The WORD OF GOD

[betsy]

This is for those who are conflicted and are torn, those who are unsure, and those who wish to understand. This is also for those who turned away. But this does not exclude those who believe and those who, like me, wish to develop and maintain a close relationship with God. I hope for us to have a constructive discussion.

Having done a casual read of the New King James Version, I am now just beginning a serious attempt at Bible Study (King James Version). As I go through the Bible, some of the modern-leaning views I've expressed before in this forum may change.

The Bible that I got contains Annotations and Doctrinal Footnotes, Personality Profiles (brief biographies of key men and women), Archeological Sites, Center-column references and notes, including alternate and equivalent translations, as well as explanations of difficult Bible words and phrases, Concordance, and some maps.

I find these very helpful indeed.

As an intro, here is an excerpt from the transcript of the series, The WORD OF GOD, Part 2: Revealing The Mind Of God, by Pastor Charles Price, which gives a description of the Bible.

Isaiah 55 and verse 6:

Seek the Lord while He may be found; call on Him while He is near. Let the wicked

forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will

have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the

Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways

and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven,

and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that

it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my Word that goes out from my

mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the

purpose for which I sent it.

Its the Spirit of God who gave us the Word of God and revealed the mind of God. Now, before we talk about how God has revealed His mind in Scripture, first let me say some general things about the Bible because the Bible is both a divine book and also a human book. It didnt drop out of the sky. The Scripture was given through human men who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, wrote it. And I wanted to give two aspects to what I want to say tonight. First, I want to talk about the fact that the Bible has a human story, and I want to talk about the human story. And then secondly, the Bible has a divine story. It has human authors; it has a divine author.

Let me tell you just a little bit about the human story, and for some of you this may be very basic stuff you already know, but I want to tell you anyway. First of all, the Bible is written by over forty authors from every walk of life. There are kings writing in this book. There are military leaders, and there are peasants, there are philosophers, there are fishermen, there are tax collectors, there are poets, there are musicians, theres a harpist, and a drummer. A drummer wrote two psalms. His name was Asaph. There are scholars who write this book, there are shepherds who write this book, and there was a cowman who wrote part of this book. His job was looking after cattle. This has come from a huge variety of human sources.

It was written over a period of at least fifteen hundred years. That means if the last book was being written now, the first book would have been written in the closing days of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire finally was disbanded in 476 A.D. Thats just over fifteen hundred years ago. Thats a huge time span. During that fifteen hundred years, cultures changed, outlooks changed.

It was written in three completely different languages: Hebrew and Greek are the primary languages, but parts of the Old Testament are written in Aramaic, which also would have been the mother tongue of Jesus, so the original speaking of Jesus would have been in Aramaic, though written in Greek, which had become the international language. That was the legacy of the Greek Empire was they left an international language, a bit like the way the British Empire left English as a kind of language of international communication. Well, the Greeks did that; thats why its written in Greek, but Aramaic is the origin and some of the Old Testament Scriptures parts of Ezra in particular, parts of Daniel, and the language of Jesus.

It was written in numerous styles; in fact, almost every literary style youll probably find in this book. Theres history, theres poetry, there are songs, there is law, there is biography, there is autobiography, there is prophecy, there is parable, there is allegory, and probably other things that I havent thought of.

It was written on three continents in a day when people didnt travel very much: Asia, Europe, and a little bit of it was written in Africa, Jeremiah down in Egypt. It was written in scores of situations. Moses wrote part of it in the wilderness. Jeremiah and Paul both wrote in prison. David wrote some of his psalms up on the hillside; Solomon in his luxurious palace; Ezekiel in exile, sitting down by the rivers of Babylon; John exiled to the isle of Patmos as an old man; Mark back at home in Jerusalem; Paul on the road, busy but writing as he travelled; and Peter writing his epistles facing persecutions.

It deals with dozens of controversial subjects like. Who is God? Thats a controversial subject. What is the meaning of life? What is the purpose of life? It deals with things like authority and law. These are controversial issues. And there are hundreds of hot topics that it covers: marriage for instance, and divorce, sexuality, parenting, truth, lies, attitudes to wealth, attitudes to poverty, attitudes to the needy. It deals with things like sin and judgement, and heaven and hell. If you want controversy, just start talking about one of these subjects in an ordinary conversation with people. The Bibles full of controversial issues, and yet despite the breadth of authors, the huge period of time over which it was written, there is an amazing unity and harmony that runs all the way through. Because in spite of its diversity, the Bible presents one single, unfolding story. Its the story of creation, the fall of man, the redemption of man, and the future restoration back to what God intended everything to be. To quote John Milton, Genesis is about paradise lost, and Revelation about paradise regained. And everything in between, including the need, the means, and the results of being restored to what God intended. In the early part of Genesis, the gate to the tree of life is closed, and in the end of Revelation, the gate to the tree of life is opened again. One continuous story.

Now if you tried to put that together humanly with a very smart editor, though no editor survives fifteen hundred years, you wouldnt get this kind of unity and harmony.

-------------------------------

Edited February 18, 2010 by betsy

[betsy]

More excerpts:

"And, of course, the story of the Bible has not been without strong opposition. It’s been declared illegal literature in some parts of the world ever since the beginning of the fourth century when, in the year 303 A.D., the Roman Emperor, Diocletian, issued an edict ordering the destruction of Christian churches and the burning of all Scriptures. And ever since then there’s never been a place in the world where the Bible has not been illegal literature. Interestingly, 25 years after Diocletian had issued that, the Emperor Constantine was converted to Christ, and he issued an edict ordering that 50 copies of the Bible should be prepared at the government’s expense. Now you say 50 isn’t very many, but remember that’s writing them by hand, word by word.

And when they wrote it by hand, they wrote it with incredible accuracy. One of the things they did – and this was just one of the checks – they would count how many letters were in each book of the Bible, identified the middle letter, and when the scribe had finished writing this particular book, they would count the letters; and if it was one letter too many or one or two short, they would throw it away, even though they’d spent hours and hours and hours writing it by hand. They’d then identify the middle letter, and if the middle letter was not the correct letter, they would throw it away. And then when the whole Bible was done, they would count every letter in the entire Bible and do the same thing. Find the middle letter again, and if it was wrong, discard the whole manuscript. Incredible! But how grateful you and I should be for the accuracy with which Scriptures have come to us as a result of that.

But it’s ironic, isn’t it, that 25 years after Diocletian ordered the destruction of all Scripture, Constantine, who became Emperor, was converted, and he ordered the government should pay for the preparing of copies of the Scripture.

In the 18th century, the Frenchman Voltaire, he was a writer and crusader against tyranny and bigotry, he predicted that in 100 years time, Christianity would be swept from existence and would pass into history. That was in the 18th century. Do you know in 50 years, Voltaire had been swept into history, and the Geneva Bible Society used his printing press to print thousands of Bibles, and they used his house to store them in before they distributed them.

There are various ways in which God revealed His truth to people. Many of the Old Testaments say quite up front, “The Word of the Lord came to me saying …” Quite up front about that. God spoke to me. How God spoke to them, they don’t tell us, but God didn’t just dictate their writings; they didn’t know what they were writing. He wrote through the writer, through the personality of the writer. God doesn’t just take a hand without it going through the mind and the thinking and the emotions of the writer when He gave the Scripture. And in fact there’s nothing to be added to Scripture now anyway. That’s why you can detect the personality of the writer.

You see, John’s writings are quite distinct from Paul’s. Jeremiah writes very different from Ezekiel. Isaiah is very different to Daniel. Now it’s the Holy Spirit behind them that He is working through the personality and the experience of the writer. The writers weren’t neutral in this, which is why they have different messages and different emphasis. For instance – I’ll just pick out at random in the Old Testament – Moses emphasis, when it comes to sin, was that sin offends God and must be judged. You see Moses was a lawgiver. That was Moses’ thinking. He had a legal mind. So your sin offends God, God has to judge us, and that is perfectly true. That was Moses’ emphasis. Now Jeremiah had a different emphasis: sin makes God angry. That was Jeremiah’s emphasis because Jeremiah, you see, was a melancholic temperament. He lived on an emotional roller coaster. He was up high one day, down at the bottom the next day, and Jeremiah knew about anger. And he said sin makes God angry. That was Jeremiah’s message. Hosea had a different message. Hosea said sin hurts God. Do you know why Hosea said that? Because Hosea had a wife called Gomer, and Gomer became a prostitute. And she went off with other men, and Hosea’s heart was broken over his wife’s prostitution. In fact, he eventually bought her back for the half price of a slave, and God said to Hosea, “You know how you feel about Gomer? You know that hurt you feel about her being off with other men? Hosea, that is how I feel about my people, Israel.” And Hosea’s message was sin hurts God because that was Hosea’s experience."

www.livingtruth.ca/pdf/transcriptions/WOG

[betsy]

More excerpt:

"Now someone may say, Well, this is a pretty circular argument to say we believe the Bible is inspired because the Bible says its inspired, and we believe it when it says its inspired because we believe its inspired because it says its inspired. Thats a circular argument. Are there are other objective ways by which you may know the Bible is inspired and has its origin in the Holy Spirit? Let me give you quickly one.

In the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 18, and verse 21, it says this:

You may say to yourselves, How can we know when a message has [not] been spoken

by the Lord?

Good question. Here is the answer. If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously; dont be afraid of him. Very simply, how do we know when a message is spoken by the Lord? Because if it is indicating anything that is prophetic, it comes true, and if it doesnt come true, its not from God.

One of the most remarkable evidences of divine inspiration in this book is the incredible prophetic accuracy of this book. In the Old Testament, there are hundreds of prophecies about the birth of Christ and the life of Christ. Somebody has counted. There are 333 prophecies about Christ.

I remember saying here, about a year ago, that there was a chance, the chance is one in, I dont know. I forgot what I said, 54 billion or something of those coming true. I got that from somewhere else, and a man came to me after that service, said he was a mathematician, and he told me some incredible figure that I couldnt find when I was looking for it this week. He gave it to me, and I wrote it somewhere and lost it. So if hes here, give it to me again! But the chances he gave me are just something like twenty of those 333 prophecies being fulfilled in one person are something like billion times billions, incredible figures that our minds cant comprehend. And yet the amazing thing is that the Old Testament Scriptures, as weve already pointed out, completed 400 years before Christ, circulating 165 years before Christ, talked in detail about His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection.

Matthew points out three prophecies about Christ, about His birth, that appear to be contradictory. You can look at this sometime. Very quickly, he says, Hell be born in Bethlehem. Thats one prophecy, and he quotes Micah. Micah wrote that 700 years before Christ. And then Jesus was taken down to Egypt to avoid the wrath of Herod, and Matthew says in Matthew, Chapter 2 He was brought out of Egypt and so fulfilled the prophecy, Out of Egypt I called my Son. Thats a prophecy written by Hosea 800 years before Christ. Then He went to live in a place called Nazareth, and Matthew says, And so fulfilled the prophecy, Hell be called a Nazarene. Now you can look in vain in the Old Testament to find a statement, Hell be called a Nazarene, because its not in the English. Its a play on a Hebrew word.

In Isaiah, Chapter 11 where it talks about the root out of the root of Jessie (that was Davids father) out of the root of Jessie would come a branch … The word branch is the word nêster, and Nazareth was named after branch. And Nazareth didnt even exist when Isaiah wrote that, and Matthew says We understand it now. He was saying Hes going to come out of Nazareth.

You see, Jesus was born in Bethlehem by a sheer fluke, humanly speaking. His mother did not live in Bethlehem; she lived in Nazareth. It just so happened when she was pregnant, Caesar Augustus in Rome said, “I want to count everybody in my Empire. Everybody must go back to the home town of the husband and father of every family.” And Joseph’s hometown was Bethlehem, and they just happened to arrive for the census on the very day she gave birth. They arrived late so all the places were taken, and she gave birth in a stable. Had Jesus been born one day earlier, He would have been born in Samaria. Had He been born a month later, they would have been back in Nazareth. They were just in Bethlehem for the census, that’s all. Joseph’s family were there, so they had relatives. Go and visit Granny, but obviously the relatives weren’t very welcoming. Nobody gave them a bed. They had to stay in the Inn so they probably didn’t stay very long. Would have gone back to Nazareth pretty quickly. By sheer fluke, He was born in Bethlehem, but 700 years before Micah writes, “But a new Bethlehem, in Judea, out of you will come a ruler of my people, Israel.”

It just so happened that the wise men came, and they were a little unwise when they went to visit Herod, who was the King, and said, “Good morning, Mr. King. There’s a new king born. Where is He? I’m sure you’re interested.”

“I’m very interested,” said the king. “Come and let me know.” And these unwise wise men were going to go and let him know until an angel appeared in a dream and said, “Don’t you dare! Go home another way.” And an angel came to Joseph, “Joseph, flee from the wrath of Herod.” And he went down to Egypt. Well, it just so happened 800 years ago, Hosea had written, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.”

Then they settled in Nazareth, a town that didn’t even exist in Isaiah’s day, and he had written...

You see, if the Psalmist had got it wrong, we could say on the basis of Deuteronomy 18, it did not come from God, but when you find these prophecies hitting their bulls eye again and again and again in fact there isnt one that doesnt hit its bulls eye youve got to conclude the only obvious conclusion: this is from God; this is God speaking.

And this book is trustworthy. This book is authoritative. This book is important because even if I dont like it and lets be honest, there are things we dont like in this book. I sat listening to the entire Scripture, I want to be honest, there were parts of the Old Testament I thought, Boy oh boy, did God really say that? I dont like that. But His ways are very different than mine, and we have to trust Him.

And my conclusion is this: if God has spoken, we had better make it our business to know what Hes said. Isnt that reasonable? Wed better make it our business to know what He said. You see asking you to read through the Bible and encouraging you to do so is not to brainwash us, its to know the mind of God. If God has revealed His purposes for humanity, we had better make sure we understand His purposes, and we bring our lives into conformity with His purposes. Theres a million reasons why people live. Theres one correct reason: God has told us.

If God has made promises that apply to me, Id better believe them and start experiencing them, or Im going to waste my life. Isnt that reasonable? If God is speaking. If God has given us instructions by which we may experience life as He intended us to live, wed better find out what they are, and wed better do them. Isnt that reasonable? God is God, and Hes revealed His mind, wed better take is seriously."

----------------------

Like I've said way back in this forum, I struggled with my faith in the past. Looking back, when I started that other topic titled, "Rejoice On This Day," just by fluke I would say when one of the posters who replied challenged me to back up a satement (I forgot exactly what), I accidentally stumbled on several noteworthy people in different time - atheists - who embarked on investigative missions to prove the Bible wrong, only to end up becoming Christians themselves.

Before one can dismiss something as false or untrue, one has to understand it first.

Edited February 18, 2010 by betsy

[scorpio]

Becky, the problem is you cannot use the bible to prove itself. Doesn't work, circular logic. Other problems are the contractions that are too numerous to count. The following websites give some insights into why many people do not believe in the bible:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Contents.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Edited February 18, 2010 by scorpio

[whowhere]

davidmabus0202 is that you?

don't forget your favorite song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdCmzSJD6rk

And this to..

http://www.squidoo.com/nostradamuspredictions

I'm making this lense to explore the passionnating subject of 2012's predictions. From Mayas to Nostradamus and from mythology to science, I will try to be as complete as possible to make sure you won't miss anything about the "2012 apocalypse".

My 2012 articles

Nostradamus Quatrains: Century 10

Nostradamus Quatrains: Century 9

Nostradamus Quatrains: Century 8

[M.Dancer]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/political-pictures-becky-fisher-word-christ.jpg

[segnosaur]

The Bible that I got contains Annotations and Doctrinal Footnotes, Personality Profiles (brief biographies of key men and women), Archeological Sites, Center-column references and notes, including alternate and equivalent translations, as well as explanations of difficult Bible words and phrases, Concordance, and some maps.

I find these very helpful indeed.

My suggestion... in addition to all the stuff you're reading, try also reading the notations at the Skeptics Annotated Bible. (Another poster has given a reference to it.)

...The Scripture was given through human men who, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, wrote it.

Except there is no proof that there was any divine, supernatural "Invisible sky daddy" who had anything at all to do with creating the bible.

Oh, and keep in mind that while there are Christians who think the bible was inspired by big-sky-daddy, Muslims feel the same way about their holy works. And I'm pretty sure the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings, and Hindus all felt the same way about their holy books. How do you know that you are correct and those other people are wrong?

The Bible’s full of controversial issues, and yet despite the breadth of authors, the huge period of time over which it was written, there is an amazing unity and harmony that runs all the way through.

Ok, first of all, your claim that the bible shows 'unity', when in reality there are many contradictions. (The skeptics annotated bible lays many of them out.)

Secondly, even if there was some degree of 'unity', so what? The people who wrote the new testament had likely read the old testament. People who wrote the psalms likely had read the pentateuch. Its easy to show "unity" when you have an original source to refer to.

One of the most remarkable evidences of divine inspiration in this book is the incredible prophetic accuracy of this book. In the Old Testament, there are hundreds of prophecies about the birth of Christ and the life of Christ. Somebody has counted. There are 333 prophecies about Christ.

As someone else pointed out, you cannot use the bible itself to prove the accuracy of the bible.

The fact is, there is no historical evidence that there actually was a jesus as portrayed in the bible. So, the only proof is the bible itself. Now, if you were sitting there trying to come up with a good fairy tale and wanted it to seem important, it would be quite easy to go to the Old Testament, look up some 'prophecy', and add it to your story. Poof! Instant credibility! (Well, not really, but some might fall for it.)

[ToadBrother]

The fact is, there is no historical evidence that there actually was a jesus as portrayed in the bible. So, the only proof is the bible itself. Now, if you were sitting there trying to come up with a good fairy tale and wanted it to seem important, it would be quite easy to go to the Old Testament, look up some 'prophecy', and add it to your story. Poof! Instant credibility! (Well, not really, but some might fall for it.)

I think Josephus's writings indicate that there was very likely a historical Jesus. Mind you, once you eliminate all the extra B.S. 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers tried to put in Josephus's mouth, it certainly doesn't amount to a extant source indicating that Jesus was God or that he raised the dead or any of that.

[scorpio]

I think Josephus's writings indicate that there was very likely a historical Jesus. Mind you, once you eliminate all the extra B.S. 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers tried to put in Josephus's mouth, it certainly doesn't amount to a extant source indicating that Jesus was God or that he raised the dead or any of that.

The paragraph in Josephus pertaining to a Jesus Christ has been pretty much discredited by religious scholars.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Edited February 19, 2010 by scorpio

[ToadBrother]

The paragraph in Josephus pertaining to a Jesus Christ has been pretty much discredited by religious scholars.

That's not my understanding. The general consensus seems to be that is at least partially authentic. I don't really see the point of debating it. There were lots of holy men making the rounds in Roman Palestine. The one thing the Jews of the period seemed to have no lack of in that period was holy men and religious fanatics. I have little doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed. But clearly in the latter half of the 1st century, long after his death, there was a profound mythologization. It's a pretty fascinating subject, my favorite bit (as I mentioned) was the lifting of the iconography of Alexander the Great wholesale by the Early Christians (the sun god becomes the son of god. As I wrote in December:

One of the best examples I ever saw of any of this was the roots of Early Christian iconography, in particular those of Jesus and the Saints. The radiant halo seen on Christian iconography, invoking Jesus, the Apostles and the Saints was adopted wholesale from the Apollo cult (Alexander the Great also did exactly the same thing when he deified himself). It's actually rather extraordinary, and involves not just iconography, but the transition from the God of the Sun (helios) to the Son (huios) of God.

The deification of Jesus isn't all that different than Alexander's self-deification, or of the deification of Buddha (though lots of Buddhists don't like the terminology, but if the shoe fits). Whether consciously or unconsciously (and I think very much the former), Early Christians adopted the prevalent cultural motifs of their era. They were profoundly influenced by Greco-Roman civilization and thought, and there was no more admired and influential a figure in that time in the Roman world than Alexander the Great.

[scorpio]

I was referring to Josephus as a credible source. This might sum it up better:

The Antiquities of Josephus (37 CE - c. 100 CE), written in 93 CE contain two references to Jesus. The text comprising the first reference, the Testimonium Flavianum, states that Jesus was the founder of a sect, but the authenticity of the passage is disputed. Grammatical analysis indicates significant differences with the passages that come before and after it, while some phrases would be inconsistent with a non-Christian author like Josephus. This leads most scholars to believe the Jesus reference was either altered or added by persons other than Josephus.

http://www.search.com/reference/Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Earliest_recorded_references

[Oleg Bach]

The OT is not worth reading other than the first bit of Genesis...The NT is not worth reading other than a few phrases attributed to have come directly from the Christ himself - Other than direct instruction from the King of Kings - I have no further use of the compulated manuscripts. Eventually it just gets down to God and YOU...and God never speaks aloud.

[whowhere]

The OT is not worth reading other than the first bit of Genesis...The NT is not worth reading other than a few phrases attributed to have come directly from the Christ himself - Other than direct instruction from the King of Kings - I have no further use of the compulated manuscripts. Eventually it just gets down to God and YOU...and God never speaks aloud.

That's why you have the books to read.

[segnosaur]

The fact is, there is no historical evidence that there actually was a jesus as portrayed in the bible.

I think Josephus's writings indicate that there was very likely a historical Jesus. Mind you, once you eliminate all the extra B.S. 2nd and 3rd century Christian writers tried to put in Josephus's mouth, it certainly doesn't amount to a extant source indicating that Jesus was God or that he raised the dead or any of that.

First of all, as other posters have pointed out, the references to Jesus in the writings Josephus have been discredited. (In fact, even you yourself admit there was 'extra B.S. added in the 2nd/3rd centuries... If we know there was stuff added, then how can we trust any of it?)

Secondly, even if the writings of Josephus hadn't been altered, he was born in AD37; he was not a 'contemporary' of Jebus and so would not have been able to document his works first hand.

Thirdly, notice how I wrote my earlier statement... I specifically mentioned that there is no historical evidence of Jebus as portrayed in the bible. As others have pointed out, there were other 'prophets' running around the middle east at the time. (I think 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' probably is very accurate in this regard.) There may have been someone named Jebus running around that was the basis of the legend. However, the bible makes some very specific claims about his origins (and in particular his supernatural abilities). The more you ignore the unsupported 'supernatural' element in order to make whatever historical evidence fit, the less you can claim that he actually was the son of god and not just some nutbar.

[ToadBrother]

First of all, as other posters have pointed out, the references to Jesus in the writings Josephus have been discredited. (In fact, even you yourself admit there was 'extra B.S. added in the 2nd/3rd centuries... If we know there was stuff added, then how can we trust any of it?)

I'd like a citation to a Biblical scholar or historian who feels Josephus's writings have been fully discredited. That is not the position I have ever seen. That they have been tampered with is no debated, but you're taking an extreme position that no one in related fields seems to accept.

Secondly, even if the writings of Josephus hadn't been altered, he was born in AD37; he was not a 'contemporary' of Jebus and so would not have been able to document his works first hand.

No more than I could document most of my grandfather's works first hand. But does that mean my grandfather didn't exist? Since, largely winnowed out, all Josephus seemed to say was "There was this guy named Jesus of Nazareth", it's not like he's really confirming any particular claim.

Thirdly, notice how I wrote my earlier statement... I specifically mentioned that there is no historical evidence of Jebus as portrayed in the bible. As others have pointed out, there were other 'prophets' running around the middle east at the time. (I think 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' probably is very accurate in this regard.) There may have been someone named Jebus running around that was the basis of the legend. However, the bible makes some very specific claims about his origins (and in particular his supernatural abilities). The more you ignore the unsupported 'supernatural' element in order to make whatever historical evidence fit, the less you can claim that he actually was the son of god and not just some nutbar.

I never said he was the son of God, but I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that a guy named Jesus was hanging around Roman Palestine during the first few decades of the 1st century AD. Of course he accrued all kinds of fanciful stuff, that's the sort of thing that happens with a highly superstitious population, whether then or now. But I think many enter a pointless minefield when they try to say "There's no evidence Jesus existed". Not only do I think such an extreme position unjustified, it always seems to be used to tweak Christian noses.

If we look at other major figures like Alexander the Great or Buddha, you see all sorts of nonsense attached to them (to be fair, Buddha didn't seem to ask for any of that, but ol' Alex went out of his way to promote the notion that he was a god).

It's pointless to go to the Bible looking for anything but generic answers. By and large, what we can learn from the Gospels, for the most part, was how Early Christians felt between the end of the 1st century and well into the 2nd century, by which time such tenets like the divinity of Christ were firmly entrenched (though I think John 1:1 is sufficiently vague as to question whether the doctrine of the Trinity had fully formed, though clearly it existed, if not in the full Aristotelean flowering that it was later to take on).

The problem for many Christians is that rather than viewing the Gospels as something of a snapshot from nearly a century after the death of Jesus, they seem to actually believe these to be eye-witness accounts. They still insist, in great degree, to Medieval notion of the Bible, which even by the Renaissance was no longer held by some. Once scholars decided to treat the Bible like, say, the works of Homer or Aristotle, they began to recognize peculiarities in the Gospels. It was explained to me by a Catholic a few years ago that a lot of Christians don't really practice Christianity, so much as they practice a form of Bibliolatry. The message, such as it is, gets lost in the emotional and theological need to have this book be seen as the direct work of God, thus they enter that circular logic where the Bible is true, because it says its true, and if every word ain't the truth, then there is no truth.

To my atheist mind, there's nothing in the book which compels me to view it as fundamentally any different from the Greek mythos or the Rig-Veda or any such holy books.

[scorpio]

I'd like a citation to a Biblical scholar or historian who feels Josephus's writings have been fully discredited. That is not the position I have ever seen. That they have been tampered with is no debated, but you're taking an extreme position that no one in related fields seems to accept.

Good summation here: link

I never said he was the son of God, but I think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that a guy named Jesus was hanging around Roman Palestine during the first few decades of the 1st century AD.

Uh, don't think I'd use the word "sufficient." You have gospels not written by eyewitnesses, no Roman record of Jesus' crucifixion, no other eyewitness accounts to this extremely popular person, multiple translations from one language to others, and a new testament thrown together arbitrarily, ignoring a huge amount of other gnostic material that pertain to Jesus. Granted, Jesus may have been a real person, but there is hardly a wealth of evidence to indicate he ever walked the earth.

[Who's Doing What?]

I am thinking the correct title to this thread would be the Word of Man.

Man wrote it. Most of it centuries after the fact. Think of a game of broken telephone that goes on for centuries before someone decides to write down the message.

[ToadBrother]

Good summation here: link

Oh come on. Look at the site. Why do people send me off to places like this? I'm asking for scholarly opinion, not for the opinion of someone like that.

Uh, don't think I'd use the word "sufficient." You have gospels not written by eyewitnesses, no Roman record of Jesus' crucifixion, no other eyewitness accounts to this extremely popular person, multiple translations from one language to others, and a new testament thrown together arbitrarily, ignoring a huge amount of other gnostic material that pertain to Jesus. Granted, Jesus may have been a real person, but there is hardly a wealth of evidence to indicate he ever walked the earth.

The Gospels are certainly unreliable, but it's not like they were written a thousand years after the fact. And historians often go on equally uneven footing. I'm reading a book on the origins of the Indo-Europeans, and believe, the slivers of data, including questionable views held by guys like Julius Caesar, Tacitus, and even the Rigveda, to formulate a picture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and early Indo-European groups. Questionable data can still be useful, as long as you recognize that it is questionable. There's no doubt that Josephus's writings were tampered with, but the extent to which they were, or rather the extent to which we can recover the original words, is not an closed case by any means.

[scorpio]

If you had actually read the article, you would have found credible sources at the end of the piece. Here is another site to mull over regarding the existence of Jesus. link

Edited February 25, 2010 by scorpio

[cybercoma]

The Bible’s full of controversial issues, and yet despite the breadth of authors, the huge period of time over which it was written, there is an amazing unity and harmony that runs all the way through.

No.

[GostHacked]

It was nice of Betsy to post again here. But it looks like another drive-by-post.

[whowhere]

No.

Yes, she is right.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, she is right.

That explains why we have two creation myths within the first two chapters, one clearly monotheistic, the other clearly poly/henotheistic ("let us create Man in our image..."). I won't even get into the knots folks get themselves into trying to explain the two genealogies of Christ found in Matthew and Luke (my favorite is that one is Mary's lineage, and one is Joseph's, not withstanding that there is nothing in the Gospels to suggest that or to suggest why Joseph's lineage would even be important).

[whowhere]

That explains why we have two creation myths within the first two chapters, one clearly monotheistic, the other clearly poly/henotheistic ("let us create Man in our image..."). I won't even get into the knots folks get themselves into trying to explain the two genealogies of Christ found in Matthew and Luke (my favorite is that one is Mary's lineage, and one is Joseph's, not withstanding that there is nothing in the Gospels to suggest that or to suggest why Joseph's lineage would even be important).

I don't think that is what she meant. I think she meant the Bible From Genesis to Revelations is a coherent epic. The Bible is allegorical perhaps with true events mixed in there somewhere. Nonetheless it is a tale of sorts.

[Moonlight Graham]

The Bible isn't the word of God. As you stated, it wasn't written by God but by many other folks. I find it impossible that they got the translation from God/Jesus's words and/or event to the book with significant accuracy enough to live by these quotes as if they are the Alpha and Omega of moral code.

Certain "editorial creativity" by the actual authors must have also been a result.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Moonlight Graham