[KimKallstrom]

(Original post by f1mad)
. They didn't exist back then .

A miracle and therefore proof of its divine nature

[Miracle Day]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
I don't have a problem with that question.

I just think it is stupid that he has written things like "For example, one man had a vivid imagination, wrote it, buried it and then the book was found a year later.." or "I can't comprehend a group of men deciding to write it to control the lower class" when obviously that is not the case or no Atheist uses that as an explanation for the Bible's origins.

I was giving an example to give people a better understanding of the question.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by Mad Cat Lady)
The old testament was compiled by umm.. I think it was emperor constantine who took a bunch of stories written by roman scholars and took out the ones he liked the most and made them into a book.

The new testament was written a long time after Jesus' apparent death so its unlikely the accounts of his life were written by people alive during his lifetime, but thats all i really know. I don't know how or why the old and new testament were put together into one book either, but my guess is that its all written as a fictional story by many different people, its at least known that the old testament was.

This isn't how it was written at all. The books of the OT were written between 3000 BC and 100 or so BC. They were written by Jews in both Hebrew and Greek. The Emperor COnstantine happened to be the Roman Emperor when the Bible was compiled but that's about it.

The NT was actually written suprisingly soon after Jesus death (between 10 - 70 - 80 years after) and was written based upon oral tradition in some cases (Matthew's gospel), based of the teachings of St. Peter (St. Mark's Gospel. St. Mark was his secretary in Rome), and those who met Jesus personally (St. John's Gospel. Who wrote when extremely old to refute arising heresies. Ratzinger wrote an excellent piece to dispel the notion that it was merely based upon the teachings of St. John rather than St. John himself).

[Angry Spartan]

Microsoft Word 2003

[_Student_]

Most of the stories were rip-offs of older religions, belief systems, superstitions and fables.

[mczakk]

It must have been written on a PC, after all God did tell Adam and Eve not to touch the apple......

[Architecture-er]

For those people saying the Bible was a fabrication, how do you explain away the disciples' actions after Easter?

I'd imagine liars would be adverse to being stoned / burned / cruxified / imprisoned if they were just spreading bullcrap - do you just think they never existed, were delusional or had some mad idea of becoming immortalised through matyrdom for a made-up religion?

[PapaShmurff]

They magicked it up.

[mczakk]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
For those people saying the Bible was a fabrication, how do you explain away the disciples' actions after Easter?

I'd imagine liars would be adverse to being stoned / burned / cruxified / imprisoned if they were just spreading bullcrap - do you just think they never existed, were delusional or had some mad idea of becoming immortalised through matyrdom for a made-up religion?

Like this would never, ever happen?

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by mczakk)
Like this would never, ever happen?

Who would want that, you'd be dead.

Plus they'd have no idea of whether they'd be successful or even comprehend that their deaths would be recorded and passed around the world.

In short, it's a laughable suggestion. The only logical conclusions are that they believed that Jesus was genuine, hence their deaths were not about fame, or they never existed. And there's pretty solid evidence that they existed.

[Miraclefish]

Well, you know how Harry Potter is essentially about 15 other fiction books, allegorical stories, films and other things distilled into one super book of made up rubbish which people seem to love, despite it's poor quality and utter lack of any kind of reality?

[pbsjohnz]

(Original post by Miraclefish)
Well, you know how Harry Potter is essentially about 15 other fiction books, allegorical stories, films and other things distilled into one super book of made up rubbish which people seem to love, despite it's poor quality and utter lack of any kind of reality?

People talking bout the bible and Harry Potter has to come up! lol

[Miraclefish]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Who would want that, you'd be dead.

Plus they'd have no idea of whether they'd be successful or even comprehend that their deaths would be recorded and passed around the world.

In short, it's a laughable suggestion. The only logical conclusions are that they believed that Jesus was genuine, hence their deaths were not about fame, or they never existed. And there's pretty solid evidence that they existed.

Erm, there have been martyrs in Christianity, Judaism, the Bahá'í, Sikhism, Islam, Buddhism and pretty much every faith, from the big to the tinpot, in history. And they happen thousands of years after the alleged incidents and events in their holy books, so your argument is somewhat flimsy.

[mczakk]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Who would want that, you'd be dead.

Plus they'd have no idea of whether they'd be successful or even comprehend that their deaths would be recorded and passed around the world.

In short, it's a laughable suggestion. The only logical conclusions are that they believed that Jesus was genuine, hence their deaths were not about fame, or they never existed. And there's pretty solid evidence that they existed.

Errr..... i take it that you have never heard of suicide bombers? they are happy to die for their religion, something to do with lots of virgins!

There have been many, many, religious martyrs throughout the ages, from just about every religion.

many people think that religions are just 'made up' as you put it, so logically that means that many, many people have martyred themselves for a 'made up religion' !

[Mad Cat Lady]

(Original post by adamrules247)
This isn't how it was written at all. The books of the OT were written between 3000 BC and 100 or so BC. They were written by Jews in both Hebrew and Greek. The Emperor COnstantine happened to be the Roman Emperor when the Bible was compiled but that's about it.

The NT was actually written suprisingly soon after Jesus death (between 10 - 70 - 80 years after) and was written based upon oral tradition in some cases (Matthew's gospel), based of the teachings of St. Peter (St. Mark's Gospel. St. Mark was his secretary in Rome), and those who met Jesus personally (St. John's Gospel. Who wrote when extremely old to refute arising heresies. Ratzinger wrote an excellent piece to dispel the notion that it was merely based upon the teachings of St. John rather than St. John himself).

Hi, you seem to know what you're talking about. I'll believe you on the new testament cause I don't really know anything about it but I did hear from somewhere that it was written about 200 years after Jesus' death, but that wasn't from a reliable source.

However where I said the old testament came from WAS from a reliable source, and I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written originally in Latin, hence why in old-age britain churches were banned from translating the Bible into English and readings of the Bible had to be in Latin, because they thought that changing it from its original would be blasphemy against the sacred text.
What I said is what Biblical scholars believe but tbh no one really KNOWS for sure, theres probably a lot of theories. And I didn't neg you btw!

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by mczakk)
.

(Original post by Miraclefish)
Erm, there have been martyrs in Christianity, Judaism, the Bahá'í, Sikhism, Islam, Buddhism and pretty much every faith, from the big to the tinpot, in history. And they happen thousands of years after the alleged incidents and events in their holy books, so your argument is somewhat flimsy.

Hardly, martyrdoms that happen thousands of years after the genesis of their religion may be influenced by incorrectly-taught religion, brain-washing and the degradation of what was 'gospel'.

However these martyrs were killed right after the genesis of their faith, so their beliefs would have been handed down to them directly. So either they believed a liar (who was also killed) so completely after a period of time spent with him that they were willing to die for the beliefs he taught, or there were miracles that they witnessed that gave them this fervent belief.
I think it would be nigh on impossible for Jesus to have deceived his followers like this (they wouldn't even have been forced to continue in their belief after he was killed) - which is why I believe that they believed that Jesus was really god. The only issue is whether they existed at all, and there's substantial historic evidence to support this.

[mczakk]

(Original post by Mad Cat Lady)
Hi, you seem to know what you're talking about. I'll believe you on the new testament cause I don't really know anything about it but I did hear from somewhere that it was written about 200 years after Jesus' death, but that wasn't from a reliable source.

However where I said the old testament came from WAS from a reliable source, and I'm pretty sure that the Bible was written originally in Latin, hence why in old-age britain churches were banned from translating the Bible into English and readings of the Bible had to be in Latin, because they thought that changing it from its original would be blasphemy against the sacred text.
What I said is what Biblical scholars believe but tbh no one really KNOWS for sure, theres probably a lot of theories. And I didn't neg you btw!

I think you have that all wrong, the bible would not have been written in latin, it would have been Hebrew or greek. The reason that the British bibles were in latin is because it was all consolidated into one book by the romans, who did use latin. The use of latin in britain was to ensure that the common people did not have the ability to read the word of god, only the clergy would be able to do that. something to do with the desire to be able to control the masses, after all, thats all religion is, a mechanism for the ruling class to control their underlings!

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Who would want that, you'd be dead.

Plus they'd have no idea of whether they'd be successful or even comprehend that their deaths would be recorded and passed around the world.

In short, it's a laughable suggestion. The only logical conclusions are that they believed that Jesus was genuine, hence their deaths were not about fame, or they never existed. And there's pretty solid evidence that they existed.

How do you explain extremist bombers or even Japanese Kamikaze pilots who don't even need the promise of an afterlife to commit "noble" suicide?

[mczakk]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Hardly, martyrdoms that happen thousands of years after the genesis of their religion may be influenced by incorrectly-taught religion, brain-washing and the degradation of what was 'gospel'.

However these martyrs were killed right after the genesis of their faith, so their beliefs would have been handed down to them directly. So either they believed a liar (who was also killed) so completely after a period of time spent with him that they were willing to die for the beliefs he taught, or there were miracles that they witnessed that gave them this fervent belief.
I think it would be nigh on impossible for Jesus to have deceived his followers like this (they wouldn't even have been forced to continue in their belief after he was killed) - which is why I believe that they believed that Jesus was really god. The only issue is whether they existed at all, and there's substantial historic evidence to support this.

Waco, or any other cult you can think of, or if you want to see how the masses can blindly follow someone because they want something to believe in, just watch the 'Life of Brian'

[Mbob]

(Original post by mczakk)
I think you have that all wrong, the bible would not have been written in latin, it would have been Aramaic or a similar language. The reason that the British bibles were in latin is because it was all consolidated into one book by the romans, who did use latin. The use of latin in britain was to ensure that the common people did not have the ability to read the word of god, only the clergy would be able to do that. something to do with the desire to be able to control the masses, after all, thats all religion is, a mechanism for the ruling class to control their underlings!

Pretty much correct, although you're stretching the Latin thing a bit. At the time all official/important documents were written in Latin, it was the 'English' of the time for written works. Translating it into English probably seemed as ridiculous as writing your employment contract in txtspk would be now.