Do you have the believe the Bible is the 100% word of God to be a Christian?

[OzmO]

Makes up most of it.

Jesus is alive

No.  Where do you get 300 years?

The written New Testament was in circulation within 40 years of Jesus' ministry.

Not all of it.

When Jesus was alive on earth?

When was the Bible put together?  When did they decide which books were to be put in the bible?  Did it happen during Jesus's life on earth?  Did Paul write his letters while Jesus was "in the flesh" on Earth?

Heck, the Gospels weren't written yet.  

Where?

Why would I know where in the world you got your outlined path to salvation from Jesus if you don't believe in the authenticity of the Gospels and of the rest of the New Testament?

So let me ask you again.  You claim that "Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly"  and I ask you where?

I'm really surprised you don't know.

Maybe Johnny knows 

[Deicide]

Not all of it.

When Jesus was alive on earth?

When was the Bible put together?  When did they decide which books were to be put in the bible?  Did it happen during Jesus's life on earth?  Did Paul write his letters while Jesus was on Earth?

Heck, the Gospels weren't written yet.  
I'm really surprised you don't know.

I am surprised you don't look at the evidence that suggests there never was a Jesus.

[OzmO]

I am surprised you don't look at the evidence that suggests there never was a Jesus.

I'm sure there's tons of it.  But something got Christianity started, whether it was who we know as Jesus or someone else who became who we know as Jesus.

[Deicide]

I'm sure there's tons of it.  But something got Christianity started, whether it was who we know as Jesus or someone else who became who we know as Jesus.

We will never know and I think that is the major point; the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; it is a collection of pseudo-history, folklore and outright fabrication. As to what got Christianity started, politics and power my friend, pretty simple.

[OzmO]

We will never know and I think that is the major point; the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; it is a collection of pseudo-history, folklore and outright fabrication. As to what got Christianity started, politics and power my friend, pretty simple.

I agree, but something sparked the movement. 

[big L dawg]

I agree, but something sparked the movement. 

money,power,and control.

[OzmO]

money,power,and control.

Opportunities for money power and control always exist. 

Something happened.  Something Unique.  Whether it's real or not is not the point.  Something started it.  Money, power and control may have help grow it.  But something started it.

[big L dawg]

Opportunities for money power and control always exist. 

Something happened.  Something Unique.  Whether it's real or not is not the point.  Something started it.  Money, power and control may have help grow it.  But something started it.

 opportunities yes...you can tax or rob a person and get money.but what can you do to get them to willing hand it over?hence church donation.and control.yea you can control people with police and army's and intimidation but..to own there mind is complete control.hence believe our religion for salvation.and when you are in a person's mind and pocket you have all the power...

[OzmO]

opportunities yes...you can tax or rob a person and get money.but what can you do to get them to willing hand it over?hence church donation.and control.yea you can control people with police and army's and intimidation but..to own there mind is complete control.hence believe our religion for salvation.and when you are in a person's mind and pocket you have all the power...

Yep, you are preaching to the choir.   

But something started it.  Real or not.

[Deicide]

Yep, you are preaching to the choir.   

But something started it.  Real or not.

Remember that in the 1st and 2nd centuries, there wasn't Christianity but CHRISTIANITIES, that is many different forms of it competing against each other and differing from each other. Probably to many to count...

[OzmO]

Remember that in the 1st and 2nd centuries, there wasn't Christianity but CHRISTIANITIES, that is many different forms of it competing against each other and differing from each other. Probably to many to count...

And what sparked that?

There had to be something.

[MCWAY]

And what sparked that?

There had to be something.

That something was the person of Jesus Christ, whose existence is well-documented both inside and outside the Bible, contrary to Deicide's wacky claims to the contrary.

We will never know and I think that is the major point; the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; it is a collection of pseudo-history, folklore and outright fabrication. As to what got Christianity started, politics and power my friend, pretty simple.

Au contraire!!! We know, and that the problem that too many atheists can't seem to shake. Loco has pointed this out several times, as have I, the numerous times atheists have been burned when historical evidence support the accounts in the Bible.

Your claim is utterly false, as the Bible has been used for centuries as a reliable historical document. There were many events that, at one point, were known only in the pages of Scripture. Atheists erroneously and foolishly claimed that such events were fabricated. But as archaeological and historical events have been un-earth (SURPRISE, SURPRISE), they point squarely to the Bible's accuracy about such events.

It's gone to the point, where now certain scholars have now resorted to Biblical marginalism. Since they can no longer deny the historicity of the events, they must now revise it so that they can still downplay the divine aspects of the Biblical accounts. I've seen that happen several times on the History Channel.

[Deicide]

That something was the person of Jesus Christ, whose existence is well-documented both inside and outside the Bible, contrary to Deicide's wacky claims to the contrary.
Au contraire!!! We know, and that the problem that too many atheists can't seem to shake. Loco has pointed this out several times, as have I, the numerous times atheists have been burned when historical evidence support the accounts in the Bible.

Your claim is utterly false, as the Bible has been used for centuries as a reliable historical document. There were many events that, at one point, were known only in the pages of Scripture. Atheists erroneously and foolishly claimed that such events were fabricated. But as archaeological and historical events have been un-earth (SURPRISE, SURPRISE), they point squarely to the Bible's accuracy about such events.

It's gone to the point, where now certain scholars have now resorted to Biblical marginalism. Since they can no longer deny the historicity of the events, they must now revise it so that they can still downplay the divine aspects of the Biblical accounts. I've seen that happen several times on the History Channel.

In your dreams MCWAY...well documented both inside and outside....freaking hilarious...keep them coming....

If you really think the Bible is a book of history then I have a bridge to sell you...oh and the Illiad is also a reliable historical document...

[MCWAY]

In your dreams MCWAY...well documented both inside and outside....freaking hilarious...keep them coming....

Yep, well-documented. I've mentioned this several times before now. But just to jar that short memory of yours.....

Actually, the life of Jesus is recorded in whole or in part, different segments, in about 20 different non-Christian sources--historically or archaeologically--outside the New Testament. And most of these are little snippets--a sentence here, a paragraph there--but you put them all together, and you get approximately 60 to 65 facts, concerning the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the earliest church. You can get an outline of His life and NEVER touch the New Testament." - Dr. Gary Habermas, "The Historical Jesus" (and "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?")

If you really think the Bible is a book of history then I have a bridge to sell you...oh and the Illiad is also a reliable historical document...

I don't need a bridge. We have scholars who have said as much, regarding the accuracy of Biblical history.

With regards to one of my favorite subject items, Belshazzar, about whom skeptics have had to remove their feet from their mouths:

"Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon.

Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus's stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel." R. P. Doughtery, "Nabonidus and Belshazzar". (Yale, 1929)

And, as he usually does, Loco will have no problem, displaying the long (but not exhaustive) list of events and figures that atheists claimed never happened or never existed, only to be refuted with historical and archaelogical evidence that verifies the Biblical accounts.

[MCWAY]

And what sparked that?

There had to be something.

Perhaps, you should check out the "Who is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" video on the thread I just brought back up.

"Christianity, of course, is based on a belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. Now how can you explain the expansion of this religion that exalted a man who suffered the ignominious death, the worst possible death, reserved for criminals and slaves---crucifixion---how can you explain the growth and expansion of this religion without the Resurrection? You cannot. Now, some scholars have tried to do that; but they do not offer any convincing explanation." Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami-Ohio (from "Who Is This Jesus Is He Risen?").

[tu_holmes]

No.

[Government_Controlled]

therein is contained the famous Luke/Matthew Jesus Birth Date contradiction.

Have you ever read two biographies about the same famous person? If so, have you noticed that these biographies will differ without being necessarily contradictory? Often, it is because of the writer’s personal impressions or the sources he has used. It also depends on what the author feels is important to relate in his presentation, the angle he is developing, and having the audience in mind for whom the work is intended. Thus, accounts written with Gentile readers in mind would differ from those for Jewish readers, who already understood and accepted certain facts.

These are just a few examples of passages in the Bible that, without careful analysis, appear to contradict one another. But when carefully examined, keeping in mind the writer’s viewpoint and the context, they are not contradictions at all but simply passages that require additional research. Most people fail to put forth this necessary effort, however, finding it so much easier just to say: "The Bible contradicts itself."

Joesphus, an orthodox Jew would never have referred to 'Jesus' as the Christ and that passage you are referring to is talking about another Jesus, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Um, yeah, I acknowledge my mistake when "McWay" brought it out. What Josephus said was "the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."  (Jewish Antiquities, XX, [ix, 1].) Sorry for the confusion friend. 

I'm not sure what you mean by me referring to another Jesus. I think you might be thinking of Acts 12:1,2 where it mentions the death of another James by sword. I was not referencing this James of the Bible. The James I referred to, is indeed, the brother of Jesus, or rather half-brother. Just for info, the other two James' mentioned in the Bible were the son's of Zebedee and Alphaeus.

There is no Biblical record of the stoning of Jesus' half-brother James. This was recorded only by a secular source, Josephus. Hope that clears up my confusing post. 

Widely acknowledged to be an interpolation and even if not, writing nearly a century later, has little value, being mentioned no longer than a sentence.

Well, I guess everyone is different on what "floats their boat". It's plenty for me and most other Christians. He (Tacitus) , from what I've researched is well accepted as reliable.

I find the evidence lacking and this has been discussed many times before.

Sometimes, one has to open their mind and heart in order to see thru the lies. I'm sure with time and HONEST research you would find that the evidence is overwhelming! 

Why do you always post this?

That's my I.D. on this board. 




CG/DEA_AGENT

[OzmO]

Perhaps, you should check out the "Who is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" video on the thread I just brought back up.

"Christianity, of course, is based on a belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. Now how can you explain the expansion of this religion that exalted a man who suffered the ignominious death, the worst possible death, reserved for criminals and slaves---crucifixion---how can you explain the growth and expansion of this religion without the Resurrection? You cannot. Now, some scholars have tried to do that; but they do not offer any convincing explanation." Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami-Ohio (from "Who Is This Jesus Is He Risen?").

Thanks,  I'll check it out soon.

I agree, something sparked it.  Perhaps stories of a resurrection.  However that does not prove a resurrection.   I think it was Barbara Thering who had a interesting theory on that one, not that i agree. 

[MCWAY]

2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV)

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.


Do christian realy believe this shit?  God loves everyone but then he sends two bears to kill 42 children?! WTF..
LOL now lets say this did happen, 2 bears vs 42 children.. Are you telling me they all just stood around watching the bears kill them without even thinking once "oh shit lets run"??

You're WAAAAAAY late to the party. This has been discussed (and thoroughly refuted) some time ago.

First, the "little children" are anything but that. The Hebrew words that the KJV translators render as "little children" are more accurately translated as young men or young lads (i.e. teenagers).

Second (and this is a question asked several times before now), why are a bunch of folks leaving the confines of a city, to confront Elisha, just because he's bald?

Thirdly, if the bears hacked up 42 of them, it leads one to wonder just how many there actually were (and again, why they're messing with Elisha, in the first place).

Bible scholars have deduced that these "little children" were apprentices of Baal prophets, much as Elisha was an apprentice of Elijah (they knew who Elisha was, which is why they kept egging him to "Go up", as his mentor did, when he was translated into heaven).

They had bad intentions for Elisha. Fortunately for him, he had some backup in the form of those bears.

[MCWAY]

Luke is just as contrived and fictitious as the other Gospels, therein is contained the famous Luke/Matthew Jesus Birth Date contradiction

A "contradicton", which has been sliced to pieces by Biblical scholars long ago, most notably, Sir William Ramsay, whose historical investigaton into the matter not only cleared up this alleged "contradiction" but (as a result) caused this one-time Biblical skeptic, trained during the height of the "Enlightenment" period, to become a Christian himself.

Joesphus, an orthodox Jew would never have referred to 'Jesus' as the Christ and that passage you are referring to is talking about another Jesus, not Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus didn't refer to him as the Christ. In Book XX of the Antiquities, he merely stated that Jesus was called Christ, using Him to identify James. And, he is NOT talking about another Jesus.

Widely acknowledged to be an interpolation and even if not, writing nearly a century later, has little value, being mentioned no longer than a sentence.

Dead wrong again, Deicide. In fact, per the words of Maurice Gougel, author of "Jesus the Nazarene", the reference in which Tacitus mentions Jesus is legit. As Goguel states, it is decidely not Jewish (because the average Jew would not have seen Jesus as the Christ), nor is it of a Christian source.

No Christian would make the implication that Christianity was "repressed for a time" (presumably due to Jesus' death); nor would such refer to the faith as a "pernicious supersition" or hurl the insults that Tacitus does toward Christians being part of things that were "wicked" and "shameful".

Tacitus apparently did his homework, when he investigated the source of these Christians, whom Nero was blaming for the damage done to Rome. He found out that they were named after Jesus Christ, who was executed by Pontius Pilate. If this were a mere myth, Tacitus would have pointed that out and that would have been the end of it.

I find the evidence lacking and this has been discussed many times before.

And, as has been discussed before, your claim about the evidence for Jesus' existence lacking is a shallow one, which makes it quite easy to refute, as has been done many times before.

[OzmO]

You're WAAAAAAY late to the party. This has been discussed (and thoroughly refuted) some time ago.

First, the "little children" are anything but that. The Hebrew words that the KJV translators render as "little children" are more accurately translated as young men or young lads (i.e. teenagers).

Second (and this is a question asked several times before now), why are a bunch of folks leaving the confines of a city, to confront Elisha, just because he's bald?

Thirdly, if the bears hacked up 42 of them, it leads one to wonder just how many there actually were (and again, why they're messing with Elisha, in the first place).

Bible scholars have deduced that these "little children" were apprentices of Baal prophets, much as Elisha was an apprentice of Elijah (they knew who Elisha was, which is why they kept egging him to "Go up", as his mentor did, when he was translated into heaven).

They had bad intentions for Elisha. Fortunately for him, he had some backup in the form of those bears.

There's a mis-translation in the bible?  Imagine that.

They have deduced?  How have they deduced that?

A Prophet is coming to the city?........I'd be curious enough to see him as he approaches.

2 Bears hacking up 42 teenagers?  doubt it.  Hacking 42 children?  much more possible.

They had bad intentions?  And they started with teasing him about being bald?  right.  lol

[nodeal]

do you guys really think there was a guy who died, was buried, and then floated up to the clouds in heaven? come on guys...come on...

[MCWAY]

There's a mis-translation in the bible?  Imagine that.

They have deduced?  How have they deduced that?

A Prophet is coming to the city?........I'd be curious enough to see him as he approaches.

2 Bears hacking up 42 teenagers?  doubt it.  Hacking 42 children?  much more possible.

They had bad intentions?  And they started with teasing him about being bald?  right.  lol

What so doubtful about 42 teenagers being mauled by bears? And, this happened as Elisha was leaving the city.

And again, why would a bunch of children leave a city, just to pick on prophet for being bald? I've lost count of how many times you've been asked that question yet provided no answer.

I explained the deduction earlier. The region in question is where a number of Baal prophets were. And, that group knew who Elisha was and who his mentor was (and what happened to him).

[MCWAY]

do you guys really think there was a guy who died, was buried, and then floated up to the clouds in heaven? come on guys...come on...

That's not how the account goes. So, NO, we don't believe that.

[OzmO]

What so doubtful about 42 teenagers being mauled by bears? And, this happened as Elisha was leaving the city.

And again, why would a bunch of children leave a city, just to pick on prophet for being bald? I've lost count of how many times you've been asked that question yet provided no answer.

I explained the deduction earlier. The region in question is where a number of Baal prophets were. And, that group knew who Elisha was and who his mentor was (and what happened to him).

An important man is coming into town, why wouldn't curious children go out to see him in? 

What's doubtful about 42 "teenagers" being mauled by 2 bears is most would escape.

The Baal prophet thing is only a possibility.