The problem is, they ARE NOT facts. There are as many scientists that back up the "young Earth" theory as those that back up an older Earth theory. Stuff like this is moot and its where faith takes over to me.
A bit of logic to back up a younger Earth- (of course, I copied and pasted this!)
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.
That was just ignorant, both you saying that I havnt read the Bible and your views on Jesus.
You can be Jewish darling and not hate Jesus, many Jews choose to view him as an important prophet even though they dont believe him to be the Messiah.
And as you can probably guess I have no problem backing up my claims of The Jewish religious hatred for Jesus and eventual murder of him. We all know it was Rome who killed him but it was the Pharisees who arranged for his arrest etc. Thats not even debatable.
What I want to know is- If I went to the trouble of solid proof, would you even open your mind to it? Your hatred of all things Christian and New Testament related comes across clearly. So to people like you, ANYTHING from NT is not even acceptable for arguments sake.
you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay
jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.
and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????
how so
the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.
the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true
and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me
please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."
i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs. add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all
One verse to sum up all the round judgments you've made about Jesus' character? There's no responding to that. If you care to have rational discussion, I'll be right here. I'm not interested in namecalling.
One verse to sum up all the round judgments you've made about Jesus' character? There's no responding to that. If you care to have rational discussion, I'll be right here. I'm not interested in namecalling.
firstly it only takes one proof that jesus did something wrong or cruel or unjust to proove that he was not perfect as u xians believe, secondlly the fig tree thingy turn to matthew 21 :19
then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?
according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is
i am still waiting for the proof of how the pharasees where cruel to the commoners
i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense
firstly it only takes one proof that jesus did something wrong or cruel or unjust to proove that he was not perfect as u xians believe, secondlly the fig tree thingy turn to matthew 21 :19
then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?
according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is
i am still waiting for the proof of how the pharasees where cruel to the commoners
i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense
Firstly, please calm down. I'm not whomever it is you seem to have a problem with here. There is no room for rational discussion when all you can do is throw terms and phrases like "obserdaty" (which I assume you meant as "absurdity"), "utter rubbish," and "learn to read" in my direction.
With all due respect, I am going to have to take some time to respond, because I need to decipher the spelling and grammar. If English isn't your main language, then I mean no offense. I just need to make sure I get what you're saying.
you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay
jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.
and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????
how so
the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.
the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true
and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me
please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."
i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs. add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all
What threatens you so much about Jesus that you spout anger so palpable that I can feel it coming off my screen?
Are you Jewish, if so...do you hate Muhamed as much as Jesus? Just curious..
you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay
Not worth responding to.
jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.
He wasn't a prophet. He was the Son of God. Fully human, fully divine--a mystery we in our humanity cannot wrap our puny minds around.
and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????
It is debatable, to the extent that you don't "organize" someone's death.
It is debatable, because who was truly culpable for Jesus' death, after all:
The Sandhedrin, for their riling up the Jewish people to the point that they clamored for His death?
Pilate, for passing the sentence, even with his showboating with the bowl of water to wash his hands of the sentence? All of us, for our sinful nature?
the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.
At this point, it is worth noting that NON-Christian historians such as Flavius Josephus (ironically enough, a Jewish historian), Pliny, and Plutarch corroborated the accounts of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.
the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true
See above. Who is this "learnerd rabbi" you speak of? I'd be interested to read his theories and sources.
and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me
John 9: The Sandhedrin were so steeped in legalism that they completely missed the point of a miracle. And oh, by the way, the pool of Siloam has been unearthed. That's just one example.
The Pharisees may not have been entirely "cruel" to commoners, but fact is, the Pharisees were far more interested in micromanaging religion than they were in faith. Jesus was not against the idea of the Pharisees. It was what they had become that He railed against. They burdened those who would have followed Jehovah with all sorts of legalistic decrees, and allowed status to become a marker of one's religious standing.
I don't care how rich or poor you are--if you have faith, that speaks volumes about your character far more than your actions or your socioeconomic standing.
The Pharisees either refused to or couldn't see the way to differentiate between faith and legalism.
please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."
And as for my above point, thank you for bringing up Matthew 15. Don't quote selectively. Look at the context. Read the opening verses to the chapter. The issue about clean vs. unclean is EXACTLY what I was getting at above.
Now as for the passage you refer to:
i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs.
I find it highly ironic that you are using a verse where Jesus is AFFIRMING the historical tension between Canaanites and Jews to build a case against Jesus. Have you forgotten the words of Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 20 with regards to Canaanites?
Anyway, on to commentary on Matthew 15: 22-28. It's worth nothing here that Matthew is probably the Gospel most sympathetic to the Jews, so the portrayal of Jesus as arrogant and aloof here is understandable.
Keeping that in mind, does the "dogs" reference make more sense now, given that the woman was a Gentile? Does the fact that this Gospel was written BY a Jew FOR a Jewish audience have any bearing at all on your understanding of the passage (and more to the point, your understanding of why Jesus seemed aloof and arrogant)?
Or are we going to get hung up on the small stuff (Jesus' comment) and neglect the main point (Jesus ministering to Gentiles and healing the child)?
add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all
Still looking for specific references on those.
And by the way, I have to add this: Yes, Jesus came preaching a message of love. Yes, Jesus is about grace. But make no mistake--when it all boils down to the bottom line, this "nice guy" image about Jesus is a misconception. Just because the Gospel of Jesus is one of love and grace, it does not automatically follow that everything's rosy. Just about every Christian who has ever been through trial will tell you that.
firstly it only takes one proof that jesus did something wrong or cruel or unjust to proove that he was not perfect as u xians believe,
Let the record reflect that never once in any debate with anyone from any other religion will I submit to using the term "You Jews" or "You Muslims" or anything like that. It is far too easy to resort to generalizations.
secondlly the fig tree thingy turn to matthew 21 :19
Ah, here we are. I'm sorry, but you're not going to like the common Christian understanding of why Jesus cursed the fig tree.
It was symbolism. The failure of Israel to live up to its role as God's chosen people. And that wasn't just a New Testament thing, either. You are no doubt familiar with Judges, of course.
then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?
ilana, I implore you (and everyone else who would participate in this worthy discussion), please consider that prooftexting in this discussion will do nothing but cause further confusion. It would be unfair for me to pluck individual verses out of the Tanak while completely ignoring its surrounding text and context.
according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is
I assume you're referring to Matthew 5:19 ("Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...").
Once again, it would help to refer to the full context, and ironically enough, once again, it's only a verse (or 2, in this case) back: Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law. Good gracious, no. Far from it. He came that others might see a tangible example of God's faithfulness as promised BY the Law.
i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense
And again, let the record reflect that no matter what my issues with anyone in a religious discussion, I refuse to and will NOT submit to referring to one's holy book as "obserdatys" (sic) and "utter rubbish". There is NO ROOM for rational discussion when statements like that are made, and I would hope for better from anyone willing to participate in a discussion about the issues raised here.
I can read perfectly well, thank you. I apologize for taking so long to read your responses and offer my own. As I said, I had to make sure I understood what you meant, and didn't misunderstand anything as a result of typos or grammatical errors.
Final note: I can understand the objections you would have with a Gospel from a Jewish standpoint if you used the almost belligerent Gospel of John, which (having been written later) was frankly much less sympathetic towards the leadership within the Jewish community in particular. Your citing Matthew numerous times almost befuddles me, given how specific the author's audience clearly was (i.e. the Jewish people).
The problem is, they ARE NOT facts. There are as many scientists that back up the "young Earth" theory as those that back up an older Earth theory.
The scientists used radiometric dating to find the age of those rocks; so there is no possible way to get around the fact that those rocks are billions of years old.
The scientists used radiometric dating to find the age of those rocks; so there is no possible way to get around the fact that those rocks are billions of years old.
Radiometric testing isnt an absolute science though.
Theres so much controversy even regarding that method of determining the age of things, right?
Anyway, Im tired now. :(
dkst - astounding posts, and I say that totally unbiased.. Ive learned a lot more about the bible just reading your posts in this thread.
Seriously....for instance, everyone always wants to know why organized religion can be so evil but if they actually read the Bible they would see that one of The main themes of it is to watch out for Bad men who would use it for unrighteous gain (war and money.)
quote]
organized religion and the bible are two different things. my problem is the way some people use the bible as a tool in organized religion. the problem isn't the bible itself, it's the interpretation.
the 'misintrepretation'...
where hellfire, trinity, rapture, teaching of the soul, and many more...all false teachings, come from.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
i have a thing against organized religion in general. not the bible, the religion that follows it, and others like it.
I'm still confused. I'm sorry. I really am.
Do you mean:
You have issues with organized religion, but not with the Bible and the religion that follows it?
OR
You have issues with organized religion and the religion that stems from the Bible, but not the Bible?
If it's the first, then yes, I can understand that.
If it's the second, I have no clue how you can have issues with Christianity and not with the Bible. That's a chicken vs. egg question, and neither one is mutually exclusive, so if it's the second one, I hope you can clarify.
And if it's not the second one, well--nevermind, then
haha, yes there is. mainly because people are blind, and blindly follow
Touche.
Look, all I can do is respectfully ask that if you're going to come with criticism, to come with something a bit more constructive. That response was a little bit of a cheap shot and kinda disappointing.
If you can't respect me (or anyone else who would engage in a real dialogue/discussion about Christianity and other related matters) enough to respect that when I'd be willing to engage into discussion with you, then there's really not much more to say.
Look, all I can do is respectfully ask that if you're going to come with criticism, to come with something a bit more constructive. That response was a little bit of a cheap shot and kinda disappointing.
If you can't respect me (or anyone else who would engage in a real dialogue/discussion about Christianity and other related matters) enough to respect that when I'd be willing to engage into discussion with you, then there's really not much more to say.
actually, i wasn't trying to take any cheap shots. you responded by saying that there was a reason why a teaching has survived for so long but you left it at that. so i wasn't sure what that was supposed to mean. i don't see that i disrespected you at all
i'm more than willing to have a good discussion on this and many other subjects.
since it seems you took offense to something i am sorry
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
I haven't read the book cover to cover, but large portions of it. And having been told excerpts from it in sunday school and school until the age of about 13. And been raised by parents who are really, truly dedicated baptists. I have attended several "revival" rallies with people talking in tongues and praising and can you give me a hallelujah. I've been many times to bible camp.
And I despise organized religion. Truly I do. I see that some finds comfort in it, and creates church communities that look out for eachother and draw a lot of positive from it. But I reserve the right to have an informed aversion towards it for myself.
However, eden, if your grief is "uninformed" slamming of religion, I can see you getting tired of that. If you want an informed slamming, then I'm right here.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
What threatens you so much about Jesus that you spout anger so palpable that I can feel it coming off my screen?
Are you Jewish, if so...do you hate Muhamed as much as Jesus? Just curious..
2000 years of killing in his name, just might give me reason to hate him, but i dont hate him, i dont believe he is a real person, he is fabrication
and your damn right im jewish
and i deal with jesus intoxicated evangalists on a regular basis,
they took my bible and twisted and perverted verses at thire whim, to try and paint thire so called jesus into it
and as for mahamad, the man married a six year opld and raped her when she was nine years old, should that not provoke hatred of him
2000 years of killing in his name, just might give me reason to hate him, but i dont hate him, i dont believe he is a real person, he is fabrication
and your damn right im jewish
and i deal with jesus intoxicated evangalists on a regular basis,
they took my bible and twisted and perverted verses at thire whim, to try and paint thire so called jesus into it
and as for mahamad, the man married a six year opld and raped her when she was nine years old, should that not provoke hatred of him
Your faith, my faith and the Muslim faith all believe in the God of the Bible and we all consider Abraham our forefather, thats why I never understand the hatred from people like you. Abraham was a very imperfect man yet God made the promise of the Messiah through him (The Abrahamic covenant) as you know.
Moses (A Godlike figure to Jewish people) was a murderer and a liar ...to the point that he was not allowed to enter the promised land, yet he is revered in the Jewish faith as he should be. He was a passionate, amazing but also imperfect man who shared a very intimate relationship with God and was the only Human to ever see Gods face.
How you can show such hypocrisy in whom you choose to label astounds me.
I haven't read the book cover to cover, but large portions of it. And having been told excerpts from it in sunday school and school until the age of about 13. And been raised by parents who are really, truly dedicated baptists. I have attended several "revival" rallies with people talking in tongues and praising and can you give me a hallelujah. I've been many times to bible camp.
And I despise organized religion. Truly I do. I see that some finds comfort in it, and creates church communities that look out for eachother and draw a lot of positive from it. But I reserve the right to have an informed aversion towards it for myself.
However, eden, if your grief is "uninformed" slamming of religion, I can see you getting tired of that. If you want an informed slamming, then I'm right here.
Peace
Dan
I despise most organized religion as well, it gives God a bad name.
Honestly? Im not angry or anything like that, actually I understand peoples disdain. I just get :( sometimes at how lost people are in the message of peace and love that Jesus taught because of the bad name that greedy and bloodthirsty churches have given him down through time.
it was avoided earlier so i'll re-ask it... what is to happen to gods greatest creation... no not cheesecake... i mean humans, us, his people, when our sun does indeed die out... NO life will survive this cataclysmic event, so why has god designed our solar system with a finite lifespan... ok, mankind might be able to explore other solar systems by the 4billion years deadline, but dolphins wont... dolphins will be boiled alive and what have they ever done to god? was Flipper really that bad a show?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
it was avoided earlier so i'll re-ask it... what is to happen to gods greatest creation... no not cheesecake... i mean humans, us, his people, when our sun does indeed die out... NO life will survive this cataclysmic event, so why has god designed our solar system with a finite lifespan... ok, mankind might be able to explore other solar systems by the 4billion years deadline, but dolphins wont... dolphins will be boiled alive and what have they ever done to god? was Flipper really that bad a show?
*holding stomach from laughter*
Nice comic relief.
Seriously? I believe it when it says "The Earth will stand forever".
It soothes my feeble mind.
I despise most organized religion as well, it gives God a bad name.
Honestly? Im not angry or anything like that, actually I understand peoples disdain. I just get :( sometimes at how lost people are in the message of peace and love that Jesus taught because of the bad name that greedy and bloodthirsty churches have given him down through time.
Now that's a kind of christian I can understand somewhat. I have few problems with Jesus. He stood for some great ideals, and had some good ideas for how people should have community together. I like many of his ideas, apart from the "son of god" angle.
Peace and love, I'm all for it. But I dont see the need to put some extra faith in a book written by some old jewish guys a few thousand years ago. If you want to access the divine, something I believe in although I dont know if it's something external or just in our minds, I dont see why it has to be filtered through just that book. I dont see why it needs filtering at all. Observing nature, people's behaviour and being aware of one's surroundings and being able to marvel in that, is all the religion or divine I need.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Observing nature, people's behaviour and being aware of one's surroundings and being able to marvel in that, is all the religion or divine I need.
Peace
Dan
Really? I dont know...I dont have an agnostic bone in my body. Though I admire the independance of people like you sometimes.
I dont mind feeling accountable to something higher than a Tree or a Mountain, actually I crave it.
Really? I dont know...I dont have an agnostic bone in my body. Though I admire the independance of people like you sometimes.
I dont mind feeling accountable to something higher than a Tree or a Mountain, actually I crave it.
Well thank you for the compliment. It is enough for me to see a beautiful sunset on the top of a mountain, to look into the eyes of my love, to observe everything around me, ponder on the complexity amd vastness of even my most immediate surroundings, and then trying to multiply it to the whole world. It's humbling and amazing in itself.
As for accountability, everyone has accountability towards themselves at least, as have I. I am accountable towards myself, my lady love, my family, my friends, my colleagues and fellow students. But I can understand the wish for there being a great eye in the sky who sees your good deeds, and will reward you even if noone else does. That there is fundamentally justice at the end of the journey. I see no need for there to be, and focus on the life we have, and what we can do to make justice right here right now. A belief in an after-life can make people far too accepting of injustice in real life.
Third planet is sure that they're being watched
By an eye in the sky that can't be stopped
When they get to the promised land
They're gonna shake that eye's hand
But I do respect a staunch belief in God and even Jesus that is not entangled in organized religion's dogmas and politics. That's one step in the right direction the way I see it.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Archaeological evidence supporting much of what is written in the Bible.
Non-Christian historical writing supporting much of the Old Testament writings.
The ancient texts were not "edited." Yes, they were chosen to be part of the canon, but it's not as if it was a crapshoot with the council in blindfolds picking out scrolls to be included. Face it--the apocryphal "gospels" were not canonized for a reason. You don't include something you can't verify in a book you intend to use as Scripture.
Secondly, the apocryphal "gospels" not being canonized had nothing to do with them not being able to 'verify' them. The canonical scriptures - those deemed acceptable by the early church fathers - were themselves unverifiable. The reason that the apocryphal books were deemed heretical is simply because they preached direct access to, and experience of, God, without the meduim of the preisthood and the church. Put simply, it came down to power politics.
Edit: My attitude has always been 'fuck the church!' As far as I'm concerned the church has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, and that it is just a racket, like Ford motors, Shell, or Haliburton.
But you are not correct ref editing. I did not say the texts were edited (ie altered), I said the bible was edited: ie 'To prepare an edition of for publication, eg. edit a collection of short stories'
The apocryphal gospels (the term meaning 'hidden away') were not always considered 'secret'. Some of the books were originally in Hebrew but they were excluded from the Hebrew canon and were thought to have only survived in Greek (until recent discoveried). Because they were included in the Spetuagint (the bible of the early church), they were accepted without question by greek-speaking christians.
The change occured when in 382CE, the pope commissioned Jerome (papal advisor) to make a new translation of the bible into Latin so it could be distributed to 'the masses'.
Jerome decided that only the Hebrew canon could be regarded as authentic (his opinion) and therefore rejected the books supposedly only found in Greek (at the time), labelling them 'apocryphal'. But at the time his views were not accepted and his translation (the Vulgate) retained the aprocryphal books in the old testament. thwarped attempt at editing
BUT in the 16th century, during the Reformation, protestants agreed with Jerome and thus the apocryphal books were removed from the bible altogether. EDITED
But now, scholars are once again finding these writings and realise their importance for the understanding of the development of Judaism and early christianism.
Now these are proven and recorded historical facts
Historical/archeological/scientific research are proving 'facts' of the bible not to be accurate or even completely wrong (timelines not matching, scientific explanations and timings for 'miracles'.. etc.)
Books such as the Gospel of Thomas, and The Gospel of Judas were judged to be heretical. I.e, the 'Gnostic Gospels'. These books weren't rejected/edited out simply to make room for others. They were regarded as heresy by the early church fathers.
Comments
The problem is, they ARE NOT facts. There are as many scientists that back up the "young Earth" theory as those that back up an older Earth theory. Stuff like this is moot and its where faith takes over to me.
A bit of logic to back up a younger Earth- (of course, I copied and pasted this!)
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.
i have a thing against organized religion in general. not the bible, the religion that follows it, and others like it.
you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay
jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.
and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????
how so
the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.
the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true
and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me
please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."
i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs. add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all
then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?
according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is
i am still waiting for the proof of how the pharasees where cruel to the commoners
i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense
Firstly, please calm down. I'm not whomever it is you seem to have a problem with here. There is no room for rational discussion when all you can do is throw terms and phrases like "obserdaty" (which I assume you meant as "absurdity"), "utter rubbish," and "learn to read" in my direction.
With all due respect, I am going to have to take some time to respond, because I need to decipher the spelling and grammar. If English isn't your main language, then I mean no offense. I just need to make sure I get what you're saying.
Fair enough?
What threatens you so much about Jesus that you spout anger so palpable that I can feel it coming off my screen?
Are you Jewish, if so...do you hate Muhamed as much as Jesus? Just curious..
He wasn't a prophet. He was the Son of God. Fully human, fully divine--a mystery we in our humanity cannot wrap our puny minds around.
It is debatable, to the extent that you don't "organize" someone's death.
It is debatable, because who was truly culpable for Jesus' death, after all:
The Sandhedrin, for their riling up the Jewish people to the point that they clamored for His death?
Pilate, for passing the sentence, even with his showboating with the bowl of water to wash his hands of the sentence?
All of us, for our sinful nature?
At this point, it is worth noting that NON-Christian historians such as Flavius Josephus (ironically enough, a Jewish historian), Pliny, and Plutarch corroborated the accounts of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.
See above. Who is this "learnerd rabbi" you speak of? I'd be interested to read his theories and sources.
John 9: The Sandhedrin were so steeped in legalism that they completely missed the point of a miracle. And oh, by the way, the pool of Siloam has been unearthed. That's just one example.
The Pharisees may not have been entirely "cruel" to commoners, but fact is, the Pharisees were far more interested in micromanaging religion than they were in faith. Jesus was not against the idea of the Pharisees. It was what they had become that He railed against. They burdened those who would have followed Jehovah with all sorts of legalistic decrees, and allowed status to become a marker of one's religious standing.
I don't care how rich or poor you are--if you have faith, that speaks volumes about your character far more than your actions or your socioeconomic standing.
The Pharisees either refused to or couldn't see the way to differentiate between faith and legalism.
And as for my above point, thank you for bringing up Matthew 15. Don't quote selectively. Look at the context. Read the opening verses to the chapter. The issue about clean vs. unclean is EXACTLY what I was getting at above.
Now as for the passage you refer to: I find it highly ironic that you are using a verse where Jesus is AFFIRMING the historical tension between Canaanites and Jews to build a case against Jesus. Have you forgotten the words of Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 20 with regards to Canaanites?
Anyway, on to commentary on Matthew 15: 22-28. It's worth nothing here that Matthew is probably the Gospel most sympathetic to the Jews, so the portrayal of Jesus as arrogant and aloof here is understandable.
Keeping that in mind, does the "dogs" reference make more sense now, given that the woman was a Gentile? Does the fact that this Gospel was written BY a Jew FOR a Jewish audience have any bearing at all on your understanding of the passage (and more to the point, your understanding of why Jesus seemed aloof and arrogant)?
Or are we going to get hung up on the small stuff (Jesus' comment) and neglect the main point (Jesus ministering to Gentiles and healing the child)?
Still looking for specific references on those.
And by the way, I have to add this: Yes, Jesus came preaching a message of love. Yes, Jesus is about grace. But make no mistake--when it all boils down to the bottom line, this "nice guy" image about Jesus is a misconception. Just because the Gospel of Jesus is one of love and grace, it does not automatically follow that everything's rosy. Just about every Christian who has ever been through trial will tell you that.
Ah, here we are. I'm sorry, but you're not going to like the common Christian understanding of why Jesus cursed the fig tree.
Jeremiah 8:13
It was symbolism. The failure of Israel to live up to its role as God's chosen people. And that wasn't just a New Testament thing, either. You are no doubt familiar with Judges, of course.
It would help to use verses/passages in context. All you have to do is go one verse back, to Matthew 5:21 and then through verse 24.
ilana, I implore you (and everyone else who would participate in this worthy discussion), please consider that prooftexting in this discussion will do nothing but cause further confusion. It would be unfair for me to pluck individual verses out of the Tanak while completely ignoring its surrounding text and context.
I assume you're referring to Matthew 5:19 ("Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...").
Once again, it would help to refer to the full context, and ironically enough, once again, it's only a verse (or 2, in this case) back: Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law. Good gracious, no. Far from it. He came that others might see a tangible example of God's faithfulness as promised BY the Law.
And again, let the record reflect that no matter what my issues with anyone in a religious discussion, I refuse to and will NOT submit to referring to one's holy book as "obserdatys" (sic) and "utter rubbish". There is NO ROOM for rational discussion when statements like that are made, and I would hope for better from anyone willing to participate in a discussion about the issues raised here.
I can read perfectly well, thank you. I apologize for taking so long to read your responses and offer my own. As I said, I had to make sure I understood what you meant, and didn't misunderstand anything as a result of typos or grammatical errors.
Final note: I can understand the objections you would have with a Gospel from a Jewish standpoint if you used the almost belligerent Gospel of John, which (having been written later) was frankly much less sympathetic towards the leadership within the Jewish community in particular. Your citing Matthew numerous times almost befuddles me, given how specific the author's audience clearly was (i.e. the Jewish people).
The scientists used radiometric dating to find the age of those rocks; so there is no possible way to get around the fact that those rocks are billions of years old.
Radiometric testing isnt an absolute science though.
Theres so much controversy even regarding that method of determining the age of things, right?
Anyway, Im tired now. :(
dkst - astounding posts, and I say that totally unbiased.. Ive learned a lot more about the bible just reading your posts in this thread.
the 'misintrepretation'...
where hellfire, trinity, rapture, teaching of the soul, and many more...all false teachings, come from.
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Easy now......there's a good reason why the idea of the Trinity has survived entire milleniums.
Do you mean:
You have issues with organized religion, but not with the Bible and the religion that follows it?
OR
You have issues with organized religion and the religion that stems from the Bible, but not the Bible?
If it's the first, then yes, I can understand that.
If it's the second, I have no clue how you can have issues with Christianity and not with the Bible. That's a chicken vs. egg question, and neither one is mutually exclusive, so if it's the second one, I hope you can clarify.
And if it's not the second one, well--nevermind, then
haha, yes there is. mainly because people are blind, and blindly follow
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Look, all I can do is respectfully ask that if you're going to come with criticism, to come with something a bit more constructive. That response was a little bit of a cheap shot and kinda disappointing.
If you can't respect me (or anyone else who would engage in a real dialogue/discussion about Christianity and other related matters) enough to respect that when I'd be willing to engage into discussion with you, then there's really not much more to say.
actually, i wasn't trying to take any cheap shots. you responded by saying that there was a reason why a teaching has survived for so long but you left it at that. so i wasn't sure what that was supposed to mean. i don't see that i disrespected you at all
i'm more than willing to have a good discussion on this and many other subjects.
since it seems you took offense to something i am sorry
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
Esther's here and she's sick?
hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
And I despise organized religion. Truly I do. I see that some finds comfort in it, and creates church communities that look out for eachother and draw a lot of positive from it. But I reserve the right to have an informed aversion towards it for myself.
However, eden, if your grief is "uninformed" slamming of religion, I can see you getting tired of that. If you want an informed slamming, then I'm right here.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
and your damn right im jewish
and i deal with jesus intoxicated evangalists on a regular basis,
they took my bible and twisted and perverted verses at thire whim, to try and paint thire so called jesus into it
and as for mahamad, the man married a six year opld and raped her when she was nine years old, should that not provoke hatred of him
Your faith, my faith and the Muslim faith all believe in the God of the Bible and we all consider Abraham our forefather, thats why I never understand the hatred from people like you. Abraham was a very imperfect man yet God made the promise of the Messiah through him (The Abrahamic covenant) as you know.
Moses (A Godlike figure to Jewish people) was a murderer and a liar ...to the point that he was not allowed to enter the promised land, yet he is revered in the Jewish faith as he should be. He was a passionate, amazing but also imperfect man who shared a very intimate relationship with God and was the only Human to ever see Gods face.
How you can show such hypocrisy in whom you choose to label astounds me.
I despise most organized religion as well, it gives God a bad name.
Honestly? Im not angry or anything like that, actually I understand peoples disdain. I just get :( sometimes at how lost people are in the message of peace and love that Jesus taught because of the bad name that greedy and bloodthirsty churches have given him down through time.
*holding stomach from laughter*
Nice comic relief.
Seriously? I believe it when it says "The Earth will stand forever".
It soothes my feeble mind.
Now that's a kind of christian I can understand somewhat. I have few problems with Jesus. He stood for some great ideals, and had some good ideas for how people should have community together. I like many of his ideas, apart from the "son of god" angle.
Peace and love, I'm all for it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Really? I dont know...I dont have an agnostic bone in my body. Though I admire the independance of people like you sometimes.
I dont mind feeling accountable to something higher than a Tree or a Mountain, actually I crave it.
As for accountability, everyone has accountability towards themselves at least, as have I. I am accountable towards myself, my lady love, my family, my friends, my colleagues and fellow students. But I can understand the wish for there being a great eye in the sky who sees your good deeds, and will reward you even if noone else does. That there is fundamentally justice at the end of the journey. I see no need for there to be, and focus on the life we have, and what we can do to make justice right here right now. A belief in an after-life can make people far too accepting of injustice in real life.
But I do respect a staunch belief in God and even Jesus that is not entangled in organized religion's dogmas and politics. That's one step in the right direction the way I see it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You have completely missed the point.
There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed at the time he is said to have lived. Not one iota of historical, or archaelogical evidence. In fact, all of the research which has taken place in the pusuit of historical evidence to support the events mentioned in the bible points to these events having taken place at approximately 1000 - 15000bc.
Check out: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Egyptian-Religion-Ahmed-Osman/dp/1591430461/sr=1-4/qid=1160384748/ref=sr_1_4/026-8449191-6268465?ie=UTF8&s=books
Secondly, the apocryphal "gospels" not being canonized had nothing to do with them not being able to 'verify' them. The canonical scriptures - those deemed acceptable by the early church fathers - were themselves unverifiable. The reason that the apocryphal books were deemed heretical is simply because they preached direct access to, and experience of, God, without the meduim of the preisthood and the church. Put simply, it came down to power politics.
Edit: My attitude has always been 'fuck the church!' As far as I'm concerned the church has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ, and that it is just a racket, like Ford motors, Shell, or Haliburton.
I concur with Byrnzie....
But you are not correct ref editing. I did not say the texts were edited (ie altered), I said the bible was edited: ie 'To prepare an edition of for publication, eg. edit a collection of short stories'
The apocryphal gospels (the term meaning 'hidden away') were not always considered 'secret'. Some of the books were originally in Hebrew but they were excluded from the Hebrew canon and were thought to have only survived in Greek (until recent discoveried). Because they were included in the Spetuagint (the bible of the early church), they were accepted without question by greek-speaking christians.
The change occured when in 382CE, the pope commissioned Jerome (papal advisor) to make a new translation of the bible into Latin so it could be distributed to 'the masses'.
Jerome decided that only the Hebrew canon could be regarded as authentic (his opinion) and therefore rejected the books supposedly only found in Greek (at the time), labelling them 'apocryphal'. But at the time his views were not accepted and his translation (the Vulgate) retained the aprocryphal books in the old testament. thwarped attempt at editing
BUT in the 16th century, during the Reformation, protestants agreed with Jerome and thus the apocryphal books were removed from the bible altogether. EDITED
But now, scholars are once again finding these writings and realise their importance for the understanding of the development of Judaism and early christianism.
Now these are proven and recorded historical facts
Historical/archeological/scientific research are proving 'facts' of the bible not to be accurate or even completely wrong (timelines not matching, scientific explanations and timings for 'miracles'.. etc.)