Historical Accuracy of the Bible

[Sorovis]

Since Skullfire has exhibited so much interest in such a topic recently (although with my prompting), and I have been waiting to start a topic for a long while, I have decided now is an excellent time; especially since Raven has exhibited interest in us not ruining the Constitution topic. Of course everyone is welcome, just remember no spamming and points require supporting evidence.

[kainashi]

hooray for another religion debate. don't you people have anything better to do?

[Sorovis]

Maybe Jesus was a real guy. If he was a real guy, I bet you he had none of the powers in the bible, he wasn't the son of god, he wasn't anything-- at the most, he might have been a really nice guy. The fact that Jesus 'may' be real does not at all prove any of the bible real, any of the things done in the bible real, any of the characters, the beings, the whateverthehell's real.

Care to support this with any evidence, or just with unsupported claims such as what you have done? Quite simply, I cannot argue with someone who simply will not yield to evidence or logic, so please be reasonable. I realize that at the thread you posted this in perhaps such rules did not apply, so I will be patient in waiting for supporting evidence (logical or found in posted sites).

Ninety-nine percent was just a bullshit number. It's a high number, though, but it's the same with the Big Bang theory.

With the Big Bang, some of it has been proven true-- although very little, and most of this could just be by coincidence. With the bible, it's the same thing-- some statements in the bible are true, although, once again, very little, and this doesn't make the rest of it true.

Again support would be favorable considering your position and what I have asked for on this thread. What is the difference between the Bible and the Big Bang? For one, nobody was around to see the Big Bang; only now do we have people to speculate on it and other related topics. In the Bible, there is archeological and historically documented evidence to support it, as will be provided in due time.

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/rockcry.htm

Here is an example of archeological findings supported events and places in the Bible. Unfortunately for the Big Bang, all we can do, again, is speculate, because nobody was actually around to see it happen.

It would be like me writing a fantasy story about gremlins and demons and random wizards exploding into cowshit and then put the war of 1812 in it and claiming it was true because that war really took place.

No, actually it wouldn't, because there is no historical evidence to suggest that the fairies and gremlins in your story actually existed; there is evidence for Jesus' existence, or Moses' for that matter.

And yes Kainashi I do have other things to do. It's just I can fit another one of these into my schedule. That and Skullfire was just so insistant.

[Boy of Enders]

Yahoo! Another one of these!
Quick note though...

Aren't you supposed to say your beliefs on the historical accuracy of the bible in your first post? Kind of hard to debate with what you said if you dont say anything on the topic...

Edit: Heh, nevermind, you posted that as i was typing... meanie..

[GreenShirT]

Yeah I was a bit confused about that too, it looks like your first post has been split in 2 or something.

Anyway, biblical history eh? Hmm, well I would say biblical history is just as valid as any other view on the ancient world and anything before recorded history in my opinion.
What we think to be factual history is really just our best guess judging by what goes on today and because things are always changing we will never have it correct what went on in the past. (Anything that pre dates recorded history that is)
So I think a point of view such as the bible is quite valid since we don't know and will never know what actually happened in the past beyond a certain point, unless we manage to trvale back in time.
An example of this is the skin color/texture of dinosaurs and the sounds they make. We have no idea what so ever what they looked or sounded like but by the size of them and the places they lived we can guess, and only guess but it could just as easily turn out to be completely wrong or right. We will never know.

[Tainted]

Care to support this with any evidence, or just with unsupported claims such as what you have done? Quite simply, I cannot argue with someone who simply will not yield to evidence or logic, so please be reasonable. I realize that at the thread you posted this in perhaps such rules did not apply, so I will be patient in waiting for supporting evidence (logical or found in posted sites).

Alright, I'm sick of this, you're the one that wants to debate, not myself. How about we turn the tables on you, you support evidence, and valid evidence, that Jesus is existant. None of this "Well, a high christian supporter recently found a rock that said 'Jesus' on it," I mean real proof. My whole point was that there is no proof to credit EITHER side, not just my side, not just your side, EITHER side. If the word EITHER doesn't fit into your extensive vocabulary, then look it up.

Again support would be favorable considering your position and what I have asked for on this thread. What is the difference between the Bible and the Big Bang? For one, nobody was around to see the Big Bang; only now do we have people to speculate on it and other related topics. In the Bible, there is archeological and historically documented evidence to support it, as will be provided in due time.

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/rockcry.htm

How many people do you know that were around to see Jesus walk on water? How many? What's that? Zero? Well, I'll be damned. You can't say "Well, at least people existed at the time he walked on water," because that's not valid proof, apparently. I didn't bother looking at the site, I don't plan on getting really far into this anyway.

Here is an example of archeological findings supported events and places in the Bible. Unfortunately for the Big Bang, all we can do, again, is speculate, because nobody was actually around to see it happen.

No, actually it wouldn't, because there is no historical evidence to suggest that the fairies and gremlins in your story actually existed; there is evidence for Jesus' existence, or Moses' for that matter.

And yes Kainashi I do have other things to do. It's just I can fit another one of these into my schedule. That and Skullfire was just so insistant.

Here's insistance: **** religion-topics, I'm sick of them, because no side ever wins. It eventually will turn into insults? Why? Because you can't debate like a gentlemen over something that has no real proof to back either side up.
The 'Big Bang Theory' has no real proof, and whatever that link was, unless I'm guessing wrongly, doesn't show proof of THE Jesus, or whatever it was trying to prove. Scientists aren't allowed to make up crackpot theories, and if they do, they aren't followed as strongly as the Big Bang Theory, is.

Remember this, Sorovis: Gravity was a theory at one point. Friction was only a theory at one point. The fact that the sun was in the center of the universe startled the church so much they wanted to kill the astrologists that claimed so, at one point.
And what now?: Gravity is a law. Friction is a law. The Heliocentric model is proven correct as opposed to the Geocentric.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Tainted]

Yeah I was a bit confused about that too, it looks like your first post has been split in 2 or something.

Anyway, biblical history eh? Hmm, well I would say biblical history is just as valid as any other view on the ancient world and anything before recorded history in my opinion.
What we think to be factual history is really just our best guess judging by what goes on today and because things are always changing we will never have it correct what went on in the past. (Anything that pre dates recorded history that is)
So I think a point of view such as the bible is quite valid since we don't know and will never know what actually happened in the past beyond a certain point, unless we manage to trvale back in time.
An example of this is the skin color/texture of dinosaurs and the sounds they make. We have no idea what so ever what they looked or sounded like but by the size of them and the places they lived we can guess, and only guess but it could just as easily turn out to be completely wrong or right. We will never know.

Just as they have found fossils, they have found skin pattern imprints on rocks for Dinosaurs. The sounds they make can be recreated by making a model of what their larynx and such looks like and then blowing air through it-- and through this method around half of dinosaur sounds can be recreated.
However, what we don't know, is if dinosaurs really sounded like this-- but it can only be assumed that the only way they made sound was by exhaling air through the larynx.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[GreenShirT]

Again, assumptions and just because the skin left an imprint as they found it doesnt mean it is exactly how it was. Skin can easily be distorted and molded. One view is as valid as the next in my opinion and in any case I am not too bothered about things that have happened but more concerned with now and how the money spent on researching the past could be put to better use today.

[Sorovis]

Alright, I'm sick of this, you're the one that wants to debate, not myself. How about we turn the tables on you, you support evidence, and valid evidence, that Jesus is existant. None of this "Well, a high christian supporter recently found a rock that said 'Jesus' on it," I mean real proof. My whole point was that there is no proof to credit EITHER side, not just my side, not just your side, EITHER side. If the word EITHER doesn't fit into your extensive vocabulary, then look it up.

Amidst all of the complaining about how you do not want to debate (even though your posts suggest otherwise), I see you want me to provide evidence for Jesus and his existence. Very well:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

Perhaps you will enjoy reading this. Food for thought, as they say. Now if you choose to refuse historical evidence, then there is just no debating with you at all, and you might as well leave (as you have already expressed interest in).

How many people do you know that were around to see Jesus walk on water? How many? What's that? Zero? Well, I'll be damned. You can't say "Well, at least people existed at the time he walked on water," because that's not valid proof, apparently. I didn't bother looking at the site, I don't plan on getting really far into this anyway.

No wonder you're still an Atheist. At least The Rusted One, and any other Atheist I can think of actually bothered to contest whatever evidence I have provided; you on the other hand seem perfectly content to sit around and preach your beliefs and then complain when someone decides to disagree; discarding any arguments they provide to support their view.

And so you resort to the 'no living person saw it happened' argument, a very poor and ill-concieved approach for those who do not wish to actually debate, or cannot perhaps. By this very limited view of the world, why don't I claim none of history happened? Like perhaps the Revolutionary War? I was not there to see it; no living person was, thus we cannot be sure it happened. Please, come out from under that rock and face reality.

Here's insistance: **** religion-topics, I'm sick of them, because no side ever wins. It eventually will turn into insults? Why? Because you can't debate like a gentlemen over something that has no real proof to back either side up.
The 'Big Bang Theory' has no real proof, and whatever that link was, unless I'm guessing wrongly, doesn't show proof of THE Jesus, or whatever it was trying to prove. Scientists aren't allowed to make up crackpot theories, and if they do, they aren't followed as strongly as the Big Bang Theory, is.

Actually scientists are allowed to make up any theory they want; they must simply face the confrontation of their fellow scientists if that theory is poorly supported, and ultimately ridicule. I also love how you complain so much about how you hate religious topics and then reply to them. I am not holding a gun to your head, I hope you realize, and you don't have to reply.

Remember this, Sorovis: Gravity was a theory at one point. Friction was only a theory at one point. The fact that the sun was in the center of the universe startled the church so much they wanted to kill the astrologists that claimed so, at one point.
And what now?: Gravity is a law. Friction is a law. The Heliocentric model is proven correct as opposed to the Geocentric.

Your entire point? Gravity can be proven; we experience it everyday. Same with friction and the location of the Sun and Earth. What do we have for Jesus? A heap of accounts suggesting and supporting his existence and documents of his teachings. You're right, he never existed. How could I be so foolish?

[Tainted]

And so you resort to the 'no living person saw it happened' argument, a very poor and ill-concieved approach for those who do not wish to actually debate, or cannot perhaps. By this very limited view of the world, why don't I claim none of history happened? Like perhaps the Revolutionary War? I was not there to see it; no living person was, thus we cannot be sure it happened. Please, come out from under that rock and face reality.

I find it very insulting that you dub me a bad atheist. You used the same 'no living person saw it happen' for the Big Bang theory, why can't I use it for Jesus? Hypocrisy.

I am not holding a gun to your head, I hope you realize, and you don't have to reply.

I agree that you're a good debater in a sense that you go around and read crap written by other biased christians, but I don't want to argue about christianity or religion. The only reason I keep replying is because you have a gun loaded with insults pointed to my head, and I find some of the things you say insulting.

My christian friend gave me a documentary tape that explained a bunch of christians were mountain-climbing and found a wooden plank on the top of the mountain, brought it down, and instantly claimed it was from Noah's Ark... Yes, I'm serious. Now, supposedly they're doing further excavations on this mountain... To *ahem* find Noah's Ark... But I didn't believe any of it.
It just shows that one random plank of wood on the top of a mountain somewhere instantly amounts to tons of people saying it was from Noah's Ark, and tons believing it. Christians have used this as proof to the existance of Noah's Ark, therefore they say, it must prove the existance of god, etc.
Just the same, documented records saying there was a Jesus could be as tainted as the Greeks claiming they beat the Romans in that small insignificant war.

A lot of that website seems to be repeating constant crap. "People here wrote about Jesus, and people over here wrote about Jesus," which doesn't prove he's real, it just proves that religion travels. I'm pretty much done because of disgust, unless, again, I feel insulted, to which point I'll most likely reply.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Sorovis]

I find it very insulting that you dub me a bad atheist. You used the same 'no living person saw it happen' for the Big Bang theory, why can't I use it for Jesus? Hypocrisy.

I don't recall directly calling you a bad anything. All I said was that you simply don't listen to evidence and that your logic seems to only work for you. Guess when the Big Bang happened? Supposedly when people were not in existence. Guess when Jesus happened? Suprisingly when people were in existence and left documents supporting his existence. Wow, I think there is a difference between the two.

I agree that you're a good debater in a sense that you go around and read crap written by other biased christians, but I don't want to argue about christianity or religion. The only reason I keep replying is because you have a gun loaded with insults pointed to my head, and I find some of the things you say insulting.

And I find your claiming the Bible has no historical evidence insulting. If you take that back I will gladly delete all of my past responses dealing with your points, and you will be free to do so as well. Honestly, if you don't want to debate, then either take back your comment or just leave the thread.

My christian friend gave me a documentary tape that explained a bunch of christians were mountain-climbing and found a wooden plank on the top of the mountain, brought it down, and instantly claimed it was from Noah's Ark... Yes, I'm serious. Now, supposedly they're doing further excavations on this mountain... To *ahem* find Noah's Ark... But I didn't believe any of it.
It just shows that one random plank of wood on the top of a mountain somewhere instantly amounts to tons of people saying it was from Noah's Ark, and tons believing it. Christians have used this as proof to the existance of Noah's Ark, therefore they say, it must prove the existance of god, etc.
Just the same, documented records saying there was a Jesus could be as tainted as the Greeks claiming they beat the Romans in that small insignificant war.

First of all that is a miserably innaccurate example. Do the people actually have Noah's Ark in their possession or at the very least available for public view? No, they claim to have not been able to find it again. Naturally the archeological findings supporting Jesus's existence are still available today; no mysterious disappearings there. And of course don't get me started on how some Atheists pounce on every shard of potential evidence supposedly disproving Jesus's existence or the Bible's validity. Yes they are out there, just do a search on the internet regarding Jesus's existence.

The real problem with saying the evidence may be tainted? Look at all of the varying sources the corraborate on the existence of Jesus, as listed on the most recent site I have provided. Had it been one person you may have had a point. The reality, however, is that a number of historical persons report the existence of a man called Jesus Christ.

And on to the entire bias argument while I am at it. There is a certain amount of human nature to be taken into account when listening to a person report something signifigant: misconceptions on what actually happened, not being able to accurately re-tell the event, etc.. Suggesting that a person may purposely alter the recording of an event to their leisure is certainly not proposterous, but farfetched nonetheless. That assumes that the human race is entirely comprised of lying, greedy, and selfish men and women with no code of morals and no respect. I for instance would not do such a thing; neither would many other people here. To say people of the past automatically would is ridiculous.

A lot of that website seems to be repeating constant crap. "People here wrote about Jesus, and people over here wrote about Jesus," which doesn't prove he's real, it just proves that religion travels. I'm pretty much done because of disgust, unless, again, I feel insulted, to which point I'll most likely reply.

Have you read any of the sites I have provided (both of them, that is)? Please do before coming to such hasty conclusions. Regardless of whether you want to debate or not, at least do so coherently.

[The Muffin Man]

hooray for another religion debate. don't you people have anything better to do?

At least they're not sneaking this into yet ANOTHER thread somehow...

[The Muffin Man]

No. No no no no NO. No ****ing way am I standing by and letting this bullshit go by.

No wonder you're still an Atheist.

Sorovis, don't you dare claim he's an athiest because he refuses to go to a site with information you provide. I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is someone elses decision for their beliefs. I respect that, and although it doesn't look or sound like it I try to be as open as possible. This is not a goddamn conversion. You edit that OUT of that post. I'm ****ing serious, this is disgusting, assuming he's an athiest because he didn't read what YOU provided.

[Tainted]

Yes, I read the websites.

At least The Rusted One, and any other Atheist I can think of actually bothered to contest whatever evidence I have provided; you on the other hand seem perfectly content to sit around and preach your beliefs and then complain when someone decides to disagree

Is that not dubbing me a bad Atheist in your eyes? I'm done arguing, I don't really find anything you said in your last post worth arguing about, because, well, frankly you started this, and I continued because I like arguing. In reality, I don't give a **** if the bible is historically accurate, I don't give a **** if the big bang theory is incorrect and we were actually all created, I don't give a **** if Jesus was real, and I don't give a **** if God is real. Why don't I give a ****? Because if all of this stuff was there, and was real, I'd still be religion-less. I wouldn't doubt that they were real, I'd just choose to not believe in them.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[CaptainDean]

Yes, I read the websites.



Is that not dubbing me a bad Atheist in your eyes? I'm done arguing, I don't really find anything you said in your last post worth arguing about, because, well, frankly you started this, and I continued because I like arguing. In reality, I don't give a **** if the bible is historically accurate, I don't give a **** if the big bang theory is incorrect and we were actually all created, I don't give a **** if Jesus was real, and I don't give a **** if God is real. Why don't I give a ****? Because if all of this stuff was there, and was real, I'd still be religion-less. I wouldn't doubt that they were real, I'd just choose to not believe in them.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

Sorry, but you're a moron. You just said that even if it was a fact, you wouldn't believe it. That's sheer idiocy at it's finest.

[Tainted]

No wonder you're still an Atheist.

No. No no no no NO. No ****ing way am I standing by and letting this bullshit go by.

Sorovis, don't you dare claim he's an athiest because he refuses to go to a site with information you provide. I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is someone elses decision for their beliefs. I respect that, and although it doesn't look or sound like it I try to be as open as possible. This is not a goddamn conversion. You edit that OUT of that post. I'm ****ing serious, this is disgusting, assuming he's an athiest because he didn't read what YOU provided.

I didn't even see that quote by Sorovis. Well, I'll be damned, that is EXTREMELY arrogant to say, thanks for pointing that out Mike. Dude, Sorovis, you don't see me saying anything like "Well, no wonder you're still a christian, you haven't been taught the world of science." Here's reality: I'm not converting now, and I'm not going to convert ever. I don't care if I have to ward off Jehovah's with a Stinger, I'll still stay Atheist. That statement, now, after finally reading it, has pissed me to the point of exploding-- no ****ing way, just back the **** off the whole topic, there's no way in hell any little website you provide is going to convert me. Like I said in my past post, even if ****ing Jesus was real I would still be an Atheist, I would still be with no religion.

Right now, I no longer care if I'm insulting you or your people because you have gone right out and insulted MYSELF and Atheism. So **** you, **** your god, **** your jesus christ, **** everything you stand for. **** your rights, **** your freedoms, **** your beliefs, and **** conversion. Are you insulted now? Good.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Tainted]

Sorry, but you're a moron. You just said that even if it was a fact, you wouldn't believe it. That's sheer idiocy at it's finest.

Actually, you're a moron. I clearly stated I would acknowledge that they were true, I would just choose to be without a religion. Just because God is real would not mean I would have to worship him. Just because George Bush is real does not mean you have to believe that everything he says is right and just. Therefore, I would still be Atheist. I would believe in God, but I woulds till be religion-less. I would not pray to God, I would not go to church, I would still be an Atheist. Understand now? Good.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Aglandiir]

To claim that the Bible is entirely made up is foolish. It obviously is not. If it were, then it wouldn't have survived this long; it would've been lost in history thousands of years ago as just another crackpot cultist book once people who were there starting talking about how none of it actually took place.

On the same note, to claim that everything in the Bible is true, just because *some* things in the Bible are true, is equally foolish.

Take, for example, the story of King Arthur. There was no King Arthur, no Knights of the Round Table, no Launcelot, etc. The general consensus these days is that Arthur is a conglomerate of a dozen different Roman, British and Norman rulers who lived over the course of several hundred years. At the same time, however, King Arthur is a central figure in British history, and the stories that go along with him helped spread the notion of chivalry and the benevolent royal court. This mythical figure had a profound influence on European history.

I'm not saying that Jesus was the same way, since there are obvious differences; one such being that Jesus' influence was seen much sooner after the time he would've lived than Arthur's was. Still, King Arthur provides an excellent example of how something made-up can turn in to something of profound importance and historical value. Just a hundred or few hundred years ago, people still believed that Arthur was real. One of the key reasons we have for believing the contrary is conflicting history, as well as the lack of archaelogical evidence. Such techniques cannot be used to examine Biblical stories, since Jesus' life would not have left behind many artifacts that would last this long (like Camelot would), and there is a general lack of written record from that far back in history. Take this, from that site you posted, for example:

To this Meier adds [ibid., 23] that in general, knowledge of the vast majority of ancient peoples is "simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." It is just as was said in his earlier comment on Alexander the Great: What we know of most ancient people as individuals could fit on just a few pieces of paper. Thus it is misguided for the skeptic to complain that we know so little about the historical Jesus, and have so little recorded about Him in ancient pagan sources. Compared to most ancient people, we know quite a lot about Jesus, and have quite a lot recorded about Him! (For a response to a commonly-used list of writers who allegedly should have mentioned Jesus, see here.)

One or two sources can not generally be taken as proof of any theory in any field.

[The Muffin Man]

The Bibles not all true. Nor is it all false. It's like historical fiction. Or, for example, Hellboy(movie, not comics).

There WAS a WW2. There WERE Nazis. Did they do weird things to Jews? Yes. Were any of them involving the accult? Possibly. Was there a Hellboy? As far as we know, no.

[Zak]

I didn't even see that quote by Sorovis. Well, I'll be damned, that is EXTREMELY arrogant to say, thanks for pointing that out Mike. Dude, Sorovis, you don't see me saying anything like "Well, no wonder you're still a christian, you haven't been taught the world of science." Here's reality: I'm not converting now, and I'm not going to convert ever. I don't care if I have to ward off Jehovah's with a Stinger, I'll still stay Atheist. That statement, now, after finally reading it, has pissed me to the point of exploding-- no ****ing way, just back the **** off the whole topic, there's no way in hell any little website you provide is going to convert me. Like I said in my past post, even if ****ing Jesus was real I would still be an Atheist, I would still be with no religion.

Right now, I no longer care if I'm insulting you or your people because you have gone right out and insulted MYSELF and Atheism. So **** you, **** your god, **** your jesus christ, **** everything you stand for. **** your rights, **** your freedoms, **** your beliefs, and **** conversion. Are you insulted now? Good.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

Woah woah WOAH! Uh... settle down dude. I can understand you're angry, but if you look at your attitude, don't you think you're kinda making atheists look bad? I know you only mean to represent your own personal opinion, but I'm gonna have to give you a warning for this. You do indeed have every right to get deeply offended by Sorovis' nasty comment (which he is getting warned for as well). If it weren't for that last two sentences it would have been fine. Now it just seems you're almost sinking to his level.
Although, Skullfire, if that comment actually cut you real deep that you really feel the need to take it out on him in the roughest way possible, it would be better to do it via PM. That way you can get the message across to Sorovis, without offending some Christians on this board that actually have more sense.

And like I said Sorovis, I'll repeat what I said before: Don't EVER use atheism as a term of belittlement.

If this topic gets any more abuse, I'm closing it. End of story. We have enough religious debates as it is, so one down wouldn't hurt.

I'm staying out of this, because like HealdPK said in one topic, IMO religious debates are pointless, since it's nearly impossible to evangelize or convert someone over the internet.

~Zak

[DarkTemplarZ]

The Bible is so ambiguous and badly written that it's pointless to discuss it, because everybody has their own interpretation of it. You'll just get a flame war between somebody who thinks it's all bullshit and a Christian person, like what's happening here.

IMO Jesus did exist, there is plenty of evidence of that. It's like denying that Narmer existed; there are lots of tainted and biased documents about him but the belief that they were an actual person is generally accepted. The fact that he was the descendant of God (Which is just completely ridiculous. God is perfect, hence he doesn't engage in "pleasures of flesh", but since he had a son he must have.) and that he died for all our sins and we should worship him day and night is total bullshit. People died worse deaths for their gods in the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, and we don't worship any of them. Hell, even Odysseus has a similar story, enduring twenty years of torment for his hubris (which can be equated to sins) in a story, and I don't see anybody revering him as a god. Besides, the Bible is just a conglomoration of Pagan stories. Can you deny the similarities between the Christian God and Zeus or between the stories of Jesus and Osiris (Betrayed and killed horribly, was eventually reborn and then went to the realm of the dead.)?

[AbareMax]

This is sad...The only proof anyone needs of Jesus' existance would be the Bible. That's it. If you all would read the Bible, then you would know the facts.... There's my two cents

AbareMax

[The Muffin Man]

This is sad...The only proof anyone needs of Jesus' existance would be the Bible. That's it. If you all would read the Bible, then you would know the facts.... There's my two cents

AbareMax

Leave the debates to the people willing to support it, Ok Kiddo? Thanks.

[Sorovis]

Oh yes, this is what I've been waiting for...

No. No no no no NO. No ****ing way am I standing by and letting this bullshit go by.

Sorovis, don't you dare claim he's an athiest because he refuses to go to a site with information you provide. I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is someone elses decision for their beliefs. I respect that, and although it doesn't look or sound like it I try to be as open as possible. This is not a goddamn conversion. You edit that OUT of that post. I'm ****ing serious, this is disgusting, assuming he's an athiest because he didn't read what YOU provided.

The Muffin Man, do you know how to read? Or better yet, do you know what selective reading is? Apparantly not. Selective reading is what magically yields all of those 'Biblical flaws', and pertinant to now, what you just did. I said he was an Atheist because he was perfectly content to sit around and ignore evidence, whereas The Rusted One actually contested evidence with evidence. Just like ignorance is a bad way to be a Christian, so is it a bad reason to be an Atheist. Of course then again you may not have read it the way I intended, so I will assume the latter as of now. And for the love of your post don't get so angry. You look pathetic.

Yes, I read the websites.

Is that not dubbing me a bad Atheist in your eyes? I'm done arguing, I don't really find anything you said in your last post worth arguing about, because, well, frankly you started this, and I continued because I like arguing. In reality, I don't give a **** if the bible is historically accurate, I don't give a **** if the big bang theory is incorrect and we were actually all created, I don't give a **** if Jesus was real, and I don't give a **** if God is real. Why don't I give a ****? Because if all of this stuff was there, and was real, I'd still be religion-less. I wouldn't doubt that they were real, I'd just choose to not believe in them.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

I had no idea you liked to argue. After reading all of your 'I hate religious debates' and all of that, I would have assumed otherwise. Now as for the rest of the post, there really isn't that much to address. I don't care either way if you're a Christian or not, really, that is your choice. All I am trying to do is get you to stop making outrageous claims such as that the Bible has little or no historical accuracy.

I didn't even see that quote by Sorovis. Well, I'll be damned, that is EXTREMELY arrogant to say, thanks for pointing that out Mike. Dude, Sorovis, you don't see me saying anything like "Well, no wonder you're still a christian, you haven't been taught the world of science." Here's reality: I'm not converting now, and I'm not going to convert ever. I don't care if I have to ward off Jehovah's with a Stinger, I'll still stay Atheist. That statement, now, after finally reading it, has pissed me to the point of exploding-- no ****ing way, just back the **** off the whole topic, there's no way in hell any little website you provide is going to convert me. Like I said in my past post, even if ****ing Jesus was real I would still be an Atheist, I would still be with no religion.

Right now, I no longer care if I'm insulting you or your people because you have gone right out and insulted MYSELF and Atheism. So **** you, **** your god, **** your jesus christ, **** everything you stand for. **** your rights, **** your freedoms, **** your beliefs, and **** conversion. Are you insulted now? Good.

Not particularly. All I am going to do is ask you to stop so the thread does not turn into a flame war and get closed. Read how I replied to The Muffin Man above, and you'll see what I actually meant. By the way, insults don't get you anywhere, so please just calm down.

[The Muffin Man]

I said he was an Atheist because he was perfectly content to sit around and ignore evidence

Yeah. THAT'S doing you alot of favors.

[Sorovis]

Actually that perfectly fits what you are doing as of now. Have you bothered to look at the sites provided? I have no idea, as you have done nothing to contribute to the thread except whine and complain and get in your little insults when you can. That would be called spamming, and it would be very nice if you could perhaps stop it. Quite honestly, do you understand the term hypocracy yet?

The Bible is so ambiguous and badly written that it's pointless to discuss it, because everybody has their own interpretation of it. You'll just get a flame war between somebody who thinks it's all bullshit and a Christian person, like what's happening here.

Have you ever heard of a little thing we like to call the past? And of course you would be familiar with the conception that people wrote things differently in this thing called the past, correct?

IMO Jesus did exist, there is plenty of evidence of that. It's like denying that Narmer existed; there are lots of tainted and biased documents about him but the belief that they were an actual person is generally accepted. The fact that he was the descendant of God (Which is just completely ridiculous. God is perfect, hence he doesn't engage in "pleasures of flesh", but since he had a son he must have.)

Incorrect here. Jesus was considered the perfect human being and committed no sins, that includes murderous thoughts, jealousy, everything remotely bad. Also keep in mind that just because God created people does not at all mean that He cannot enjoy them Himself, otherwise we humans, who are also His creations, would not be able to enjoy earthly things either.

and that he died for all our sins and we should worship him day and night is total bullshit. People died worse deaths for their gods in the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, and we don't worship any of them. Hell, even Odysseus has a similar story, enduring twenty years of torment for his hubris (which can be equated to sins) in a story, and I don't see anybody revering him as a god. Besides, the Bible is just a conglomoration of Pagan stories. Can you deny the similarities between the Christian God and Zeus or between the stories of Jesus and Osiris (Betrayed and killed horribly, was eventually reborn and then went to the realm of the dead.)?

No Jesus and Osiris had many differences; Osiris if I remember correctly was not ressurected by his own power, rather by another God. Jesus's ressurection was by his own will to prove that he could conquer death. Also note that people saw and recorded Jesus rising from the dead, whereas Osiris's miracles was only heard of in stories. Same with Odysseus. The difference? Jesus existed and people saw his miracles, Osiris and Odysseus did not and people did not see their miracles.

[The Muffin Man]

Actually that perfectly fits what you are doing as of now. Have you bothered to look at the sites provided? I have no idea, as you have done nothing to contribute to the thread except whine and complain and get in your little insults when you can. That would be called spamming, and it would be very nice if you could perhaps stop it. Quite honestly, do you understand the term hypocracy yet?

I said he was an Atheist because he was perfectly content to sit around and ignore evidence

So do you understand? Do you finally understand why we're pissed off? Or are you content to claim hypocrisy is anything you don't like?

I already said I try not to insult christianity because I respect that it is your belief. Now, do I need to ****ing define hypocrisy for you? Or are you gonna use it RIGHT?

[Sorovis]

What evidence have I had to ignore this entire topic, or any other for that matter? I always have and always will match evidence with evidence and point for point unless I miss something. All you are doing now is wasting time, not just your own, but mine.

Now, if everyone is ready to actually present evidence as opposed to use their selective reading skills and giving the swear filter a nice workout, let's actually turn this into a debate (note that Templar has been the only person to come close to what I have been searching for). No more snide comments from The Muffin Man and please no more enraged rants by Skullfire.

[Dark Scizor]

For the historical accuracy of the bible, i just think Chinese Whispers.

[RedStarWarrior]

Many of the events, places, and people in the Bible were real. However, I am not sure about the Bible as a whole. I know that many people might feel better about classifying it as historical fiction.

[The Muffin Man]

What evidence have I had to ignore this entire topic, or any other for that matter? I always have and always will match evidence with evidence and point for point unless I miss something. All you are doing now is wasting time, not just your own, but mine.

I didn't call YOU a hypocrite. I said stop using it incorrectly.

Now, if everyone is ready to actually present evidence as opposed to use their selective reading skills and giving the swear filter a nice workout, let's actually turn this into a debate (note that Templar has been the only person to come close to what I have been searching for). No more snide comments from The Muffin Man and please no more enraged rants by Skullfire.

So you're going to ignore the fact that you've blatantly insulted Athiesm and claimed it's just because people don't want to accept evidence??

[Aglandiir]

(note that Templar has been the only person to come close to what I have been searching for)

Thanks for completely, blatantly, and, as far as I can tell, intentionally ignoring my post.

[Checkmate]

Before I disect Dark Templar's post, I'll address the King Arthur point. You are right in that it's not a perfet analogy. The imperfections, however, are the keys. We have written document clearly stating that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins in a document written less than 5 years after his death. (1 Corinthians)

Also, King Arthur's story would not have lasted had the writers of his story been under heavy persecution attempting to dissuade them. I will not go into gory detail.

You are also mistaken in saying that architecture cannot back up the gospels. It can and has. For instance a certain pool at Bethesda has been dug up exactly where the gospel of John indicated. Luke's works have been investigated by a certain atheistic archaeologist and were found flawless to a tea. (9 islands, 52 cities,) People thought Luke was messed up for using the term 'politarch' in reference to a political position of government, until someone unearthed an inscription using just such a term. Since more than thirty other archaeological discoveries have been found using the word 'politarch'.

In fact, archaeology has stitched up several apparent problems with the gospels and Acts.

In conclusion, I agree that myths can influence history, but one cannot draw many decent parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ. (though they are both great kings)

Now, onto the other decent post.

The Bible is so ambiguous and badly written that it's pointless to discuss it, because everybody has their own interpretation of it.

Not quite. Could you please site an example. I agree that some passages and even some books (ie parts of Daniel and almost all of Revelation) seem confusing and could certainly be misinterpretted, calling the Bible as a whole, open to interpretation is grossly over-exaggerated generalization.

You'll just get a flame war between somebody who thinks it's all bullshit and a Christian person, like what's happening here.

Unfortunately you are correct. I find it disappointing that people such as Skullfire and The Muffin Man find it perfectly all right to ignorantly diss the Bible, but respond to any argument or requests for evidence with **** this, **** that, **** Christianity/religion, and **** you. A repulsive way to represent one's beliefs.

IMO Jesus did exist, there is plenty of evidence of that. It's like denying that Narmer existed; there are lots of tainted and biased documents about him but the belief that they were an actual person is generally accepted.

Obviously, I agree.

The fact that he was the descendant of God (Which is just completely ridiculous. God is perfect, hence he doesn't engage in "pleasures of flesh", but since he had a son he must have.) and that he died for all our sins and we should worship him day and night is total bullshit.

Not quite. First let me address your parentheses. a) sex is not a sin when it's inside marriage, but that's irrelevant b) Jesus' birth did not require sex or conception. (hence why 'a)' is irrelevant) You can't confine the spirit world to the limitations of the physicaly world, and God is not a physical being and does not operate like one.

Now for your statement as a whole. The thing is it's not really out of the question. The entire Bible including the beliefs of Judaism fit with it like two puzzle pieces. (I am speaking of OT Judaism) Blood sacrifices were necessary for cleansing sins. Jesus was the ultimate blood sacrifice to cleanse all sins.

Now, I might appear to contradict myself. After all, I just said that one cannot confine God to physical limitations, and now I'm claiming that Jesus was God incarnate.

However, I do not contradict myself in that when God himself confines himself to human limitations (the 30-some years of Jesus' life) he is then human and divine. Not completely contradictory.

Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended) says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of Nazareth.

The prophets performed miracles. Decievers and lunatics have claimed divinity before and after the times of Christ, but none have done both. It is true that miracles can be done only by the power of God or Satan. (Satan's being much less powerful) That means that Jesus would have to have the backing of one of the two. (saying that his miracles were hoaxes beyond the realm of reasonable possibility. They were legit.)

Certainly God would not back a man that claimed divinity and was not divine. What Blasphemy! So the only two options are that Jesus was an agent of the devil, or the son of God. (we already know by his miracles that he works for one of the two) He cast out demons and ultimately led people to God. (following God's laws such as the top ten) And he also gave God's creation better lives. Two things the Devil definetly does not advocate.

The conclusion is logical. It's strange but logical. Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, he's everything. Messiah, Jehovah, the Prince of Peace. It's he. Son of man, seed of Abraham, second person in the trinity, he is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.

Now of course, there are several points in my argument you could attack and I'm ready to defend. Such as the validity of the Bible or proof of the miracles. Ask and you shall receive. (evidence)

People died worse deaths for their gods in the Spanish Inquisition in the name of Christ, and we don't worship any of them.

Because they're not God and only God is worthy of worship. Jesus was God.

Hell, even Odysseus has a similar story, enduring twenty years of torment for his hubris (which can be equated to sins) in a story, and I don't see anybody revering him as a god.

Yeah, sure.

Besides, the Bible is just a conglomoration of Pagan stories.

That's worse than merely calling it fiction.

Can you deny the similarities between the Christian God and Zeus or between the stories of Jesus and Osiris

Maybe, but I really don't have deny the similarities, because there aren't any. For one thing, God is God alone. Zeus wasn't. He was the head God among other Gods. Zeus couldn't even obey the laws of the people he was sovereign over. He was gross adulterer and couldn't keep his own house hold in order. Zeus was also a tyrant. God is a judge. He loves those who he judges and always offers grace before his judgement.

As for Osirus, I am ignorant to any knowledge of him except him being Egyptian, but I doubt he died for his people out of agape love. If I am wrong, just show me.

[Aglandiir]

We have written document clearly stating that Jesus was the Son of God and died for our sins in a document written less than 5 years after his death. (1 Corinthians)

The fact that the book was written a short time after the event does not necessarily make it accurate. If the people who wrote the book had a vested interest in passing Jesus off as God Himself (which they certainly did, regardless of whether or not that claim was true), then they would have plenty of reason to write what they did, again regardless of whether or not it was true.

If they wanted to tell people that Jesus performed miracles, but he didn't... then why, exactly, would they write in their book that he *didn't* perform miracles? They wouldn't. They would lie, and say that he did.

[...] In fact, archaeology has stitched up several apparent problems with the gospels and Acts.

That isn't quite the sort of archaelogical evidence I was talking about. Camelot, if positively identified as ruins, would in turn prove the existance of King Arthur, since no other king has ever claimed to rule from such a place.

The artifacts you mention, however, have no bearing on whether or not Jesus was a divine being. All they prove is that the people who wrote the books actually lived where they said they lived, and actually paid attention to their surroundings. If Luke got his numbers right, that's because he was actually there. Maybe he even counted them himself. Who knows? It has no bearing on Jesus, though.

In conclusion, I agree that myths can influence history, but one cannot draw many decent parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ. (though they are both great kings)

There is at least one excellent parallel:

Both stories started with fact, (potentially) changed it around, and have been/were believed to be historical truth for a very long time.

Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended) [...]

This is a logical fallacy. To quote myself:

"On the same note, to claim that everything in the Bible is true, just because *some* things in the Bible are true, is equally foolish."

*Some* parts of the Bible can, indeed, be historically defended. Nobody denies that. However, to claim that the Bible as a whole can be historically defended, merely because certain parts of it can, is just flat-out wrong.

Therefore, this entire part of your post...

[...] says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of Nazareth [...]

[...] That means that Jesus would have to have the backing of one of the two. (saying that his miracles were hoaxes beyond the realm of reasonable possibility. They were legit.) [...]

[...] He cast out demons and ultimately led people to God [...]

...is invalid.

It isn't necessarily untrue, but it cannot be proven either way, at least with the premises you are using.

The conclusion is logical. It's strange but logical.

It's only logical if the Bible is true, which it may or may not be. If the Bible is not true (a possibility which, to date, nobody has successfully discounted), then your conclusion is not logical.

[Razola]

It's a good historical reference. But what 2,000+ year old document isn't going to have something worth reading about?

[Tainted]

I find it disappointing that people such as Skullfire and The Muffin Man find it perfectly all right to ignorantly diss the Bible, but respond to any argument or requests for evidence with **** this, **** that, **** Christianity/religion, and **** you. A repulsive way to represent one's beliefs.

So, it's perfectly fine to 'diss' Atheism, and then be offended when I reply with '**** this, **** that, etc.' No, Sorovis stepped over the line, clearly-- you can't see just how far he stepped over the line because you have a damned bible infront of your face. Also, I responded with that not because I felt I lost, but rather because I felt Sorovis definately had crossed my offence boundary.
Oh, and I can represent my beliefs however I want. I don't tell you how to represent your beliefs, don't insist I represent mine in anything but repulsive. I don't represent Atheism, I'm too much of an ******* to do that, I represent myself and only myself.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[DarkTemplarZ]

As for Osirus, I am ignorant to any knowledge of him except him being Egyptian, but I doubt he died for his people out of agape love. If I am wrong, just show me.

Generally, Osiris was a kind and great leader and supposidly the grandson of Ra (The leader of the Egyptian gods) before he was betrayed and brutally murdered. He was later reborn and wandered the Earth before he went to the realm of the dead. Remind you of anybody?

Maybe, but I really don't have deny the similarities, because there aren't any. For one thing, God is God alone. Zeus wasn't. He was the head God among other Gods. Zeus couldn't even obey the laws of the people he was sovereign over. He was gross adulterer and couldn't keep his own house hold in order. Zeus was also a tyrant. God is a judge. He loves those who he judges and always offers grace before his judgement.

lol right, and the Christian God isn't guilty of any of the seven deadly sins? Here's a few:

Jealously- "I, Yahweh, your God, am a jealous God. You shall have no other gods but me."
Wrath- "God's wrath", getting extremely pissed off any chucking people into hell. If damning people to eternal suffering isn't a sin then I don't know what is.
Pride- Believing that he is perfect and superior to everyone and everything else. Forget pride, that's downright arrogance.

The Christian God can't follow his own rules either. And PLEASE spare me any bullshit about humans being unable to understand God's intentions and emotions and these sins don't apply to him and stuff. Loves those he judges? "I love you... but still I have to condemn you to eternal suffering"? LMFAO

sex is not a sin when it's inside marriage, but that's irrelevant

So that's why Christian divinity requires complete abstinence? That's why Jesus supposidly didn't need to? That's why anyone who hopes to be Pope or Cardinal still has to practice abstinence for their entire lives? Right. Hypocrisy.

Now on to the main point. No claim is ridiculous when met with sufficient evidence. Here is the evidence. The Bible (which can be historically defended) says that Jesus forgave sins (sins that were not against his person) and that he proclaimed divinity. Yet he also performed miracles. Only one man in history has done both, Jesus of Nazareth.

Correction. Certain parts of the Bible, such as the actual existance of Jesus or Moses, can be defended. The fact that he performed miracles and stuff like that possibly were the result of the person recording it being high on drugs. Besides, there is no evidence of these "miracles" outside of the Bible. I don't see any evidence of land underneath the Red Sea being partially eroded by air because of God parting the sea for Moses. In other words, these "miracles" can't be historically defended. I would love to hear any proof you have of these miracles.

That's worse than merely calling it fiction.

Read the Bible and compare it to Pagan legends. Jesus dying for our sins was predated by the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl doing the same thing. The halo is simply a modernized Egyptian sun disk. Christmas is supposed to be the birthday of Jesus Christ, even though Jesus was born in March. Why? To copy the Pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

[The Muffin Man]

Unfortunately you are correct. I find it disappointing that people such as Skullfire and The Muffin Man find it perfectly all right to ignorantly diss the Bible, but respond to any argument or requests for evidence with **** this, **** that, **** Christianity/religion, and **** you. A repulsive way to represent one's beliefs.

I already told you, I try to be as respectful as possible to peoples religions. But just because I say the bible is mostly fictional is NOT insulting it. I already gave an example. And it wasn't an argument or request for evidence, he claimed Skullfire was an athiest because he REFUSED to accept "evidence"!! Are you even listening or just reading Sorovis posts and going off whatever it sounds like?

[Last Exile]

The Bible was written by men for men. It can hardly be accurate considering it was written to write women out of history in terms of their value and rights.

History = HIS STORY!

Any questions?!

[Sorovis]

I didn't call YOU a hypocrite. I said stop using it incorrectly.

I am not using it incorrectly. Yelling at people for not contributing to the debate and not doing so yourself clearly and easily makes you a hypocrite. It also seems as if you are inept at doing anything remotely close to debating; all that I have seen from you as of now is you attacking me in some way; or Checkmate for that matter.

So you're going to ignore the fact that you've blatantly insulted Athiesm and claimed it's just because people don't want to accept evidence??

Did you bother to read my post responding to your first post regarding this? Obviously not. Either that or you are incapable of understanding what I said in that post.

And I must apologize to Anglandir for missing his post. When I get the time I will go back and deal with it. From what I can tell, his post was also what I have been searching for, along with Templar's.

The Bible was written by men for men. It can hardly be accurate considering it was written to write women out of history in terms of their value and rights.

History = HIS STORY!

Any questions?!

Not quite. There are some female judges, queens, and perhaps prophets in the Bible.

I already told you, I try to be as respectful as possible to peoples religions. But just because I say the bible is mostly fictional is NOT insulting it. I already gave an example. And it wasn't an argument or request for evidence, he claimed Skullfire was an athiest because he REFUSED to accept "evidence"!! Are you even listening or just reading Sorovis posts and going off whatever it sounds like?

I am getting very tired of this. How many times do I have to explain to you that I was not insulting Atheism? All you are doing is wasting time, because Checkmate quite clearly knows what I meant.