TomboyMom

Half-Life:
If you want to persuade us of the truth of the bible, don't you think it would help if you learned something about it first? If you poke around this forum, you will observe that many posters here (the writer excluded) know a lot about it. They can argue over the Greek translation of an Aramaic fragment for pages. For example, do you know who wrote the bible, or when? Don't you think those might be some important facts influencing its credibility? Did you know that (conservative, mainstream scholars agree that) the first very first writings about Jesus were 20-30 years after he died, by a man who never met him? And the next parts were written 20 years or more after that, and that no one who wrote any of the gospels ever saw, met, or even was alive at the same time as, Jesus? Did you know that, regardless of what it says, no part of the New Testament is eyewitness testimony? Don't you think you would be a more effective advocate if you learned these things before preaching to us about how the bible is proof of something?

David B

Further to Tomboy Mum's post, are you also aware that there were lots of other books about the alleged life of Jesus.

Which ones were included in the bible (and if I'm wrong about this I'm sure an atheist biblical scholar will correct me) were chosen when Constantine, hundreds of years later, took Christianity on as a state religion, but told all the leaders of Christianity that they had to get their act together and agree what christianity was. Or else.

In broad terms.

David B

nygreenguy

Then why accept any of it?

Chuckling Atheist

One word: FEAR.

michael wellenberg

I would be glad if you handled any matter in a more civilized way.

With regards

Michael

Ubercat

But But But...... Star Wars is just a made up story!!!

Ubercat

And of course politicians and other power hungry attention cravers don't get anything out of making shit up either. (jeebus or L. Ron Hubbard anyone?)

-Ubercat

mephie00

That's it? That's the proof?

Well, we can start out with some basics of the basics of the biblical scholars. Is that part from Matthew also mentioned in Mark? The biblical scholars have compared the four gospels and believe that the gospel of "Mark" is the most authentic, "Matthew" and Luke used the gospel of Mark which they then interpreted and added their own take on certain things taking into regard their own personal ambitions for writting it. They also, along with Mark, used a "Q" document. A collection of sayings or teachings of allegedly Jesus. (Even the Vatican states that it believes that "Q" exists.")
(Also, contrary to Dan Brown and the DaVinci Coders, Biblical scholars do have an idea of what the Q document says, they've distilled it by comparing the gospels. When they agree with Mark, it was taken from Mark, when they agree in areas separate from Mark, it came from Q."

So, if Matthew was taking from Mark then who was Mark? The gospels don't mention Mark in any of the lists of disciples. And Matthew is a name assigned to that specific gospel, there is no clear indication that it's by the same Matthew spoken of in the Bible. (Why would these people refer to themselves in the 3rd person?)

So before we can take you proof seriously, how can we even be sure that Jesus really did predict his own death? Was it simply Matthew's window dressing, or was it Mark's?

S.C.Carlson

Josephus referred to himself in the third person.

Stephen

Weltall

That was the civilized way of saying the Bible is full of shit. Now about this 'proof' thing, big effing deal. I can predict that I'm going to die with 100% accuracy and make a pretty good guess as to the manner in which it'll happen. According to Half Life, that makes me a genuine prophet. Worship me, peons!