucified, supposedly, with a sign reading King of the Jews over the cross... Not a sign reading "Thief".

The Hebrew for Psalm 22:16 actually mentions a lion. I don't recall any lions being at the crucifixion. Translations for that verse differ greatly. In fact the Psalm talks about bulls, dogs and in the King James version a UNICORN.

That sounds like Jesus.

Doesn't matter if it sounds like him if it can't be shown to actually be mentioning him.

You failed to mention that Professor Stoner was born in 1880 and guess who the American Scientific Affiliation were:

Peter Stoner was a co-founder[7] of the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization which describes itself as "a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science."

Source

Christians biased by their belief that the Bible was the word of God. Not a good place to try to get unbiased science. The Bible is not the word of God.

And that was just for 8 prophecies concerning Jesus.

However, there are not simply 8 OT prophecies about Jesus Christ, there are over 300.


It's pretty much a fact that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Bible is the inspired Word of the Living God.

Another tidbit of history I personally find extremely laughable is this:

Skeptics claim there is no 'contemporary' historical writings about Jesus Christ, therefore he never existed..

but they have NO PROBLEM believing that Alexander the Great existed even though the first recorded historical evidence of him is some FOUR HUNDRED years after his death.

Umm, sure, okay.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Not sure if I'm still on your ignore list or not but let me say that I NEVER claimed that Jesus didn't exist. I may be a skeptic but I am aware that many historians believe that Jesus did exist and I too accept that the man, in some form, did live and die around the same time he was said to have.

I've never had a big problem with Jesus, his philosophy is a big improvement on the BS and barbarism of Old Testament law - but therein lies a contradiction, if the Bible is God's word and God is the same yesterday today and forever as it says than why does he change his mind so drastically and set up a new covenant where turn the other cheek replaced eye for an eye?

It doesn't make any sense.

Please, go ahead and post all 300 prophecies one at a time and I will do my best to refute them. Most if not all make no mention of a savior, Messiah, son of God or anything else identifying that they are talking about Jesus. If even ONE of the prophecies can be shown to be false (and I have no doubt they all could be called into question) than the Bible is not perfect.

It is pretty much a FACT that the Bible was written by bigoted primitives and the words of it reflect that. It fails in every aspect to impress even the mildest of skeptical minds and is therefore only for those willing to believe on blind ignorant faith.

You can ignore my arguments all you want but eventually the cognitive dissonance will overwhelm you and I assure you Jesus was right when he said "The truth will set you free".

Originally posted by texastig
Kapyong, you have been misinformed.
Paul the Apostle was contemporary. Even critical scholars believe that Paul existed and wrote some books of the New Testament.

FFS.
The subject was NON-Christian sources for Jesus !

Now you claim Paul was an non Christian source !?

Wake up, Jeff.


Kap


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by texastig
They sure are true.

Because you said so?

Originally posted by texastig
You've been misinformed.
Paul the Apostle was a contemporary source.

Wrong.
Paul NEVER met Jesus.
He wrote DECADES after the alleged Jesus.

He never even gives a DATE for Jesus at all !

You've never actually studied any of this, have you ?


Kap


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by texastig
In the historical world decades are fine and accepted by historians.

So, the Book of Mormon is true then, according to YOUR argument.

And Scientology is true too - according to YOUR argument.

Your argument is nonsense.

It does NOT matter WHEN a book of religious fiction was written.

You just ASSUMED Jesus DID exist, then claim Paul wrote shortly after - but that ASSUMES what you are trying to prove in the first place !


Kap

Originally posted by texastig
I'm talking about the Bible. Everyone knows that the Lord of the Rings, etc.. aren't historical.

Everyone knows the Bible is not historical.


Kap

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I have a dog.

I throw a stick and he fetches it. Every time he brings it back.

If I ask him to sit, he sits.

The dog worships me.

I have oftened wondered is it that obvious?


Flip that dog around to get God and we have our master. Notice how we all stand when his gospel is spoken, how we get down on our knees to worship him and be blessed by him. Everytime we are in trouble people beg for his help.

(have you read The Kybalion?)

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
What about the ancient "non-Christian" sources for Christ?
We don't have the originals but the copies are superb. What we have to day is the same as they had back then.

Wrong again.
All the copies we have are DIFFERENT to every other copy.
There are MANY differences in the NT manuscripts.

Originally posted by texastig
There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence.

You have confused two fundamentally different issues - arguing that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists like texas repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.

Originally posted by texastig
125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18.

Wrong again.
A manuscript CANNOT be dated to ONE year like "125AD".
The actual dating there is 100-150AD.

And that is the EARLIEST dating, so apologists like texas always repeat THAT one. But other scholars date it to 100-199, and the most recent dating is 145-195.

Originally posted by texastig
In the Dead Sea Scrolls they found the complete book of Isaiah and it matches what we have today.

Wrong again.
In fact they found SEVERAL copies of Isaiah - all DIFFERENT, and all quite different to moden copies.


textas -
you have'nt actually studied ANY of this, or checked ANY of the facts - you are just preaching what your priest told you.

And it's all wrong, and long since proved wrong.


Kap

reply to post by JohnySeagull


I've heard of the Kybalion but I haven't read it and don't know much about it. The topic of this discussion is the belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God by fundamentalists.

I don't think that every human being bows before 'God' for intrinsic reasons, those behaviors are programmed in through fear and psychological control. Back when I was a fundamentalist and a teenager I lived my life in constant fear of God's judgement because, as a teenager, my thoughts drifted incessantly toward the opposite sex. Natural human behaviors like sex are deemed as dark and sinful and some parts of the Bible suggest that even thinking about sex can be a sin - So God has his own version of thought-crime. This to me is appalling but back when I was a teenager it was a source of constant guilt and fear. Why would the Bible choose to criminalize such a simple and natural aspect of human life and yet in other passages claim that slaves should obey their masters and that women who are raped should marry their attackers...

The Bible's morals are sickening to any modern human and are not the product of divine wisdom.

reply to post by Kapyong

Everyone knows the Bible is not historical.

Kap...I must disagree here. I think the Bible does talk about real people, real places, real events. Many of them written after the truth is stretched to no ends...but also in times where it was natural to place good events onto God..and bad events onto something opposite of God. I dont think the whole book is rubbish in the history part. I think there is really much to learn about a prideful and greedy people.

To a point...it is historical. But with a very biased side of the story with added screen play agendas and effects.

I sure cant go through it (sense I was not there) and say this is true, this is not..ect...but there is defiantly a history within that book about a people, and disagreements amongst their own family.

Its not important if Jesus was real....its important that people have something to learn from about a offering of self back to the Spirit. I can show you a story about a deer...who was king of the deer....he offered himself up to be killed instead of the female deer who carried a chilc within. For in his mind, it would be better that one life be taken...instead of 2. The story is not real...deers dont make such choices and thoughts....but the value of the story is what counts. I know many religions dont take note of such thing and they find importance that Jesus had to be real....but really....the life/story of Jesus...has humbled many people.

Your point is still well taken by me, I have no issues with the idea of you showing how fragile any proof of Jesus is. To me, it matters not. Just as though you tell everyone they are wrong..there is nothing to prove you are right. Both sides of the argument have no absolutes.

There is defiantly history...in that book though. Disturbing history, yes....but still yet, it is history of a people. I think what it boiled down to...was a family who kept separating themselves, through disagreements, through a need to branch out, IDK.....but in the end...they all fought for being the tribe that had THE king. I think in the story of Jesus...instead of the sign saying 'king of the jews'....it was really meant to say 'king of Judah'....now how would all the other tribes except such a thing! They would not. So history gets covered and buried, the true history anyways.

Not claiming any facts here...just my take on it.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by Kapyong

 

Everyone knows the Bible is not historical.

Kap...I must disagree here. I think the Bible does talk about real people, real places, real events.

So does ancient Greek myth,
so does Harry Potter and James Bond.

Fiction and myth often involves real places and people.

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Not claiming any facts here

I agree with that bit.


Kap


[edit on 6-6-2010 by Kapyong]