was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[norseamd]

also jesus may have been only one prophet of a entire family. john the baptist is one example.

 

[AViking]

Hi

We are still waiting cor the archeological evidence.

Your inability to take a basic theology, archaeology, mythology course or read a book do not interest me. This is not very difficult to read about and I'm sure google can help you out.

Put some effort in.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your inability to take a basic theology, archaeology, mythology course or read a book do not interest me. This is not very difficult to read about and I'm sure google can help you out.

Put some effort in.

lol what a cop-out.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You don't have to believe anything. Please, no one's forcing you.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Don't you believe life spontaneous appeared from nothing? :hmm:

No, I don't.

 

[rudeguy]

Your inability to take a basic theology, archaeology, mythology course or read a book do not interest me. This is not very difficult to read about and I'm sure google can help you out.

Put some effort in.

K.

We will count that as another no.

So that is 2 nos and some crazy dude who is typing to himself.

 

[AViking]

Didn't you say archaeology proved the Bible inaccurate? Where is this evidence?

Please, show me anything irrefutable that confirms that the the Bible was written by people who never met Jesus. Back this up.

You're a fool, and losing all credibility.

Once again. Take a class. Read a book. This is not some kind of mystery. When I was a kid we had to read microfiche, go to the library, read the encyclopedia, etc. Today you have the internet and google. I bet you have a university near where you live too.

Put some effort in.

 

[Retro Rob]

Once again. Take a class. Read a book. This is not some kind of mystery. When I was a kid we had to read microfiche, go to the library, read the encyclopedia, etc. Today you have the internet and google. I bet you have a university near where you live too.

Put some effort in.

I think what I'm saying is if the Bible is so false, so made up, so not true, then it should be easy to disprove it and for you to present this archaeological evidence that you claim is so strong.

 

[norseamd]

I think what I'm saying is if the Bible is so false, so made up, so not true, then it should be easy to disprove it and for you to present this archaeological evidence that you claim is so strong.

the question is not is it so false, but is it so true.
many christians act that way.

classic absolutism vs relativism

 

[HumblePie]

So a really big no?

OMG is this really that fucking difficult for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome

Fucking 2 seconds on google. Just read the damn article and get a very rudimentary understanding of how many different cultures affected the religion of ancient rome from what is had originally, then was changed by the greeks, to being changed incrementally by many of the people it conquered over time. Then how it finally got taken over by Christianity.

Did you not take any ancient history courses in your lifetime at all?

 

[rudeguy]

OMG is this really that fucking difficult for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome

Fucking 2 seconds on google. Just read the damn article and get a very rudimentary understanding of how many different cultures affected the religion of ancient rome from what is had originally, then was changed by the greeks, to being changed incrementally by many of the people it conquered over time. Then how it finally got taken over by Christianity.

Did you not take any ancient history courses in your lifetime at all?

You are aware that Christianity affected ancient Rome, aren't you?
Also..your link did not provide a single piece of evidence to prove your point

 

[AViking]

I think what I'm saying is if the Bible is so false, so made up, so not true, then it should be easy to disprove it and for you to present this archaeological evidence that you claim is so strong.

Did you never take a history course? The entire section of Exodus has pretty much been abandoned after what I recall to be over 100 years of Archaeology and Egyptology research.

I'm going to bed but you clearly need to catch up on a few subjects. Start with theology, comparative religion, history, mythology, archaeology, egyptology, and a nice introductory course on the scientific method.

 

[AViking]

The mistake you're making is trying to make others prove a negative. The burden of proof is not on me. I do not need to prove that Harry Potter is real either.

 

[rudeguy]

The mistake you're making is trying to make others prove a negative. The burden of proof is not on me. I do not need to prove that Harry Potter is real either.

But you are the one saying archeology proved me wrong. I've studied that quite a bit and have yet to encounter that. I asked you calmly and nicely to show it to me and you got upset and could not do it.

I'm sorry I made you grumpy. Night night. .sleep tight.

 

[Retro Rob]

The mistake you're making is trying to make others prove a negative. The burden of proof is not on me. I do not need to prove that Harry Potter is real either.

If you say scientific evidence proves Potter isn't real, and I ask to see it, and you say you can't prove a negative, you look like an idiot who speaks from both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Is this hard to understand?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Neither do you.

Are you high? I'm not the one that believes that a miracle happened. Way to try to take the spotlight off yourself though.

Present these "limitless alternative miracles" and I will consider them.

Ok, you're clearly not grasping this. It is meaningless to "consider them," because there is literally no objective basis whatsoever to differentiate among them. Every conceivable fantasy could account for your observations equally.

I have no rebuttal.

Then how about you answer the questions I asked, chief?

You're simply incredulous, and that means you're prejudice concerning what's written in this "old book".

No, I'm not "incredulous." It is a simple fact we don't have any "eye-witnesses." We have a book that claims there were eye-witnesses. That isn't a matter of "prejudice" -- that's a matter of knowing the actual reality.

It's not about assuming everything in the book is true....it's about whether or not I have reason to believe what's written in it is true.

No, it isn't. A book claiming that eye-witnesses exist is a far, FAR cry from an established fact that the alleged eye-witnesses witnessed anything.

{snip}

In your opinion. I have no reason to believe a small religious group back then would just make up names, events/happenings, present them as real, while knowing scribes would have to copy these books and use them.

False dilemma. It isn't a question of truth or fraud. The writings are likely just mistaken, even if written in earnest.

It would take a real naïve individual to think this sort of history would be passed down from generation to generation without some fact checking.

Investigative journalism is an advent of the 20th century, sport. There's no shortage of "scriptures" and tall-tales "passed down from generation to generation" and I'm sure you don't believe them all to be true simply because they were started a long, long time ago.

Folks like Pliny the Younger, as far as I've read and you can correct me on this, never denied Jesus existed, for instance. No, that doesn't mean that his miracles are true, but it adds credence to the fact he was real.

In that particular instance, Pliny testified to the existence of Christians, not Jesus. Moreover, it's entirely possible, albeit less than certain, that these "Christians" were followers of Serapis, according to some alleged writings by Emperor Hadrian.

Regardless, the question at hand is not whether there existed a person around whom the Christ myth was built, so the point is irrelevant.

 

[gotsmack]

I'm eagerly awaiting your explanation as to how a virgin giving birth is non-fiction, among other things.

Turkey baster.

 

[Paratus]

which one?

Science is ever changing. If I read the one I grew up with, it wouldn't be accurate today. Its as if someone keeps rewriting it because the previous version was wrong...

Yep. As time goes on science gets more and more correct.

How's that bible coming?

 

[rudeguy]

Yep. As time goes on science gets more and more correct.

How's that bible coming?

Its finished last I checked.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Its finished last I checked.

And how does that compare to the world you live in, or the world's body of knowledge? Are either of those "finished"?

 

[Retro Rob]

Are you high? I'm not the one that believes that a miracle happened. Way to try to take the spotlight off yourself though.

My point is, you've got no evidence supporting said event didn't happen.

Using your standard of evidence, neither of us have any.

Investigative journalism is an advent of the 20th century, sport. There's no shortage of "scriptures" and tall-tales "passed down from generation to generation" and I'm sure you don't believe them all to be true simply because they were started a long, long time ago.

So, now I have to be an investigative journalist to check facts, huh?

Secondly, and I am shocked to hear you trot out the old "this tall-tale was false, so your scripture is too" fallacy, I can find correlations between virtually anything, and by virtue of "X" being false, "A" and "B" must be too.

This is an argument of desperation that you're making.

 

[rudeguy]

And how does that compare to the world you live in, or the world's body of knowledge? Are either of those "finished"?

I don't live in a book?

 

[WTSherman]

Peter was obviously not the first pope so the Church of Rome probably didnt actually exist until at least 400 years later than it claims to have come into existence.

i just dont see how the "new testament" could be non-fiction.

Religion isn't science. Its based on faith. The Roman faith is the original form of Christianity, and Jesus was the founder.

 

[norseamd]

Religion isn't science. Its based on faith. The Roman faith is the original form of Christianity, and Jesus was the founder.

a better way of saying that might be that jesus and his family preached of god, his followers founded christianity, and it spread throughout the mediteranian, and the roman establishment adopted it.

 

[norseamd]

the whole new testament was not finished all at once. many books were made several centuries after christ. the bible is just a collection of books, not a single published book itself.

 

[WTSherman]

a better way of saying that might be that jesus and his family preached of god, his followers founded christianity, and it spread throughout the mediteranian, and the roman establishment adopted it.

Well put, but what I'm getting at is that I'm a Roman Catholic, former alter-boy! No offense but not only do I reject any form of protestant, but I am against atheists and agnostics.