(October 9, 2013 at 6:53 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 9, 2013 at 6:38 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Because you were around then to claim eyewitness? Maybe you could provide evidence of the manuscripts actually existing pre 2nd Temple destruction, please?

But we can't be certain of any historical account wasn't tampered with or misrepresented from the reality of what actually happened. I don't think any of Jesus's followers would have deliberately told lies about him and something like this would have had to have been if it were later inserted after the event. But I can't say it's not possible if you prefer to believe that. A faith is more than just a belief in the metaphysical/supernatural stuff it's also a trust that the people involved weren't simply spouting a bunch of bullshit and lies for some reason or other. If you want to say it's gullibility I don't think any of these people were con-men or out for personal or material gain I think I'm a good judge of character.

Right...no hard evidence straight to personal appeals. Oh, and I'm a good judge of character, too. Sherlock Holmes? Good. See?

(October 9, 2013 at 7:11 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Right...no hard evidence straight to personal appeals. Oh, and I'm a good judge of character, too. Sherlock Holmes? Good. See?

If you don't consider Christs followers to trustworthy sources and were frauds of some kind then you would expect them to tell lies about something they know for a fact didn't happen. If you have faith in their message you will trust they were being sincere, they don't really seem like con-men to me they had a genuine belief/love of Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in the gospels is 100% true, if you ever played the game Chinese Whispers at school you have some idea of how that can work. But something like this would have to be a deliberate event manipulation.

(October 9, 2013 at 7:18 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: If you don't consider Christs followers to trustworthy sources and were frauds of some kind then you would expect them to tell lies about something they know for a fact didn't happen. If you have faith in their message you will trust they were being sincere, they don't really seem like con-men to me they had a genuine belief/love of Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in the gospels is 100% true, if you ever played the game Chinese Whispers at school you have some idea of how that can work. But something like this would have to be a deliberate event manipulation.

Even if the gospels were factual when first penned, (which I think as likely as <insert something really unlikely here>), they have been altered over the centuries with additions and omissions by people to support their own agendas.

I read a Bart Ehrman book hich went into detail on this, The lost christianities I think.

And of course they were altered by mistake.

I love the wicked bibles which omitted the word not in thou shalt not commit adultery.

Hilarious.

(October 8, 2013 at 11:17 am)Kemotx Wrote: One of his prophecies says something like this: Microchips are in place by 2016 and anyone who wants to participate in Olympics must have a chip, but Russia protests and WW 3 erupts. So according to him it will happen before 2017.

Yes, because Russia would annihilate half of the globe because they aren't allowed to swim in competition. As i said before....
TROLL!

(October 9, 2013 at 5:13 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: There are some deadly accurate predictions of the coming of the Messiah in the Old Testament as well. Reasonably accurate anyway it wasn't quite 100% but it could have been the Jews who were getting a few details wrong. Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple which happened in 70 AD so that's a good bit of prediction there if you're into that sort of thing.

Yeah... no. To see why this is wide of the mark, look at the prophecy mentioned in The Phantom Menace, of "the one who will bring balance to the Force". Kenobi said that Anakin was "supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them"; and sure enough, a couple of decades later in the timeline - spolier alert - Darth Vader (née Anakin Skywalker) does just that.

There you go - deadly accurate fulfilled prophecy. Except there's a revealing flaw in there, if you know where to look.

(October 9, 2013 at 2:36 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Even if the gospels were factual when first penned, (which I think as likely as <insert something really unlikely here>), they have been altered over the centuries with additions and omissions by people to support their own agendas.

No the early Christians involved only agenda wasn't really in this world, hence why they tended to martyr themselves. And they had a genuine love for Jesus and what he taught. These people were quite a trustworthy source not some kind shadowy sinister conspiracy you think they were. These would be some of most pleasant, humble people you could ever care to meet, salt of the earth. It does get a little once the Roman Catholic Church was formed but that in the 4th century. They also had a great care and obsession of keeping their scriptures intact and would deride the gnostics for reeling out new gospel after gospel and writing in whatever they felt appropriate.

Quote:And of course they were altered by mistake.

They would have taken great pains not to as these were their sacred texts. They cared a great deal about this.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah... no. To see why this is wide of the mark, look at the prophecy mentioned in The Phantom Menace, of "the one who will bring balance to the Force". Kenobi said that Anakin was "supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them"; and sure enough, a couple of decades later in the timeline - spolier alert - Darth Vader (née Anakin Skywalker) does just that.

No that wasn't the prophecy. Vader/Anakin brought balance to the Force by killing the last two of the Sith, that being Emperor Palpatine and himself. It doesn't sound stupid at all.

Quote:There you go - deadly accurate fulfilled prophecy. Except there's a revealing flaw in there, if you know where to look.

I don't know if it was deadly accurate or just kind of something that sucked. The prequel trilogy was terrible.

(October 9, 2013 at 6:53 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: But we can't be certain of any historical account wasn't tampered with or misrepresented from the reality of what actually happened. I don't think any of Jesus's followers would have deliberately told lies about him and something like this would have had to have been if it were later inserted after the event. But I can't say it's not possible if you prefer to believe that. A faith is more than just a belief in the metaphysical/supernatural stuff it's also a trust that the people involved weren't simply spouting a bunch of bullshit and lies for some reason or other. If you want to say it's gullibility I don't think any of these people were con-men or out for personal or material gain I think I'm a good judge of character.

I find it interesting that your ability to judge character travels thousands of years into the past.

(October 9, 2013 at 3:36 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

Quote:And of course they were altered by mistake.

They would have taken great pains not to as these were their sacred texts. They cared a great deal about this.

Then why couldn't they even get their four sacred texts to agree with each other on the details? The four gospels all sound like a story heard from a friend of a friend.

SOC, you really need to learn some ancient history. Things were nothing like you imagine them to be.

The Gospels are myths, not sacred realities passed through the generations. That's why the epistles of Paul never speak of anyhing but scripture and revelations; because he was making it all up. He learned nothing from any "apostles." If the story of Jesus was so important, why didn't any of the "apostles" write it down? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't apostles. Why did the story come from them, and only after the Jews were slaughtered by the Romans? Why were the Gospels written in Greek? Jesus was a fantasy, and to preserve the mystery of his existence, the Gospels set the story 40 years earlier. That explains why there is no record of Jesus in any historical record until AFTER the Gospels were written. Then he pops up in a couple records, some of which were obviously altered by Christians in the years to come.

But you'll never accept that, even though it is far more believable than the Gospels are.

(October 8, 2013 at 10:51 am)Minimalist Wrote: Does he predict wars and famines, too? You can't go wrong predicting generic wars and famines.

Back in college, I was a holy roller. I actually did a speech on Mat 24, talked about the "increases" of wars, famines, etc. Even had some fancy data to back it up. Its amazing what we can convince ourselves of when we want to believe something.