The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.

[DeistPaladin]

You should take the Bible seriously because of its tremendous inlfuence it has. Yes, like any other text, the biblcal writings contain expected "inaccuracies, distortions and pure fantasy." But it is also true, also to be expected, that the biblical writings also contain and convey accurate information. It is a common sense perception, born out by empirically based research.--The biblical writings are a mixture of truth and fiction, fact and imagination.

Spiderman was set in New York City. There really is a New York City. So I guess we could use the same logic and say that the Spiderman movies "contain and convey accurate information" as "a mixture of truth and fiction".

...or we could just say that works of fiction sometimes make use of real places, times and events and such incorporation doesn't make them any less fictional.

[KichigaiNeko]

You should take the Bible seriously because of its tremendous inlfuence it has

No thanks ...I'm not a Lemming

[ThomM]

[quote='Chuck' pid='213251' dateline='1323235692']
What's the point of agonizing over the correct interpretation of a particular word in a piece of an out and out lie that has been purposedly edited to suit multiple unmentionable purposes and been intentionally and unintentionally transcribed a hundred times?

There is no agonizing, only an attempt to interpret a biblical text.

You seem unwilling for some reason to study something that you regard as a lie.


Why would we need to study something that we have determined to be fictional - and NOT true. And especially - WHY would we consider YOUR interpretation of any word in the bible - when YOU did not write it - nor have you presented any reason to accept your position - based on education.

The problem is that studying a SINGLE word in a document that YOU cannot provide the original text for - is useless. And - using a translated word is even worse. After all of the changes - and edits - and translations - the idea that you can decide the importance of a single word - when YOU cannot establish if that word was even USED originally.

For example - the bible clearly states that the earth is built on "pillars". THe problem is that the word "pillars" has been interpreted beyond the meaning of the original Hebrew word in the bible - which is yqxm. THe root of the word is "to melt" - and therefore means a molten like pillar - and is also used in Samuel referring to a mountain. English speaking people have claimed the "pillars" to be all sorts of things like faith and truth - but in fact - the original word in Hebrew does NOT mean that - it means the MOUNTAIN upon which a building was built - ie a construction term.

We cannot interpret the bible based on a single word - since there is NO reason to believe any of them are original. What we can do is interpret the bible based on sentences and ideas - which prove that the bible is a work of ancient myths and beliefs - that we know are NOT true today.

AS far as there being some things TRUE in the bible - that is simply a normal method of fiction writing - there is a LONDON - that does not make Sherlock Holmes - Harry Potter - or James Boind or any of the stories real. THERE are true things in all so called scripture - of all religions. I can point to some in the Koran - does that make the Koran truth?

[Minimalist]

Is anyone else having trouble seeing Thom's posts?

[KichigaiNeko]

Perhaps ThomM has tried to post with multiple quotes and has not closed one or towo f them Zen and I tend to do it a bit with this new batch of theists

[Barre]

You should take the Bible seriously because of its tremendous inlfuence it has

No thanks ...I'm not a Lemming

Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating that you subscribe to Christianity, only to try and understand it.

---

You should take the Bible seriously because of its tremendous inlfuence it has

No thanks ...I'm not a Lemming

Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating that you subscribe to Christianity, only to try to understand it.

---

You should take the Bible seriously because of its tremendous inlfuence it has

No thanks ...I'm not a Lemming

Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating that you subscribe to Christianity, only to try to understand it.

[Minimalist]

only to try to understand it.

Apparently, you think there is something to understand there?

[Barre]

Using the gMark to prove jesus ....its the worst thing you could have done...that and using the bible to prove itself another fallacy often attempted and failed by jesus followers..

Strictly speaking, I do not think it is possible to "prove" or "disprove Jesus." Evidence is created from data to offer a thesis which is judge to be true or false on a scale of probablity. New data or arguments may be offered to change the status of a given thesis, so that "proof" or" certainty" is not strictly possible.

Also, it is not accurate to think that the "Bible" is some sort of unitary group of hundreds of diverse writings. It is the inerrantists who hold such a supernatural view of the Bible's unitary composition. Mythicists seem to have unconciously adopted a sort of bible-as-unified position of their opponents. So when I hear about the "Bible" being this or that I reject it as uncritical. No, we are simply dealing with a collection of many and diverse ancient writings. The religious concept of a "canon" is regarded as methodologically irrelevant. We should treat these writings as we would any other ancient composition.

[Minimalist]

Strictly speaking, I do not think it is possible to "prove" or "disprove Jesus."

I have to ask. Do you feel the same way about Apollo? Or Quetzlcoatl? Or Shiva?

Special pleading is stock in trade for xtians. I just want to make sure that you are not going down that road.

[LarissaAnn]

Strictly speaking, I do not think it is possible to "prove" or "disprove Jesus."

I have to ask. Do you feel the same way about Apollo? Or Quetzlcoatl? Or Shiva?

Hehe except that if religion were real, I'd pick Apollo and the rest of the Greek gods and goddesses ANY day over Christianity.