Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[AbareMax]

I said that in previous posts, because you seemed to go against it all the time. If you are truely Christian shouldn't you be supporting other Christians? And maybe I don't know... Christ? The whole open mind thing was not to you and I apologize. It was directed to everybody else and I should've changed it.

[Zak]

Abare - You may be right about some atheists in this board who tend to cringe at the words "bible", "god", "religion" et al. Those people are the awkward ones and they seem to think they have a right to discriminate.
However, you refusing to take seriously an arguement from someone who hasn't read the bible would be sinking to their level. A lot of atheists HAVE actually read a fair share of the bible, yet still remain atheist. So "You haven't read the bible, you don't know what you're talking about" is just... sick. I have no problem with people reccomending it as a piece of literature, but unfortunately everyone seems to either be a rabid fanboy of it, or hate it with a passion.
Although I do agree with you about having a right to the land of Israel, but for reasons other than the bible. Let's not get into that, though.
Maybe if you provided more sensible arguements like Checkmate, you will be taken seriously.

~Zak

[AbareMax]

I appreciate that Zak. But, I cannot stop talking... I'm sorry.

[Aglandiir]

Aglandiir, the Talmud is even more than what you're asking for.

I'll be the judge of that, thank you.

I'm no expert on the Talmud, but I'm fairly sure that it is not even close to being objective in the way I set forth. It was not written by people with absolutely no interest in the events, before, during, or after they took place. Rather, it was written by people of a religion which perhaps felt threatened by Christianity, and thus saw reason to portray the past in a certain way. Perhaps they didn't deny that Jesus performed miracles because that was actually a good thing. Perhaps the miracles he supposedly performed would've been seen as evidence of the power of the One God that the Jews and Christians both worship. Perhaps the argument for Jews at the time wasn't whether or not Jesus had divine favor, but whether he was actually the Son of God or just some holy man of little serious consequence.

Maybe not. I'm not an expert on the Talmud. Perhaps somebody who is could clarify this. Still, the Talmud is not an objective source, and thus does not meet my standards for proof.

Also, just a quick note on your mention of Adam's rediculous lifespan. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit strange? Don't you wonder how a human being, a small, frail human being, in a harsh environment with minimal technology and medicine, could live for nine times as long as humans can reasonably hope to survive for today?

Let's pretend for a moment that you can't say "God did it" and expect that to be good enough. Just try it, for me. Why should I believe that Adam lived almost a thousand years? Where are his bones with a thousand years of life etched into them? Where are all the other tales about a man who lived ten lifetimes (or really, back then, 25 lifetimes)?

For the record, I believe that most modern Christians to not take the Old Testament as accurate history and do not believe that anybody back then, in the days of plague and wilderness, could live that long.

[phaedrus]

Now, let me explain this to you. The Bible is logic. Plain and simple. Period. Care to come up with anything for us, strat?

do i see proof? do i? i can freely debate with Checkmate because he actually backs himself up. with evidence outside of "the bible said so"

it's like talking to a brick wall. "because the bible said so", "because it is that way", "because christianity is the **** and all other religions should get banned from the world".

[Crazy]

I said that in previous posts, because you seemed to go against it all the time. If you are truely Christian shouldn't you be supporting other Christians? And maybe I don't know... Christ? The whole open mind thing was not to you and I apologize. It was directed to everybody else and I should've changed it.

I can't support someone if I disagree with them. The reason why I keep qouting you is because the way you post could easily offend some people. Plus you don't stay on topic because you constantly say the bible says so. This topic is about the historical accuracy of the bible nothing more and nothing less. I thank you for apologizing though,but I don't really think it is fair to say everyone else has a closed mind.

[Checkmate]

I'm no expert on the Talmud, but I'm fairly sure that it is not even close to being objective in the way I set forth.

I'll agree that it's not objective. I never said it was. What I'm saying is that it's better than objective.

it was written by people of a religion which perhaps felt threatened by Christianity, and thus saw reason to portray the past in a certain way.

They wanted to squelch Christianity. They believed it was heresy. So far we actually agree.

Perhaps they didn't deny that Jesus performed miracles because that was actually a good thing.

Your first statement that I disagree with. There is no logical way that Christ's miracles would have been a good thing for them.

Perhaps the miracles he supposedly performed would've been seen as evidence of the power of the One God that the Jews and Christians both worship.

We kind of agree here. You come close to admitting that the miracles would have evidenced God. The thing is that that doesn't help the Jews much, and I'll explain why in a moment.

Perhaps the argument for Jews at the time wasn't whether or not Jesus had divine favor, but whether he was actually the Son of God or just some holy man of little serious consequence.

Here's the thing. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. The Talmud calls him a false messiah and the Bible says that he was tried and claimed to be the Messiah. Now, I know you do not believe in the Bible, but just here me out. That is what would be logically done. Does it not make sense that they would try him and ask him such a question in order to find him guilty. Historically that's what they did for Christians and cases as such. Therefore, it's not really a leap of faith to believe that Jesus thought he was the Messiah.

If you want to start a whole new debate about Jesus claiming divinity, I will reluctantly agree, but suffice it to say that it is not a great argument at all to try and argue against Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

So, assuming you'll grant me that Jesus claimed divinity, (which would save us some debate) I'll go on.

As I've said before, people had performed miracles in the past. People have claimed to be the Messiah in the past. But it is most illogical to say that a person could do both (other than Satan) could be the Messiah.

It makes no sense to say that Jesus would have divine favor and not be the Messiah. Because if a person claims to be the messiah, and is not, they are a false prophet. God dispises false prophets. God would not give his favor to a false prophet. If he has divine favor, it's only logical to agree that he would not be blaspheming liar.

Maybe not. I'm not an expert on the Talmud. Perhaps somebody who is could clarify this. Still, the Talmud is not an objective source, and thus does not meet my standards for proof.

No, it's not an objective source. I must ask why you want an objective source. You might say that, 'an objective source would have no reason to embellish or lie'. Well the Talmud would certainly have no reason to embellish or lie. There is no possible reason they could have for actually giving Jesus credit for doing miracles.

Just think about it. I am a firm believer in Christ as the Messiah. If a person walked up to me on the street and said "I'm the Messiah. Come. Follow me." I'd give a weird look and walk away, most likely.

However, If the same guy did the same thing, and then held out his open hand, (with nothing in it) and bread suddenly appeared, he'd catch my interest. I'd tell my friends and maybe my brother about him. I'd try to see if I could find him again, or someone who knew about him.

Naturally, I would consider other possibilities as well. Such as him being a demon. I might try to see if there was a way the bread could have been an illusion. But I would also consider that he might be telling the truth.

It would be no different at all 1800 years ago. If the Jews just said that claimed to be the Messiah and was put to death, no one would care. The fact that they mentioned the miracles only proves that the miracles were undeniable. So much so, that they couldn't even try to say they didn't happen. They had to [I]resort[I] to attacking the source.

I'm telling you. It's better than an objective source.

Also, just a quick note on your mention of Adam's rediculous lifespan. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit strange? Don't you wonder how a human being, a small, frail human being, in a harsh environment with minimal technology and medicine, could live for nine times as long as humans can reasonably hope to survive for today?

Why is it so impossible that "God did it."? Here I'm telling you that Jesus performed miracles and you're not asking how? What's the difference between Jesus performing miracles and Adam living a long time? God needed Adam to live a long time, so Adam lived a long time.

Do you want me to admit that the Bible tells of things that cannot be done without divine intervention. FINE!!! I ADMIT IT!!! Why the heck do you think divine intervention is in the Bible in the first place?

Let's pretend for a moment that you can't say "God did it" and expect that to be good enough. Just try it, for me. Why should I believe that Adam lived almost a thousand years? Where are his bones with a thousand years of life etched into them? Where are all the other tales about a man who lived ten lifetimes (or really, back then, 25 lifetimes)?

This entire paragraph is pleading pro-silence. A bad argument. Lack of evidence does not constitute as evidence.

For the record, I believe that most modern Christians to not take the Old Testament as accurate history and do not believe that anybody back then, in the days of plague and wilderness, could live that long.

Don't care.

[Zak]

And isn't this the same book that said that Moses dipped his staff in the Nile river and it turned to blood? Later making the Red Sea split?

Anyway, yeah... Checkmate, it all comes down to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. There isn't really proof to back either claim, which is why a debate would take forever.
Basically, think of this analogy:

Judaism:Christianity
Hinduism:Buddhism

Jesus was originally a Jew, he claimed to be the Messiah, believed by some and distrusted by others, branching out Christianity.
Buddha (Siddharta) was originally Hindu, claimed to be their Messiah (or whatever its referred to as there), yadda yadda yadda, Buddhism was born.

Basically, that conflict about whether they are or aren't false prophets isn't really solvable, and the evidence leads to a matter of opinion IMO. It's what makes the 6 main religions of the world, or however many there are. If there was concrete proof that one was, or proof that he wasn't, like Aglandiir said, everyone in the world would be the same religion, as it would have been confirmed.

~Zak

[Leon-IH]

Well i love that nobody can counter what i've posted except with "have faith" or "Read the book" and so you know, i have read the book and it's a good laugh that we got booted out of paradise for eating a piece of fruit, then we all got flooded down to 1 extended family, bluntly by logic if it's all true we should all be going crazy seeing as incest does that to the child.

Oh wait, we are going crazy believing in this stuff with no logic to support it darn, i just owned myself.

Also, checkmate your don't care arguement is because you fear that we are right, why bother saying "don't care" otherwise?

[Checkmate]

Zak, I agree. It all does come down to whether or not Jesus was the messiah. However, Jesus fulfilled/will fulfill all the messianic prophecies. And believe me that is no small task. First you have to be born in Bethlehem, and be of the line of David. Then you have to travel to Egypt. (doable) People have to cast lots for your clothing. You have to die, a sacrifice. All that stuff. I can get into further detail if necessary.

The miracles and the claiming to be Messiah is just my preliminary argument.

Leon-IH I didn't respond to you because I figured you preferred to go on ranting. Your ranting doesn't really bother me, so I just decided to ignore it.

And my don't care argument was a response to one small paragraph stating that most Christians don't believe in the OT. It was not meant to be an argument, so it was not received with an argument.

I find it funny that you attack two words out of that entire post. Could it be that it is actually you who fears that I am right.

Now, since I doubt you actually wish to have a discussion about the issues you raised in your last post, I will just leave this post as is.

[Animelee]

ANIMELEE

Everything requires faith to accept. It requires faith to accept that the universe was a big accident and so is human life. It requires faith to believe that scientific theories that are accepted now are actually right. (ie evolution) Considering you don'? know everything, you basically have to have faith in everything. (though some things require more faith than others)

And I?ve also noticed that you still do not present any real argument against the Bible that might possibly be refuted.

The Bible never says that new species shall not develop. Who told you that?

With food.

hard work. What else are eight people going to do for that long of a time.

Why is that a cop-out. This is a nearly apocalyptic event. Might I ask how they got it to rain for forty days and forty nights? Would it be a cop-out to say that God helped them with the little rain thing?

Now if God helped them with the rain, why couldn't he help them with the work?

Micro-evolution, yes. I've never once denied micro-evolution. It is entirely possible for some species to branch off into other species given environmental conditions. What is not possible is for everything to have come from single-celled organisms.

correction... sub species of animals. Sub species would not be required for such a task. Some estimates indicate that the ark,, if a cubit is considered to be 17.5 inches (and cubits would have been a few inches bigger than that), would have had capacity for 125,000 sheep sized animals and the size of the average animal was smaller than that of a sheep, and estimates are made that he would have only had 25,000 animals to deal with. Leaving room for food and Noah?s family.

A group of scientists re-created a pseudo-environment of the way Earth first was billions of years ago, in a tank. I'm not too sure on what "ingredients" were needed, but a few weeks later, cells started to develop, the same cells they were thinking started life on this planet. If you want, I could go find a few pages explaining the exact experiement.

What kind of argument do you want? I mean, the whole concept of the Bible, well, all religions is that some deity that we have no proof of created us, our environment, other living things, and the entire universe as we know it. I mean, there's no proof of this deity. In the Bible, you have God appearing to people all the time. Now, we have nothing, except that evangelical Benny Hinn crap you see on TV, which was already proven false by many different organizations.

The Bible says God made all the modern animals (including humans) and plants that exist today. If new species develop, I'm pretty sure that's evolution at work.

Yeah, but God said to bring two of every animal on the ark. What'd the lions eat? They're carnivores, and God said only bring two of every animal. And with the lack of refridgeration, I doubt Noah could keep meat fresh for fourty days. I know he could've used salt, but would the carnivores extra-salty meats? And, I mean, with more than ten billion animals on board, you'd have to kill a hell of a lot of animals before setting sail.

A mere eight people tending to billions of species of animals?

Oh yeah, you believe that God exists and that the great flood caused by the great rain was also caused by him. I believe none of it ever happened. Sure, there's evidence of a great flood, but not five-thousand years ago.

But then what about all the fossils that we have as proof? What about the way scientists have linked us to other mammals through DNA, who're linked to animals, etc.? Did God put that there to test us? Did Satan? And, I mean, microevolution is pretty much the same thing as macroevolution. You can accept that a chihuahua and a German sheppard share the same ancestor, yet you cannot accept that modern apes and modern humans both share the same ancestor in the Australopithecus afarensis? Dogs have only been domesticated (from wolves) by humans for a few thousand years. In a million years, we'll see how different the breeds or dogs are from eachother (if we keep breeding the same breed with the same breed). That's what happened to us over millions of years, generation after generation. Macroevolution is just microevolution looked at on a grand scale. If there was some way for us to go back and look at our ancestors generation by generation, we'll hardly notice the differences, unless we look at their changes at, say, every 500,000 years. I hope what I typed up made sense, 'cause I have trouble putting things into words properly. ^^;

Yeah, but that was, according to you Christians, 5000-years-ago. You believe in microevolution, so you should know that things don't change much in 5000 years. There still would still be, roughly, about a massive couple billion animals at the time, by that logic. It's just one of the things in the Bible that doesn't make any sense. If there was proof for anything in the Bible, other than supposed "prophet grave sites" that exist in the Middle East, then I would surely give Christianity another go, but, really, I've seen nothing... No offense.

[Aglandiir]

A subjective source is almost never better than an objective source, because subjectivity automatically adds bias that may or may not be obvious or easy to see through. The Talmud might have mentioned Jesus' miracles because its writers saw a reason to mention them.

You'll note, perhaps, that religious Jews of the time believed in miracles, just as Christians did. It was perfectly plausible to them. They didn't think that Jesus was the Messiah, but despite what you seem to think, that did not necessarily mean (to the Jews) that Jesus could not have performed miracles. With no reason to doubt that miracles were actually possible, and potentially with a decent reason to grant that Jesus performed miracles, the Jews would've had no reason to question it.

If somebody who didn't already strongly believe in God and miracles, such as a Greek teacher, had written about such things, then I would take that as a solid objective source. The Talmud, the subjectivity of which you freely admit, is much, much weaker. If you still don't understand why, then I'm just not going to bother explaining it anymore.

As for Adam... I will grant you one thing: IF Adam lived to be 900-whatever years old, THEN God must have been behind it. Thus, IF Adam lived that long, THEN that would be proof of God's existance and THEN everybody in the world would believe in the Judeo-Christian God. As it stands right now, however, the only "evidence" that Adam actually did live that long comes from a story in the Bible that even most Christians don't believe, let alone anybody else. If there were bones or even non-Biblical stories (weaker, but still good evidence) to corroborate the tale, that would be one thing. But there aren't. All we have is an old story about somebody who lived to be 900, a feat which is clearly impossible today, with the help of a God who may or may not exist. That's pretty sketchy to a neutral observer.

Paul Bunyan was 20 feet tall and weighed 900 pounds. He gouged the Great Lakes and the Grand Canyon with nothing but his axe and his bare hands. He had a team of trained ants. Sounds crazy... but hey, there could've been divine intervention.

[Leon-IH]

And still nobody has replied to the awesome and undoubtedly incredible logic of my sig, OH YEAH i win.

[Zup]

Also, just a quick note on your mention of Adam's rediculous lifespan. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit strange? Don't you wonder how a human being, a small, frail human being, in a harsh environment with minimal technology and medicine, could live for nine times as long as humans can reasonably hope to survive for today?

Let's pretend for a moment that you can't say "God did it" and expect that to be good enough. Just try it, for me. Why should I believe that Adam lived almost a thousand years? Where are his bones with a thousand years of life etched into them? Where are all the other tales about a man who lived ten lifetimes (or really, back then, 25 lifetimes)?

How I see it: Was Adam a product of incest? No? Aren't we all a product of incest (whether you believe in the bible, or even evolution, we are). Wouldn't one of the only non-incestuous people live longer than products of incest? Because god created him out of dust, instead of a woman, he lived longer. There were no diseases that could be genetically brought down. And it never does say how long Adam lived in the Garden of Eden. He could have lived there for over 200 years for all we know.

[Checkmate]

In regards to Leon's above post...

Leon-IH I didn't respond to you because I figured you preferred to
go on ranting. Your ranting doesn't really bother me, so I just decided to ignore
it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All right, folks let's have a little review over how the debate?s gone so far. Specifically in
the imaginative speculation arena.

Here's one quote from Aglandiir.

If they and Jesus wanted to start a religious movement (a stated aim

of many current cults), then why would they care whether or not Jesus was actually
divine? They would lie about Jesus in their writings and preachings and everything else,
in an attempt to get publicity and a following.

Another from Aglandiir...

The civilians of the time, giving the living conditions, would have
plenty of reason to
believe in something that promised eternal bliss in Heaven in exchange for little more
than an oath of faith. What was there to lose?

What was there to lose? Three words cru-ci-fixion.

And why would being threatened with death dissuade the Apostles?
It doesn't dissuade
many current fanatics. Take, for example, the Branch Davidians at Waco. When
threatened with force, they armed themselves and ended up getting killed. Look at
religious terrorists in the Middle East, too; they are threatened with death constantly, but
it has little effect on them. In fact, it can even broaden their appeal, by making them look
like heros for standing up for what they believe in. Perhaps the Apostles saw the same
thing happen: the Powers That Be threatened them, and the common people rallied
towards them as a result

It happens now, and it could very easily have happened then

Maybe Jesus' little band of followers had the right message, in the
right place, at the right time, to become a global force for thousands of years to come.
Maybe the people in the area were so disaffected with the Rabbis, and so sick of harsh
Roman rule, that they were willing to believe absolutely anything if it promised that all of
their suffering would be rewarded with an eternal afterlife in Heaven. Maybe they figured
that being crucified or otherwise executed for their beliefs couldn't be all that much worse
than what they were living with, and the whole "neverending bliss" thing sounded worth
the price. Maybe they didn't even think that far ahead. Maybe the early Christian
followers were like the current teenaged gunmen of militant Wahabbist Islam: willing to
die for a cause they may or may not actually believe in, but are willing to say they believe
in in order to reap the possible rewards or to escape a seemingly untenable
situation.

Maybe the Apostles felt compelled to start a new religion, much like
how some people are compelled to climb every mountain higher than 10,000 feet in
Colorado, and some people are compelled to gamble away all of their money in casinos,
and some people are compelled to drown their children in the bathtub because they love
them so much.

Maybe Jesus really said all the things the Bible says he did. Maybe
he was just a mountain man who hardly said anything at all, and was just picked as the
Son of God by a group of people who felt compelled to start a religious movement but
needed a central figure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, that we're finished with this little update, let's compare it to what's currently up for
debate.

A subjective source is almost never better than an objective source,
because subjectivity automatically adds bias that may or may not be obvious or easy to see
through. The Talmud might have mentioned Jesus' miracles because its writers saw a
reason to mention them.

Since you're oh so good at drawing far-fetched scenarios out of the air, let's here one or
two of these reasons to mention the (allegedly false) miracles.

You'll note, perhaps, that religious Jews of the time believed in
miracles, just as Christians did. It was perfectly plausible to them. They didn't think that
Jesus was the Messiah, but despite what you seem to think, that did not necessarily mean
(to the Jews) that Jesus could not have performed miracles. With no reason to doubt that
miracles were actually possible, and potentially with a decent reason to grant that Jesus
performed miracles, the Jews would've had no reason to question it.

It sounds like you're trying to suggest that an earthly man can do miracles. A false
suggestion. Miracles are actually possible if you're working with a divine power. If God
was letting him do miracles, Jesus couldn't have been a liar! He claimed to be the Messiah.
If he's not lying, then he is... the... MESSIAH!!!!!

How many times do I have to repeat myself????

If somebody who didn't already strongly believe in God and miracles,
such as a Greek teacher, had written about such things, then I would take that as a solid
objective source. The Talmud, the subjectivity of which you freely admit, is much, much
weaker. If you still don't understand why, then I'm just not going to bother explaining it
anymore.

You still have some explaining to do as to why it's so much weaker. The only reason I
know of as to why objective sources are preferable is because they're not going to
embellish or lie to prove a point they're trying to make.

The Talmud was not trying to make the point that Jesus was the Messiah, so they, like an
objective source, would not embellish or lie to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Yet the
miracles do exactly that. They offer proof that Jesus was the Messiah.

The Talmud might have mentioned Jesus' miracles because its
writers saw a reason to mention them.

This don't cut it.

As for Adam... I will grant you one thing: IF Adam lived to be
900-whatever years old, THEN God must have been behind it. Thus, IF Adam lived that
long, THEN that would be proof of God's existance and THEN everybody in the world
would believe in the Judeo-Christian God. As it stands right now, however, the only
"evidence" that Adam actually did live that long comes from a story in the Bible that even
most Christians don't believe, let alone anybody else. If there were bones or even
non-Biblical stories (weaker, but still good evidence) to corroborate the tale, that would
be one thing. But there aren't. All we have is an old story about somebody who lived to be
900, a feat which is clearly impossible today, with the help of a God who may or may not
exist. That's pretty sketchy to a neutral observer

Paul Bunyan was 20 feet tall and weighed 900 pounds. He gouged the Great Lakes and
the Grand Canyon with nothing but his axe and his bare hands. He had a team of trained
ants. Sounds crazy... but hey, there could've been divine intervention..

Comparing legend to Biblical writing is like comparing apples to T-bone steak. Paul
Bunyan was never represented as pure truth handed down by God. They're not even
meant for the same purposes, so they're not very comparable. If I write a fictional book,
people are not going to take it and compare it to a non-fiction account as if they are equal.

Zup, interesting argument, but Adam wasn't the only one in the Bible to live that long. Methusalah lived 969 years, and several other people like Noah and Enoch and Job and just about anyone in Genesis before the Tower of Bable.

[Legends-Kuja]

I just thought of something:

No sane optimist says there is no God. They may not be religious, but from what I noticed, blatant atheists tend to be pessimistic...

Maybe the whole organized religion thing was God's craziest trick to get us to live longer? I'm not really religious, but I think there's not enough evidence to say the Big Bang happened on its own.

Oh, and Leon, shut up. [sarcasm]I'm pretty sure there's lots of logic that says we were created from nothing. I mean, come on, I guess we're all byproducts of spontaneous creation (same thing pre-1700 people believed animals like flies came from), hmmm?[/sarcasm]

[Rei_Zero]

I'm getting tired of these debates, but I'm willing to add one say. If other religions are willing to die for their god, then what makes the "they wouldn't take so much risk if it weren't real" so special?

[Checkmate]

Nice point, Rei. Here's the answer.

One of my major arguments in this thread is based on the persecution of the church in the first three centuries. However, I have not been using that to directly say that Christianity is true. Though I have been using it indirectly.

Here's the thing. Aglandiir keeps suggesting that the apostles made it up. The fact that they died torturous deaths proves (in my opinion) that they were not lying. They at least believed they were telling the truth. But think about it. The apostles were trained personally by Jesus. If what they were preaching- Jesus' divinity, his performing miracles, etc.- was not true, they'd know. They'd know they were preaching lies and they would not die for it. That is my point about the persecution.

The persecution proves that the apostles believed it was true. And if Christianity was a sham the apostles would be the ones to know.

[Rei_Zero]

But it still doesn't rule out the "we've been drugged" theory or the "the glory is worth the death" theory. Some people are like that. Maybe it was a minor form of Meglomania or maybe these people just wanted to be thought of as great. There is nothing to rule out these possibilities and it's happened in history before.

[Checkmate]

The profile that we get from the books that they've written seem to downplay the theory that they're seeking their own praise.

These men always directed their praise toward God and always advocated humility. It just doesn't gel.

[The Muffin Man]

The profile that we get from the books that they've written seem to downplay the theory that they're seeking their own praise.

These men always directed their praise toward God and always advocated humility. It just doesn't gel.

And what happens when you show humility and only praise God endlessly?
"Oh you're so humble and generous to do such a selfless act and praise God so much!"

Nothing in this life is truly altruistic(sp?).

[Rei_Zero]

Of course they're going to write it to attribute to god to make it convincing. It's not just doing it, it's doing it intelligently.

[Aglandiir]

Apparently, everybody but you, Checkmate, understands my argument. Maybe I'm just using too many words.

You ask me to give an example of a situation in which the Jews would not try to say Jesus didn't perform miracles, and yet the very next thing of mine you quote is exactly such an example. You claim to disprove it by saying that God would not give powers to a liar; however, what authority do you have to make such a claim? God can do whatever He wants. Perhaps the Jews saw things differently; maybe they looked back at the stories of God turning people into salt for merely looking over their shoulder and figured that God's ways are mysterious... just like Christians like to say. Is that really such a stretch? It might not be pleasant to admit that your God might not have acted in the manner you hope he did, but really... it isn't your place to make claims about what God would and would not do.

Out of curiousity, do you believe that Mohammad was divine in any way? Surely Islam wouldn't have taken off the way it did if he and his buddies had been lying.

Legends-Kuja: your blanket statement about atheists is... well, wrong. I fancy myself an optimist, I am quite sane, and I am a very blatant atheist. Many of the atheists I know are generally optimistic; this sort of thing grows from a faith in mankind and in the good nature of people, rather than from faith in a non-existant God. Atheists are willing to take responsibility and to take charge of things, because they believe it is up to them to make things happen. God does not factor in at all.

[Checkmate]

Apparently, everybody but you, Checkmate, understands my argument.

Where are you getting that? Besides. I understand your argument. It's just that it's wrong.

You ask me to give an example of a situation in which the Jews would not try to say Jesus didn't perform miracles, and yet the very next thing of mine you quote is exactly such an example.

No, I didn't. Maybe you were trying to give an example, but you didn't. Keep in mind I'm asking for a logical example.

You claim to disprove it by saying that God would not give powers to a liar; however, what authority do you have to make such a claim?

The authority of God. It's in the Bible. The Bible completely backs my statement and does not offer a hint of reasonable argument against what I just said.

God can do whatever He wants.

True. But he would not want to back up the best liar in history.

Perhaps the Jews saw things differently; maybe they looked back at the stories of God turning people into salt for merely looking over their shoulder and figured that God's ways are mysterious... just like Christians like to say.

That salt story only corroborates my point. In that story, God told someone specifically not to do something. They did it and were punished.

In the case of the Messiah, God told people to do something; watch for a Messiah that fit the description He gave them.

God would not do that to the people he loves. God tells us what to do and rewards us when we do it. He wouldn't tell us a lie.

Is that really such a stretch? It might not be pleasant to admit that your God might not have acted in the manner you hope he did, but really... it isn't your place to make claims about what God would and would not do.

Anything in accordance with God is my place.

Out of curiousity, do you believe that Mohammad was divine in any way? Surely Islam wouldn't have taken off the way it did if he and his buddies had been lying.

Are you saying that I'm claiming that Christianity is right soley because more people follow it? I assure you I never made that claim. Maybe I'm just reading too much into your statement.

[Rei_Zero]

But then, this is what this thread is about, isn't it Checkmate? The accuracy of the Bible. If it's completely accurate, then we wouldn't be doubting your words. But to say something that hasn't been made certain is like standing on a traphole.

[The Muffin Man]

Checkmate, I want a LOGICAL explanation as to why it's YOUR place to argue what God would and would not do. Nothing like "Well the Bible said so". I want exact excerpts that says "Checkmate may say whatever he wants about me." I want LOGICAL explinations. Not just what you interperet the bible says.

[AbareMax]

I'm thinking TMM, that he would like for you to look. I could find a few scriptures that say such things. For example in the Book of John 15:1-4, Jesus says:

I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. (2) Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch the bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (3) You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. (4) Abide in Me, and I ine you. As the branches cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in Me.

Basically what it says, is that Jesus is the One and that his Father sent him. Every believer that doesn't do God's will, is taking away from the Kingdom of God. And everyone who does do God's will be rewarded. This gives us the freedom to back up God's words.

Also it says in verse four, that if you choose Jesus, he'll choose you and you will be rewarded for doing work for the Kingdom. Now, you way think that Christians are slaves. That is incorrect. Very incorrect. We are servants of God. Now, saying that I'm using 'the Bible said so' is rubbish. It's senseless to say that.

It is our place to argue that, because when you are on God's side, you can do great things.

[The Muffin Man]

You had a good point going until you claimed that gave you the right to tell us we're wrong.

What it says to me, AN ATHIEST, is that everyone who doesn't believe in god he just "prunes them", basically forsaking them. And everyone who DOES believe but believes too much, he prunes them too. What it says to me is don't doubt god, and don't push him on everyone else because you think he's the only god...What it says to me is "Believe in me, be remember that it's YOUR beliefs. Not his or hers."

But even still, I'm an athiest...and nothing you can say is going to change that, or anyone elses mind. So there's no real point arguing religion.

[Sorovis]

You had a good point going until you claimed that gave you the right to tell us we're wrong.

What it says to me, AN ATHIEST, is that everyone who doesn't believe in god he just "prunes them", basically forsaking them. And everyone who DOES believe but believes too much, he prunes them too. What it says to me is don't doubt god, and don't push him on everyone else because you think he's the only god...What it says to me is "Believe in me, be remember that it's YOUR beliefs. Not his or hers."

But even still, I'm an athiest...and nothing you can say is going to change that, or anyone elses mind. So there's no real point arguing religion.

Then why do you seem so insistent to nip at Checkmate and Abaremax's heels throughout this entire ordeal? If you can understand and admit that there is nothing to be accomplished by debating religion, wouldn't you stop wasting your time here?

Secondly of all, I cannot make any connection between the verses Abaremax provided and your interpretation. It may because I have been bitten by a few too many snakes this past week, or perhaps because I am exhausted, but nowhere in that passage does it say 'don't shove your beliefs down another's throat'.

[The Muffin Man]

Then why do you seem so insistent to nip at Checkmate and Abaremax's heels throughout this entire ordeal? If you can understand and admit that there is nothing to be accomplished by debating religion, wouldn't you stop wasting your time here?

Secondly of all, I cannot make any connection between the verses Abaremax provided and your interpretation. It may because I have been bitten by a few too many snakes this past week, or perhaps because I am exhausted, but nowhere in that passage does it say 'don't shove your beliefs down another's throat'.

I see the 'fruit' as faith. If there's too much, God apparently prunes it. If there's none, it's only hurting him.

[Leon-IH]

Lol, you say im not an optimist.

Sane i may or may not be but i can type in english can't I?

I'm the guy who would risk alot on a 50% chance.. personally i'd like to think theres a god, but everything i've ever read, everything i've ever heard completely contradicts it, theres OPTIMISM AND SHUTTING YOUR EYES TO THE GOD DAMNED FACTS.

[AbareMax]

To get the full meaning out of something, you need to have an open mind, of course. With a bad mind, you will only find the bad in something. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad. I'm just saying this to everyone .

[Tainted]

To get the full meaning out of something, you need to have an open mind, of course. With a bad mind, you will only find the bad in something. I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad. I'm just saying this to everyone .

So, to have an atheist mind is to have a bad mind, correct? Why don't you be more open-minded, why don't you consider science more instead of using the bible just about every post this whole thread. Open-minded-ness goes both ways you know, being open minded doesn't mean your mind is just open to religion, it means atheism too, and other religions that aren't your own.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[AbareMax]

I never said you had a bad mind, All I said is for everyone to have an open mind. That definitely doesn't discude me. But let me know if I said that I wasn't open-minded, or didn't respect other peoples religions. When did you talk about science here, because you have rarely been on this topic. ANOTHER thing. If you're going be active in this topic, should you not pop up once in a while and be in it all the time? Correct me if I'm wrong .

[Aglandiir]

Oh boy, I was waiting for some poor sap to play the open-mindedness card. Whoever does that ALWAYS gets owned.

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were true. If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be false?

That last part comes back to a point of mine you seem reluctant to address: did the first Christians know the stories to be either false or true? Or were they going on the word of a few seemingly trustworthy people? You claim that the Apostles and the masses wouldn't have risked it if they didn't truly believe it were true; that in itself, however, holds no water. People will believe absolutely anything if there's a good enough reason to do so. Belief inherently has exactly zero to do with truth. People may be more likely to believe true things, but truth is by no measure necessary for belief.

So the scenario I present to you boils down to this: the masses believe because they have a good reason to believe; perhaps the identities of the Apostles, outside circumstances, and the message of Christianity combined to create such a reason. The only people who might not have had a solid reason to believe are the Apostles themselves: a very, very small group of people. A small group of people can make grand plans, or fabricate grand lies, or be totally deceived by the same story. There were only a dozen of them. It is obviously possible that the Apostles had ulterior motives; everybody else could've followed their lead.

I'm guessing you'll respond to that by saying the Apostles wouldn't have risked it if they knew it to be false. In response to your response, I will say that the Apostles might not have known anything of the sort, and even if they did, getting a dozen somewhat crazy people together is no major feat.

Oh, and a word to all concerned. I wish I didn't have to keep telling people this, but: IF you are debating the validity or accuracy of a source, YOU CANNOT USE THAT SOURCE AS EVIDENCE. Doing so is called circular reasoning and is, quite frankly, the dumbest, newbie-est logical mistake you could possibly make. Thus, arguing that God wouldn't give powers to a liar (a key part of your argument in support of the Bible's accuracy) because, I quote:

It's in the Bible. The Bible completely backs my statement and does not offer a hint of reasonable argument against what I just said.

...is the dumbest, newbie-est logical mistake you could possibly make.

Carry on.

[AbareMax]

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were true. If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be false?

Correction, sir. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Like it or not, it is. With nearly 2 billion followers, what other religion could be more popular? Tell me. Muslims originally followed God, and Muhammed(sp?) was the prophet to God. Somehow they came up with their own little religion along the way; worshiping Muhammed and Allah. Muhammed is dead. Jesus isn't. You can say all day long that he is dead...well then tell me where his body is. Same with Buddhism, and the other religions.

[phaedrus]

Correction, sir. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Like it or not, it is. With nearly 2 billion followers, what other religion could be more popular? Tell me. Muslims originally followed God, and Muhammed(sp?) was the prophet to God. Somehow they came up with their own little religion along the way; worshiping Muhammed and Allah. Muhammed is dead. Jesus isn't. You can say all day long that he is dead...well then tell me where his body is. Same with Buddhism, and the other religions.

note a few things:

Buddhism: Death is passing on to either reincarnation or Nirvana.

Christianity doesn't, in a sense, believe in death. It's considered moving on to heaven.

Islam, since I am not a Muslim (but I am Buddhist), I would assume they believe in death. So, they believe Mohammed died. Christianity believes Jesus moved on to heaven, correct? So, in a technical sense, Christianity doesn't really believe in death. For Buddhism, it's more complicated than that, so I won't delve into that unless prodded.

[The Muffin Man]

Most popular and most followed aren't the same thing. And I don't think Christianity is the most followed.

[Sorovis]

Oh boy, I was waiting for some poor sap to play the open-mindedness card. Whoever does that ALWAYS gets owned.

I mentioned Islam, Checkmate, because a large part of your argument in favor of the Bible seems to revolve around an assumption that the Apostles, and the people who were being threatened with crucifixion, would not have believed unless it were true. If you want to argue that way, then you'll need to contend with Islam, the most popular religion in the world. Surely the first Muslims would've seen right through any deception? Surely they wouldn't do anything brash if they knew the stories to be false?

Simply wonderful. You have fallen right into a trap I have been waiting for someone to walk into for a large degree of time. I assume that you have at least a minimal knowledge of the Islam religion yes? Then I am sure you are aware that Muslims also believe Jesus existed and that he did indeed perform miracles. They say that he was merely a prophet, as blatantly opposed to the long-awaited Messiah those of the Jewish faith had long been waiting for. So now, you see, we have not one but two religions, both widely popular, that seem to agree that Jesus was alive and did perform miracles; the latter of which does not share the Christian view of Jesus or his doings.

That last part comes back to a point of mine you seem reluctant to address: did the first Christians know the stories to be either false or true? Or were they going on the word of a few seemingly trustworthy people? You claim that the Apostles and the masses wouldn't have risked it if they didn't truly believe it were true; that in itself, however, holds no water. People will believe absolutely anything if there's a good enough reason to do so. Belief inherently has exactly zero to do with truth. People may be more likely to believe true things, but truth is by no measure necessary for belief.

This is an argument left for logical explanation; if you are being threatened with your life, you will not simply take a trustworthy man's word on something which could potentially get you killed. I understand belief does not necessarily have to do with the truth; what you do not understand is that even though two-thousand years ago people were different, they were not automatically gullible or illogical.

And what is this 'good enough reason to do so'? That the first Christians were told they would enter the Kingdom of God am I correct? If someone were to approach me in a time of need and tell me I will enter a beautiful afterlife if I do good deeds, does that mean I will immediatly believe in it because it seems nice? Again, illogical, and seems to assume people so many years ago were devoid of any intelligence-- human traits, for that matter.

So the scenario I present to you boils down to this: the masses believe because they have a good reason to believe; perhaps the identities of the Apostles, outside circumstances, and the message of Christianity combined to create such a reason. The only people who might not have had a solid reason to believe are the Apostles themselves: a very, very small group of people. A small group of people can make grand plans, or fabricate grand lies, or be totally deceived by the same story. There were only a dozen of them. It is obviously possible that the Apostles had ulterior motives; everybody else could've followed their lead.

And Aglandiir has descended into grand speculation territory. What if the Apostles actually schemed together and had a master plan you say? What if dinosaurs, despite their small brains, were very intelligent and decided to have the carbon in their bones decay quickly so when they died it would look like they were millions of years old as opposed to thousands. What then? Maybe the whole Theory of Evolution would be thrown off and discarded. Or what if Jesus was a super-intelligent being who used advanced telepathic and telekenetic abilities to do miracles, thus making him seem like a great person? You see, evidence is required in a debate; speculation is pointless unless supported with either logic or evidential support. Saying the Apostles schemed together has neither, and I will not seriously respond to it until you have mustered a credible argument.

I'm guessing you'll respond to that by saying the Apostles wouldn't have risked it if they knew it to be false. In response to your response, I will say that the Apostles might not have known anything of the sort, and even if they did, getting a dozen somewhat crazy people together is no major feat.

Maybe the Twin Towers collapsing was just due to a group of stupid pilots who were actually blind and nobody knew about it? It's not that difficult to get that many blind people together.

Seriously though, you cannot debate without any basis, that is pointless and destructable without so much as a whim on my part. I actually pity Checkmate if this is what he had to deal with for the past week or so.

[The Muffin Man]

Hey Sorovis, where's the part where he shot down your "proof" by saying you can't USE the bible to PROVE the bible?