Jerk

[tbubb1]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/priest-told-to-prove-jesus-existed-in-court/2006/01/22/1137864808088.html

[holyheadjch]

cool,

[tekkengod]

Why's he jerk? its about damn time someone did this.

[Agutrot-]

The bible strikes me as very similar to the records on Oceana in the George Orwell's book 1984. In the story if their leader made a prediction in a speech that was untrue the original speech was destroyed and a new, accurate speech was put in it's place. The problem with this it creates so many historical descrepencies if not carefully checked against all other hostorical records. This process can continue until the records are nothing but lies stacked upon each other.

During the Council of Nicea many major changes were made to the bible, and it's safe to assume many minor changes were made all throughout history. Before the printing press was invented it was near impossible to have many consistent forms of the bible so no on could ever prove that the new revised version was wrong. If a King needed Jesus to have dont something to get his people to obey, that's what Jesus did.

Q.E.D.

[YODA]

If a King needed Jesus to have dont something to get his people to obey, that's what Jesus did.

Q.E.D.


Absolutely! :)

[aikiMac]

With all due respect, that's historically inaccurate. The manuscript evidence quite sufficiently permits one to reconstruct with near perfect accuracy what Paul and Peter and company actually wrote. To say otherwise puts you at odds with probably every scholar in the field of manuscript study. If you actually have the credentials to take them on, then I salute you!

[holyheadjch]

98% of scholars in the fields of geology and biology support the theory of evolution, yet you are a believer in genesis (I believe, apologies if this is incorrect).
Do you have the credentials to take on the 98% of scholars in these fields?

EDIT: Ooh sneaky edit there Aiki,

[aikiMac]

98% of scholars in the fields of geology and biology support the theory of evolution, yet you are a believer in genesis (I believe, apologies if this is incorrect).
Do you have the credentials to take on the 98% of scholars in these fields?

EDIT: Ooh sneaky edit there Aiki,
The edit was 'cause I confused myself. 98% of scholars do not believe that the KJV is accurate, but that wasn't the issue raised. I am not aware of any scholars doubting that we can reconstruct almost word-for-word the original manuscripts that became the NT, and yes, I had a class on this and read a lot on it. That was the issue raised.

Did I challenge the fields of geology or biology? I recall raising issues of the philosophy behind science (and whether science rests on philosophy :D ), but I don't recall challenging any science itself. :confused:

[holyheadjch]

if you believe in genesis then you are challenging science,

[Agutrot-]

With all due respect, that's historically inaccurate. The manuscript evidence quite sufficiently permits one to reconstruct with near perfect accuracy what Paul and Peter and company actually wrote. To say otherwise puts you at odds with probably every scholar in the field of manuscript study. If you actually have the credentials to take them on, then I salute you!

Of course the time line itself is historically accurate. I never said any differently. My argument is that the actual words, and deeds in the bible were fabricated at different times. You think that when the bible was written all of the dogmatic evidence for most religions was orignally in there? Notice the larges gaps of times in which something unsavory might have happened. The bible is similar to Greek hero myths in that actual events distorted into something they're not, which can easily be manipulated to a ruler's will.

Example. Achillez was a mighty warrior changes to Achillez was immortal because he was dipped into the River Styx. Then, if enough people believe that Achillez was immortal, and think of him as more then man when their king says "Achillez died bravely in battle. He always said 'to die for your king is the greatest honor'" people beleive him even if that thing was never said.

[Thelistmaker]

There have been Christian sects that downplay the existence of Christ as a physical person since about 100 yrs after his death. Infact the word 'antichrist' originally appeared in Christian literature referring to such an early sect. Long story short, the debate arose early in Christian history and one side seamed to have managed to stifle the other relatively quickly :woo:

[Yama Tombo]

I think it's rather dumb to say the catholic church fabricated jesus. Some religions actually mention the existence of a person like jesus. If the Clergy did make up jesus, they went through all to do so.

[neb]

Well, I'm pretty certain a man of similar qualities to the man we here about in the Gospel, known as Jesus, did, in point of fact, exist. Miracles? another story.

I can imagine people questioning the existence of people like Martin Luther King or J F Kennedy 2000 years down the line.

Okay maybe not, because of computers and such. Not something they had 2000 years ago. Yes, not even windows 95.

[Strafio]

They went to court over 2 weeks ago.
Does anyone know the outcome?

[Aegis]

I seem to recall that the case was either dropped or dismissed, quite rightly so all in all.

[Endeavor]

I think it is very unfair for people to say anyone religoius is against all science.
Many medicines and experiments and methods of study were introduced and established by people of different religions throughout the world.
x
Here is some food for thought, maybe those greek myths wern't copied by the Bible, maybe they copied ideas from the Bible. :eek:
x
This concept of the Bible being changed to accomidate certain kingdoms advantages has zero evidence . Name one instance where the Bible has helped any country in the world do anything to its own advantage. Now be sure you dont confuse religions with the Bible. Because obviously religions manipulate people in certain situations.
x
mr agutrot, I dont understand what greek mythology has to do with Jesus saying Love your neighbor. If you think love thy neighbor was somehow something different 2000 years ago please inform us what Jesus really said, millions of us are dying to know. Or tell us what anything in the Bible really said, we really do want to know so we can know what you know.
x
Actually the oldest scriptrures can be re-translated and you'll find the Bible with the same meaning then as it does now. Wheather you belive what it says is not for me to judge, but for saying it has all been changed into something different you really need to show examples, literally millions of copies of this Book exist around the world and millions want to know if there is something they need to know. Please tell us your secret decoding of the Bible and what it really says.
x
neb, you are so right. Imagine what they will say about JFK and George Bush 2000 years from now. And computers dont establish ANYTHING about these people because the same computer that supports one, also condemns the same one. So is the computer 100% right, no, it contradicts its own information, but in time the less popular will be squeezed out if possible, or positions of power will seek to downsize the religoiusly resistant.
x
One man quotes one source another man quotes another, in the end we will see...
Look at George Washington, The 1st president of the united States. We dont really know much about old George. One reason is because of treason. The people that didn't like mr Washington didnt have their reasons printed on the one dollar bill, although theymay have been legidimant they wern't in a position of power. We find in life that a lot of things are not what they seem, most of all with people.