|
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 363
|
Split from Occam's razor and Existence of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBob
Historical fact, truth. People were around to back it up and people were around to discredit it if they could do so.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DJay
How about any outside documentation, of any kind, about the events?
Why should we outright take the word of a church who "edited" the word of God, to promote their Trinitarian doctrine? Why should we outright take the word of a church that voted on what was, and wasn't, the word of God, some 350 years, after events? Why should we outright take the word of a church that was willing to murder anyone who practiced opposing interpretations of Christianity?
Why should we outright take the word of apostles, who can't even agree on where they met the risen Christ? Why should we outright take the word of apostles, who can't even agree on how many were present when they met the risen Christ? Why should we outright take the word of apostles, who can't even agree on what time or day Jesus died? Why should we outright take the word of apostles, who weren't even present for Mary's pregnancy, let alone the conception? Why should we outright take the word of apostles, who weren't even present for the trial and crucifixion? Why should we outright take the word of apostles, who can't even agree on whether Jesus was crucified or hanged? Why should we take the word of a man, Paul, who never personally met Jesus, and who claims the apostles gave him jurisdiction over the Gentiles, which is different from what God had supposedly said?
Etc. etc. etc.
Prove your "facts", are facts.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBob
I don't believe the church edited the Bible. You don't have to take their word for anything though. You have your own mind.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DJay
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninewands
One needs only take a look at the difference between the Rheims-Douai Bible and the post-1827 editions of the King James Version (17 entire books removed from the canon) to prove the Bible has been edited, substantially, over the last 1650 years or so. The very existence of the Nag Hammadi library shows just how much material was declared "non-scriptural" and suppressed by the church right after the Council of Nicea brought Christianity into the realm of political power. I have a rather thick book entitled "The Other Bible" ( Harper-Collins, 1984, Willam Barnstone, ed.) which contains material that has been excluded from scripture over the years by both the Jewish and Christian traditions ... it is thicker and on a larger page format than my KJV and NRSV combined, even though the type size is similar. One of the items it contains is "The Secret Gospel of Mark" which was discovered in 1958, when a copy of a letter from Clement of Alexandria denouncing the Carpocratians was discovered at the Monastery of Mar Saba approximately 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Textual analysis indicates that the "Secret Gospel" was, most likely, originally located between Mark 10:34 and 10:35 and after Mark 10:46a, but was edited out sometime during the second century. The Comma Johanneum (linked above) is proof of RECENT editing of the Gospels themselves, as is the deletion of the translators' marginalia from most current printings of the KJV (currently, only the Cornerstone UltraThin Reference Bible, published by Broadman and Holman preserves these notes).
Think carefully before you answer my next question to yourself. Do you really want to continue down this path? There is plenty more proof if you'd like it, in fact, the few examples I have given are more or less "First Grade" level Biblical Analysis and History ... the "low-hanging fruit" if you will. The content of the "inerrant, unchanging Word of God" has proven to be remarkably variable down through the centuries.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBob
The Apostle John was at the crucifixion. Crucified and hanged are kind of similar things. Hanged is meant in a metaphorical way I believe, because crucifixion involves being suspended up on a cross.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DJay
Okay, so John is your chosen reliable source?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBob
One of them. He had first hand knowledge of Jesus, being one of His best friends and all. Surely that lends credibility.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DJay
If that's the one you want to use, that's fine by me. John challenges the reliability of Matthew and Luke, who you're going to need for your virgin birth, however. Sure you want to pick him?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBob
Sure. John most certainly does not challenge Matthew and Luke.
|
He most certainly does. 1. Mark, Matthew, and Luke, have women (differing women) watching from a distance, and make no mention of John being there. John puts himself there, with the women, including the virgin Mary...who no one else mentions, close enough to hear Jesus speak to them. 2. John has it happening at a different time and on a different day. 3. He has Jesus carrying his own cross. 4. They all have different inscriptions. 5. They all have different final words. 6. Different drink stories. 7. Different account sof the centurion and "thieves". 8. Different arrest story. 9. Different trial story. 10. Matthew has an earthquake. 11. No torn temple veil. 12. No resurrected saints. 13. Jesus' clothes. 14. Jesus being pierced with a lance. 15. Differing accounts of the burial. 16. Differing accounts of the resurrection.
Your statement about "facts" noted that people were around to discredit it, if they could do so. What was Jesus' trial all about? Wasn't his claim to Messiahood discredited, during his lifetime? Were there any witnesses, to his many "miracles", testifying on his behalf? No? Not even his closest friends? Could Jesus ever prove his Messiahood to his accusers?
Peace
|
02-28-2007, 08:18 AM
