Determining a book's truth.

I refer to the disciples and apostles who, although it is tradition; but there are probably historical records as well to account for them, died for something they knew to be false. People today never knew Muhammad, only can read what he wrote.
People then saw Christ's miracles, or saw the lack of miracles, and yet continued to die for something that was false. That would be silly.

There's no evidence those people existed.

Do you know actually know of any such records? Or is this just another example of repeating what folk have told you without question?Even if there was any evidence anyone died for their beliefs, did you not see where I pointed to modern examples of people who died for their belief?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And never in the history of mankind has anyone done anything silly.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

First note that when it comes to religion, emotion is much stronger and persuasive than reason.So what you find incredulous is a bit more comprehensible when you read the accounts of intelligent and sane people committing group suicide in order to catch a spaceship on the far side of a comet (ie Heaven’s Gate).Or even better read the account of Jim Jones where a large number of people died (both suicide and murder) for a leader that had *many* obvious and well known faults.Jim Jones - WikipediaThese people died and even worse, killed friends and family members, for something that was knowingly false.Second, I am assuming that you are referring to the apostles. What reliable sources do you have on the fate of the apostles?BTW it sounds like you have been reading Josh McDowell. I remember reading his books when I was younger. I was at first excited but quickly became disappointed with circular reasoning, false dichotomies, logical strawmen, omitted and contrived evidence, etc.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that when the KJV was being written, and for a while afterwards, it was not the most widely used translation. So if its widespread use is a valid argument for it now, it would have been an argument against it when it was written. Indeed, arguments along these lines were put forward; this is from the Translators' Preface to the KJV:"Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment.

​

Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?"

Ps, I have to say, that is another one of those strings of statements that is so ignorant in so many ways, it makes my head spin. I’ll go through them each, trying not to waste too much of my time.PS 148 wrote: A “tradition” means a hearsay story. We have only hearsay legends that any of the apostles died for anything. That’s the point - there are exactly zero records of their deaths. For all we know, they all ditched the whole Christianity thing as soon as Jesus was executed, and others heard rumors and started Christianity. We simply have no records from that time. Yes, we have writings by him as well as writings by people who knew him - neither of which we have for Jesus, or for any of his disciples. That’s a huge difference. I’m not Muslim, but just based on that it’s hard to see how any rational person rejects Islam in favor of Christianity. People like me at least reject both. What’s silly is your idea that people then saw the miracles. It’s the other way around. Christianity started after rumors of Jesus’ resurrection began to circulate (whether or not those rumors were true). The Gospels were written decades after the events, and likely are tall tales of miracles that never happened. If you are going to put credence in ancient rumors of miracles, then you have to start worshipping people like Appolonius, Nero, Mithras, and many more, who also have stories of miracles.

PS 148 wrote: If you have read the whole Bible, you’d know that it contains huge amounts of trivial stuff, like lists that go on for page after page filled with names of people who are never again mentioned, or the exact same story repeated word for word in more than one place, etc. There are not just a few pages like this, but dozens to hundreds of pages with zero usefulness. While at the same time, books important enough for disciples to quote are lost. If that’s God given, then you have a pretty incompetent God.I hear this Christian two step dance all the time. It goes like this - fist they state that the important stuff is in the perfect, inerrant bible. Then, when it’s shown to them how shoddy the Bible is, they blame it on imperfect writing by the imperfect and fallible human authors. Then, when it’s pointed out that if imperfect and fallible authors wrote it, they say that it was controlled (or guided, or supervised, or whatever weasel word they like) by the holey spirit, who fixed mistakes. Then when the undeniable mistakes are pointed out, they blame it on the imperfect and fallible human authors.Then, when it’s pointed out that if imperfect and fallible authors wrote it, they say that it was controlled (or guided, or supervised, or whatever weasel word they like) by the holey spirit, who fixed mistakes. Then when the undeniable mistakes are pointed out, they blame it on the imperfect and fallible human authors.Then, when it’s pointed out that if imperfect and fallible authors wrote it, they say that it was controlled (or guided, or supervised, or whatever weasel word they like) by the holey spirit, who fixed mistakes. Then when the undeniable mistakes are pointed out, they blame it on the imperfect and fallible human authors.Then, when it’s pointed out that if imperfect and fallible authors wrote it, they say that it was controlled (or guided, or supervised, or whatever weasel word they like) by the holey spirit, who fixed mistakes. Then when the undeniable mistakes are pointed out, they blame it on the imperfect and fallible human authors.This continues until everyone is too tired to continue talking, then the Christian goes away usually still stuck in the biblical inerrantist mode. Ps, if you don’t escape from this Bible thing soon, your brain will continue to be made into mush. Without completely starting over, elements of style persist. Don’t take my word for it, try it yourself. Take a disparate piece like the one below, change words often, and then look at it - it’ll be easy to tell it’s from two different authors, even after the changes, and you are not a trained linguist like the Bible scholars. Here is a piece to start with: Plus, look what you just said: You are again arguing against inerrancy. You are saying that the Bible we have has been extensively changed during recopying, as everyone knows. I’ve noticed that even Christians who say they believe in an inerrant Bible actually don’t believe it - they don’t act like it, they don’t mind if people change it, they don’t mind different versions, in short, they know it isn’t God’s inerrant word - they just won’t admit it to themselves. He does over and over if one is to believe the Gospels - we can discuss more points if you like, but didn’t he already do so with the cock crow incident? And your statements show that you are completely clueless about the first century church. Even to call it one church is like calling the modern Earth one country. Early Christianity was incredibly diverse, with all kinds of different Christianities competing. Here is a whole course and a book on them. If you want to learn, here is a place to start: http://www.teach12.com... or if you prefer a book:
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths...Again, you have shown that you don’t really care much about the text that you say is God’s inerrant word, because you ignore the text and instead pretend it says something it doesn’t say. The text says clearly says that God says “ALL that I intended to do”. Not only that, it’s right after the heads thing. God could have said “I liked some of what you did, but not the children’s heads in baskets thing” if it was important, it would be included, right?You can see this ignoring of the text over and over in other places too - such as the Goliath example from the other day - you said that if Goliath had died two different ways, then that would be a contradiction. It just so happens that the Bible does have Goliath die two different ways, and also confuses things further by then saying Goliath’s brother died in exactly the same words in the second story. I copied the Biblical text to save you the trouble of looking it up yourself. You didn’t acknowledge the whole problem, instead answering with a pointless statement about his spear.About the cock, you said: Do you see how this statement exactly confirms my statement about how inerrantists approach the Bible - instead of reading it to see what it says, they start with the presupposition of what they want it to say, and then try to figure out a way to make it say what they want. Now you are further insulting God. Remember that you say this is an omnipotent God. Killing exactly who he wants and no one else is trivially easy when you are omnipotent. Instead, you are saying here that God is an incompetent idiot who can’t even shoot straight. If he wanted to kill some and not others, then that’s what would have happened. Obviously, he was targeting the children. And about the killing of the children in Egypt, God explicitly says in Exodus that he’ll make Pharaoh stubborn to give God the excuse to do the killing of the children because God wants to show how powerful he is by killing the children. That’s what the Bible says - unless you are going to ignore the Bible again. The firstborn didn’t have a head’s up. They were innocent victims of the ultimate terrorist. Think if you made excuses for and molly coddled Islam this way - it would come out looking like the most gentle religion ever. Obviously, you haven’t read Ps 137. Plus, again, you are making stuff up and putting it in the bible - it nowhere says that, it’s simply another testimony to the fact that you don’t consider this God’s word, or you would be horrified by the idea of making up something that isn’t there and saying God said it. Come on, do I have to insert the actual Bible text yet again? It’s clear as all the other examples, it’s in Exodus 34, and again, you are changing the Bible to suit your human wants and desires. OK, here it is: OK then, by who’s power was Jesus flying, since Jesus is God? Fire can burn and torment, without killing - ask any burn victim. Plus, some verses say “eternal punishment”. Try arguing your “no hell” line with other Christians - there is a reason why nearly all Christians for 1,800 years have believed in a literal hell of eternal torture and punishment - because that’s what the Gospels describe - even your example of lazarus shows that the person in hell is down there in torment - if it were destruction, then the whole story wouldn’t work - there would be no discussion to have, since the rich person would be simply gone. This is completely consistent with God, especially in the Old testament, where as we’ve seen here on this thread, the barbarity and viciousness of God knows no bounds, even extending to the slaughter of children. This is nothing new - according to Christianity, those in Heaven are happy to see those in hell writhe in torment - even their unsaved friends and relatives. Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote (and is supported by the Bible): See, in the Bible, religion comes first, before friends, family, this world, anything. Your first priority is God, everything else is secondary. You may think this is healthy. I don’t. Bravo! There is some thinking about how things work. Have a fun summer. I’m glad that this discussion has given you things to think about. I too enjoyed the discussion, though it was frustrating at times. Also know that I was a committed Christian until I was around 20. You can find my story online in the naturalisticpagan yahoo group, under the files section. I’ll certainly consider everything you’ve said with an open mind, but nearly all of it I’ve heard over 25 years ago, and I used to say much of it myself.As far as your age goes, I guessed high because I’ve met people who say those same arguments who range from 10 to over 60. When someone is in the biblical inerrant mode, they usually stay stuck at about a 12 year old reasoning level, regardless of how old they get. You’ll probably stay stuck as long as you cling to this inerrant Bible idea as well.Regardless of any of that or of our differences of opinion, I wish you the best in this summer, in intellectual growth, in life, and in all you do. Take care--Equinox Edited by Equinox, : fixEdited by AdminAsgara, : fixed long URLs to fix page widthEdited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

This really needs to be my last significant post, because it takes a while to write, and I need to get prepared. So First, I have something to say in general, and then I'll respond to the last of the posts.First off, I apologize to those non active members that may be reading all of this, because I suppose it deviated from the topic often.
Second, I feel this is a topic that cannot be well discussed with all of you at once, because it seems what you say keeps changing. ie, I have no idea what your take is on it at all. I'm guessing Equinox holds that it was a fabrication done over time, but as for Iceage and Jar, I'm not sure of your views. I also don't think you really paid attention to all the things I posted. One thing I said was I doubt the existence of the Devil, and yet Eq says the snake speaking cannot be explained as the devil speaking. While I don't know if he may just have not read the post because it was like 15 posts since the one he posted in reply, all the same, at least consider what I say. Perhaps not, but it seems like instead of considering what I say/write, you take great delight in just finding 'what ifs' little things to poke in.Let me address other current monotheistic religions: Upon their creation, the founder received benefits. Be it women, or recognition. However, with Christianity, i neither provided the immediate fun the practices of the time provided, and it didn't benefit those preaching it. The Early Christians faced a lot of persecution because of their beliefs. We know that one Jesus of Nazareth lived. Apparently he died as well. Now there are a number of options for what happened after his death (by the way, the Jewish explanation is that his disciples stole his body and thus claimed him raised):
He wasn't dead despite being crucified, rolled a giant stone out of the way and then overpowered two Roman soldiers. Preposterous, no?
The disciples actually did steal his body somehow from Roman guards who would have been killed if they failed in their duty. I doubt this happened, as anyone with common sense should.
The people went to the wrong tomb, and then found it empty. Not likely, but even if this was the case, the Jewish authorities of the time would not have hesitated to actually find his tomb and disprove their claims.
The way to crumble Christianity is if Christ never died and rose. As the Resurrection was the hope of believers, if the Jesus had never died, then their faith was in vain:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.So do you think the authorities of the time didn't know this? So all they had to do to disprove it was go to Jesus tomb and show people his body. Then anything the apostles would have said would all flat. But they didn't do this. Why? They couldn't.As for: "No proof these people existed" Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? I propose Archimedes never existed just because I haven't seem him, and I don't know for sure he wrote what people claims. That is utter foolishness. And modern people dying for their beliefs, they never heard from the source. Muhammad invents this book, and then people believe it, and Muhammad benefits greatly from their belief.
Now flip it around, Jesus preaches, and dies from it. So now his disciples are like "Dang, what do we do now?" So let's pretend he wasn't raised. The gospels record them going back to their daily lives and living in fear. Then suddenly they change.
Let's pretend I'm a disciple. Jesus dies, and I found out it was all a fake, and then the Jewish authorities are rounding up people that believed on what Jesus said. So I go out and proclaim that he was the Messiah, and for what? Nothing. The recordings we have of what the disciples and apostles received for their work isn't much.
Modern day examples of people giving their lives: Let me give another to chew on: Kamikaze pilots in WWII, their families were provided for for them giving their lives. Isn't something similar done with suicide bombers? Plus the whole point of the earlier writing (^) is that if someone saw that something was false, and then are willing to die for it for no apparent reason is totally ridiculous. One, I read about it a little, and the majority of the people that followed him were desperate. And I doubt they all knew of his faults. People that stayed stayed for money involved. Many actually left because of his faults.
Josh McDowell. Never heard of him before now.Something that is different between my and the rest of your all's line of thinking is that I do not doubt God's power. Eq, is understandable, as I'm pretty sure he's atheist (although why you defended hell I have no idea, don't you also believe death is just that? Death? ), but for the rest of you, I don't get why you would even consider yourselves believers if you don't think God has the power to do anything (and I mean that not even in the ways omnipotence, I mean it sounds like you all think that he cannot do anything at all).What some of you also seem to miss in what I say isn't that the only thing is the KJV, because it's not. I'm saying the book called the Bible is the inspired word of God. Stop posting nonsense about bibles before it. The Gutenberg Bible was legit as well I think. And the Greek texts before that are accurate as well.The book of acts is what I have to go on to base things on the apostles' deaths. It claims the disciples preached about Jesus, and it contains some details about their persecution as well. If this is what happened (and it is what should have happened had Christ not actually been raised), nobody would pick up Christianity, because it was new, and had no immediate benefits. They would prefer to worship Apollo where they at least got free drinks. Far better than getting a free passage to prison.We have no direct writings of Jesus apostles because we don't have originals. Matt, John, Peter, all were his disciples, Mark knew him, and Paul supposedly saw him in a vision.The difference between what I know about Jesus and Muhammad (I have to admit, I'm not versed in what the qu'ran says) is that Jesus told people to do what was hard for them, and what they couldn't do. Not my idea of a fun religion. Muhammad created this religion and then reaped benefits. Jesus introduced new religion if you will, and died for it.
Don't Muslims refer to the Qu'ran as the Third Testament?Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.Oh yes, doesn't Muhammad also claim an angel appeared to him?
In short what Paul says above is that if someone tries to teach something other than what we've already said (contrary to it) he's wrong and you are not to believe him.What I'm saying is that people don't benefit from rumors of Resurrection. Do you think the disciples really stole his body? Say this Jesus never died (on the cross and such), do you think he appreciated all of this going on because of him. The fact is he died. I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. Then what, rumors float around and people take them for fact. Do you think anyone would take that on the surface? I can say I'm 7'4 and can play the guitar with my tongue better than Eric Clapton can with his hands, but that doesn't make it true. And the thing is, it would be easier for me to play a guitar with my tongue better, and for me to really be that tall than for someone to rise from the dead. But the thing is, if you people don't believe in what is there otherwise, you won't believe even if someone did rise:
Luk 16:30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"But the fact is that no doubt one would be skeptical about claims that I just made about my skilled tongue and pituitary gland. Do you think someone would take it on the surface that someone was raised from the dead? No! They would at least want to see an empty tomb, ask around for the soldiers who guarded it.
Jesus died. you admit that. There's no way you can actually be convinced that Christianity came up from rumors that floated around.I've wasted a lot of all of our times. Apologies. None of us are really being open minded I suppose. Please consider what I write. I admit I originally came looking for arguments, but having spoken with you all, I do hope I've given you something to think about. I may be back in August or something. ta ta!

Have a fun summer! ; )
Since we are all trying to wrap this up, I’ll keep this short, mainly just to answering direct questions. I’ve read you posts, and feel that in all human endeavors it is vitally important to listen first, as you say. It’s even covey’s 5th habit, and I agree that it’s important. I included the line about the snake because most Christians assume that it’s the devil, and some of them may read this as well.
About the Devil - Jesus himself refers to the Devil many times. Does Ps148 simply think Jesus never said that, that those lines were inserted, or that Jesus was just wrong, or what? Sorry if it felt that way. There is no reason for any of us to be mean, in any of our human interactions. I did often get an edge to my posts because the stuff I was opposing was silly, and because I’ve heard it so many times I get tired of it. For that, you have my apology. Sure they did - if you suddenly think you are going to heaven, or that those you don’t like are going to hell, you feel pretty good - that’s a direct and immediate benefit. For all of your explanations, you are assuming these things are happening immediately, and that the stories in the Gospels are literal history. Both assumptions are huge and unreasonable. The rumors of getting eternal life if you believe in a crucified hero can spread, and take years in the spreading. After a decade, or even a year, there is no checking anything in a world without newspapers, cameras, or such. Stories about guards at the tomb, or a crucifixion, or a death, or a resurrection can spread without any evidence because that is in the past. For instance, if someone tells their friend about this saving faith, they believe it because they trust their friend. Their friend doesn’t know where the tomb was, or even how many years ago this happened. Ps148, you yourself mentioned how you trust things without evidence if you trust the person saying it. It’s easy to see how this would get spreading in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, whether Jesus even existed or not.Then, only later, did persecutions start - but by then people believe the heaven/hell part of the story, and they don’t care if they are killed, since they are promised 72 virgins, er, oops, I mean heaven, if they are martyred. The authorities can’t disprove anything, because all events are supposed to have happened 100 years ago, and no one would know where any crucified criminal’s body is anyway - they just get dumped outside the city. Heck, you can’t even check with the apostles - by now there are just legends about them having died 80 years ago, and all anyone can go on is what their trusted friend or relative said, so the Christian community stays together.None of all that is a surprise, since that’s how many different religions and legends have gotten started over the years. You can say the same about Hercules, or Dionysus, or Mithra, or many, many more. Whether or not the events literally happened or even if the person really existed doesn’t matter. My best guess is that there is nothing after death - the atoms of my body will continue to cycle through our universe, in my descendants, your descendants, and in our Earth. That’s really much better than thinking that I’ll either be in Hell, or watching my loved ones in Hell, which is Christian doctrine. I didn’t defend the idea that Hell really exists - I don’t think it exists any more than I think the tooth fairy exists. However, I did defend the idea that the Bible says Hell exists - because I’ve read the Bible, and that’s indeed what the Bible says. It’s a matter of honesty to say that the book says, whether or not I think the book is correct in saying that. The Bible also says that one can ascend to heaven above the clouds, and that snakes crawl because god cursed them for the fruit incident, etc - I think those are all myths too, just like hell, and if anyone says that the Bible doesn’t contain those myths, then just like Hell, I’ll point out that it does. And all those “bibles” say different things. You can pick which one you think is right, because if one is right and another disagrees with it, then what? And why do you just swallow what Paul says? How do you know Paul isn’t off his rocker more than Muhammad? Sure, ancient people would believe that someone rose from the dead - this happened all the time in the ancient world - or at least people believed it with respect to all kinds of people (Nero, Osiris, many, many more). The same goes for half human/god halfbreeds - these were all common mythical stock.Asking for evidence is a modern thing - we are skeptical only because of the enlightenment of the 1700s, and you can’t ask for evidence of something that happened long ago anyway. We’ve even seen this today, even with the skepticism we have - Christians routinely believe in Washington’s vision or such - partly because after so long, it’s hard to check. Think of how this works - the Gospel of John was written about 65 years after Jesus - that’s like me describing how Hitler’s dog was raised from the dead - how could you check? You have to have faith!Oh, and there is no evidence that the Gospels were written by any disciples - that’s only a later Roman Catholic hearsay story. I have, and I will - but as I said, it’s nothing I haven’t heard many times over. Everyone deserves to be heard. Have a good summer-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : fix

Well, shit! That proves how unique he was, wasn't it?