(April 24, 2013 at 12:32 pm)Drich Wrote: [quote='Minimalist' pid='435872' dateline='1366820188']
Don't listen, Drippy. Way too long and complicated for your limited attention span. Stick to your silly bible. Its about all you can handle.
in 2000 years what absolute evidence will there be for anyone save a hand full of prominate world leaders?
I am sure this guy's arguement is based on the same idea that all who argue this arguement are bound to. He will have to attack the fact that the romans kept records, and from the secular pov the records kept, Christ is not mentioned in them... So rather than be truthful and say we do not have a complete record of that time. he will harp on the fact that of what we do have, anything that does mention Christ can be dismissed as 'religious nonsense' or he will continue to underline what great record keepers the romans were, but fail to mention 2/3's of what was projected to have been recorded has been lost to time, and what we have left are just incomplete one off fragments. (Meaning one of a kind not something that has been repeated or copied/no verification)
Not to mention I am sure he will omit the fact that the oldest most complete writting we have of that period is the bible. Rather he will have to focous on the pieced together fragments and projections one has avaiable to any of us 2000 years after the fact.
So again.. Meh..
Well - as far as the bible - is is NOT the oldest nor the most complete writing we have of ANY period - that can be proven. With the exception of a few writings of paul - WE have no idea who actually wrote the bible - we don't actually know when most of it was written - and we do not even know if the writers MEANT it to be taken literally. It is most certainly NOT eye witness testimony - if the events even happened at all.
However - one forgets that the time of the christ is also the GOLDEN age of Rome = a very well documented time. WE have millions of writings from that time - in museums and Universities around the world - as well as in stone in monuments and building from that time. WE have results of Tortoise races in Rome - and even documentation of a number of claimed messiahs - of course none of them are the "christ".
And while YOU are correct - that we do not have a complete documentation of that time - that is hardly a reason to accept the claims about the christ - when many points in the story directly contradict the Law of Rome - the Laws of the Jewish religions - and lots of other real contradictions - from the bible FAIRY TALES.
The biggest problem is that the story of the christ itself FAILS to agree with the prophecies of the messiah themselves. THe messiah was supposed to be a MAN (not a god) - of the MALE bloodline of David (Women were not considered to be involved then) - He was supposed to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem for the third time (IT had not been destroyed at that time yet) - and was to bring ALL people of the world together under the JEWISH religion and have all of them accept the Jewish religion as the one and only - and have them admit their prior religion was false.
The jews would have known that the christ COULD NOT BE the messiah - simply on the basis of the inability to fulfill the prophecy of the temple - and would NOT have allowed him to teach at a jewish temple - as a heretic. (HE likely would have been STONED TO DEATH - for saying that god's CHANGES his word)
THe claim of a NEW COVENANT is inherently against the claim of the religions as the god being all knowing. Why would an ALL KNOWING GOD - make a covenant - that he would change later - - you can hardly claim that circumstances changed - he would know that too.
However - once you accept that the stories of the Old Testament are MYTH and LEGEND(and it is clear that the story of adam and eve is MYTH) - and actually incorrect on many things - there occurs NO reason for the christ as well. And that is where the bible makes a MAJOR mistake - In 1 Timothy 2.- the "christ" uses a MYTH as a reason to hold women in low regard. (It was EVE who was the sinner)
Now - add in others - like in Matthew and Luke - the story of the christ in the desert - Where it is said that the devil took the christ to a high place from which he could see ALL THE KINGDOMS of the world. IF the christ is god - then he KNOWS that the earth is a sphere - and that he could not see ALL the kingdoms mentioned in the bible - from a single high place on earth - much less all of the actual kingdoms that existed at that time.
And this story is one that you have to really look at.
IF this happened in the Desert - the ONLY two who were supposedly there were the christ - and the devil. So - there are only TWO possible sources of the story that "were there" and could tell it. SO - either the story came from the christ - and the christ deliberately LIED about it - or it came from the Devil - an interesting source of the bible! Of course - it is most likely that this is just another LIE of Matthew.
