Why believe the bible?

[Succubus]

As for primary sources outside of the Bible, there is Josephus, although I have noted that you are asserting that fourth century Christians fabricated the entire Testimonium, so I can presume you do not consider it a viable source at all.

However, that fourth century Christians fabricated the entirety of the Testimonium...

I will never tire of quoting this:

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:
1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.
In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

The entirety of the testimonium? The testimonium is one short paragraph.

I'll be surprised and alarmed if I haven't been ninja'd with this one.

My red.

---

... I'm genuinely asking as I need to do more reading on the argument from silence regarding the Testimonium.

Enjoy.

---

If a common kernel can be found?  Bitch, now you're just motherfucking reaching, straight to nonsense land where all that imaginary poppycock exists that fuels your illogical faith.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop being such a goddamn apologist.

Again, if someone questions my beliefs, I am naturally going to respond. I don't expect you to agree, or take me seriously even for that matter. That is out of my control.

How very, reasonable.

Just a heads up lads and lass's. Remember the five hundred!

---

I love the gospel of peter with the giant walking, talking, cross.  So fucking stupid even early xhristards wouldn't put it in their shitty bible!

Is that the one where he brings a blokes tea back to life, the resurrected smoked salmon?

[Minimalist]

Book I - Contra Celsus

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless — being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)



From Chapter XLVII

Bold added.

Writing 75 years before Eusebius we see Origen stating that Josephus should have said that the Jews got their temple wrecked because they put christ to death.  But he doesn't.  Origen claims that the reason is that the Jews killed James the Just.  Now, Origen would have had to have been the stupidest bastard in the world to lament the fact that Book XVIII does not blame the death of jesus for the destruction of the temple when Eusebius claims that it did.  Unless, it did not say so at the time Origen wrote.  Even the watered-down variant of the TF which modern jesus freak apologists are putting forward would have served this same purpose but he does not know of it. 

It is also important to understand that the watered down variant does not exist anywhere.  We have nothing...nada, zilch, oogatz...until the 4th century and then in Eusebius' writings we actually have a couple of variations of the TF but it is there in all its formal, bullshitting, glory complete with Josephus allegedly declaring that (Jesus) "was the Christ."

And poor Origen.... who could have used it to clinch his point knew nothing about it, because he was long dead.

And for the record, I don't know where Origen gets the idea that the temple was burned because of this James the Just shit.  In book xx of Antiquities the sole result of the apparent killing* of James is that the high priest is removed from office.

However, in Josephus' Jewish War he states quite clearly that the temple was destroyed because the Zealots murdered priests within the sacred precints and "god" was pissed about that.  So he had Titus' legions destroy the temple although they seemed pretty willing to do that anyway.


 
* Book xx says James was sent to be stoned.  Never says it actually happened.  Josephus was not one to miss out on upping the body count.

[Minimalist]

Is that the one where he brings a blokes tea back to life, the resurrected smoked salmon?

Most of these so-called gospels never claim to have the godboy trotting out of the tomb.  GofPeter is different....and fucking unforgettable!

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...brown.html

35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]

Even for xhristards this was a bridge too far.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Worshiping Jesus is worshiping a book.  Both are fictional.

Don't get me wrong, Jesus' message is "awesome", but what he had to state was nothing new that humanity didn't already understand at the time.  And without Jesus, there is no Christianity.  Which is what makes the Christian need to keep Jesus alive through faith a major problem for human progression.

I don't think having faith in Jesus and human progression need be mutually exclusive. It's the unfortunate truth that there is so much of the proverbial bath water still associated with faith in Jesus, and said bath water is, without any doubt, hindering human progression massively.

Not one person in human history has ever had any real faith in Jesus.  It's just pretend.  If you had faith in Jesus then you could easily do what he said a person with faith could do.  So far not one person has ever done it.

[JairCrawford]

This is interesting! I will do further reading.

[Amarok]

Is that the one where he brings a blokes tea back to life, the resurrected smoked salmon?

Most of these so-called gospels never claim to have the godboy trotting out of the tomb.  GofPeter is different....and fucking unforgettable!

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...brown.html

35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43]

Even for xhristards this was a bridge too far.

Love when Christians appeal to the  super early writings of Christianity without realizing they fundamentally undermine the case for a historical Jesus .

[Neo-Scholastic]

I've decided not to rely to "Hey, Christians/Theists threads." Soliciting the opinions of believers where they are a very small minority and probably not a good representative sample is like fishing for salt water fish in a fresh water stream.

[Drich]

So, let me see if I follow you.  You're saying, based upon your interpretation of a supposed difference in timeline in Genesis 2, that God created man in his image on day three, and he then again created man in his image on day 6, and that likeness was a physical one, not a spiritual one?  That day 6 man, day 3 man, and God were all genetically compatible?

I must say that's a novel heresy, if nothing else.

Curious though, why did God give dominion over the beasts and birds and whatnot to day 6 man, but not to day 3 man?  Do we not then have dominion over the earth?

This is what happens to a whole religious group when you have traditional readings trump Godly sense and direction.

My reason for my reading (1st again this is an example of me being given knowledge i did not previously have. this is god 'beaming information into my head) 1st and fore most the reason for this was to correct genesis 1's ending on day 6. it should end on day seven which would carry genesis 1 into genesis 2 down to the 4 verse as that would conclude the 7 day creation over view account.

this is how gen 2 starts:
Genesis 2 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
The Seventh Day—Rest
2 So the earth, the sky, and everything in them were finished. 2 God finished the work he was doing, so on the seventh day he rested from his work. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it a holy day. He made it special because on that day he rested from all the work he did while creating the world.

again this should be the end of chapter 1


So then we start verse 4. Now note no where in the 7 day over view did the garden get planted or populated... 

Verse 4 chapter 2 recetifies this:

4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

6 So water[a] came up from the earth and spread over the ground. 7 Then the Lord God took dust from the ground and made a man.[b] He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nose, and the man became a living thing. 8 Then the Lord God planted a garden in the East,[c] in a place named Eden. He put the man he made in that garden. 9 Then the Lord God caused all the beautiful trees that were good for food to grow in the garden. In the middle of the garden, he put the tree of life and the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil.

So again when did the garden get planted between the time God made the earth and sky and before plants... that is mid day day 3 and beginning of day 4. So between day 3 sometime and day 4 ALLL of the events of Gen 2 happened.

That is Adam (the first man) which was genetically compatible with man made outside the garden on day 6. (again we know this because his off spring were compatible with those men/women who were building the cities/nod and who they married and had children with)  The garden was completed, and populated with all manor of life. the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were planted in the garden which A&E were allow to eat from (life) and made them immortal. but were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge or they would surly die.

We also know God never set a time line between the end of chapter two (day 4 and the fall of man which begins chapter three..) we can safely assume that the fall did not occur the way most traditional readings would have us believe or that would be day 5. (immediately after the completion of chapter 2.)

This leaves the time line open from a few days to trillions of years which could easily encapsulate all of evolutionary theory as well.

---

Curious though, why did God give dominion over the beasts and birds and whatnot to day 6 man, but not to day 3 man?  Do we not then have dominion over the earth?

Day 6 man was in a wilderness, by giving day 6 man dominion over all animals put him on top of the food chain. Adam day 3 man lived in a wilderness preserve. everything got along. Remember it was adam's task to care for this massive garden. with the boarders of the rivers mention some estimate the garden to be 2/3 of the united states.

We do or rather we have surrendered it to satan which is why he was able to offer it to christ in his 40 days of temptation.. Meaning when he said to christ bow to me and all the kingdoms of the world will be his. Satan was offering jesus a different way of obtaining the world and it's souls other than what the Father had planned in his death.

[LadyForCamus]

Wrong thread.

[robvalue]

The thing is, "divinely inspired" or not, it's either perfect or it isn't. And if it isn't, every bit of it needs to pass scrutiny on its own merits.

Clearly it isn't perfect, far from it. Trying to argue that it is requires ignoring not only the internal problems but reality itself.

In a broad sense, I can agree. In fact, I can't recall any verse within the Bible that asserts that the Bible is literally perfect. So we can deduce that a doctrine that insists such a thing is indeed a man made doctrine, and not a God doctrine.

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that God doesn't use the Bible to speak to me.

Sure. I don't know why God would choose such an unreliable and ambiguous method though. It would indicate to me that he either wishes for his message to be unclear, or else this is somehow the best he can do. Neither seem to make a lot of sense to me.