Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    More to the point; did Jesus actually exist? I'm not so sure.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    More to the point; did Jesus actually exist? I'm not so sure.
    Jesus existed as a human being, we have Roman recoreds that tell us that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

    Whether he is god is another question from the theological point of view. But we wont get into that now becuase it will go on forever...

    Whether Jesus committed suicide is the question of this thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everdawn - Edited text? I think not. The bible is probably the most accurate text of antiquity. We have more source material on the bible than any other ancient document. Take Ceasers galic wars for instance. 6 'original' copies (all fragment) in only one language, all dated to within 4 to 6 hundred years of the actual writing. The bible - 30 thousand documents (mostly greek, aramaic and hebrew, but plenty of latin and miscelaneous languages) within around 2 hundred years, including 2 complete codices (and thats just the NT). The dead sea scrolls verify the OT to around 100BC. Ceasers book is never challenged, because its recognised as historicly accurate.

    I forget who was asking about it - God tolerating evil? Free will folks! Theres also the question (apocalyptic evangelical that I am), of the return of Jesus, when all evil will ultimatley be consigned to hell. God wont tolerate it for ever.

    Hope that helps anyway.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Everdawn - Edited text? I think not. The bible is probably the most accurate text of antiquity. We have more source material on the bible than any other ancient document. Take Ceasers galic wars for instance. 6 'original' copies (all fragment) in only one language, all dated to within 4 to 6 hundred years of the actual writing. The bible - 30 thousand documents (mostly greek, aramaic and hebrew, but plenty of latin and miscelaneous languages) within around 2 hundred years, including 2 complete codices (and thats just the NT). The dead sea scrolls verify the OT to around 100BC. Ceasers book is never challenged, because its recognised as historicly accurate.
    Edited Text: Yes, there have been two 'meetings' by the vatican to decide exactly what they put into the bible one in 10 something or other and another in 12 something, I cant remember the exact date as I havent the info on me. Plus half the stuff in there was written hundreds of years after it happened!! especially in the old testament!! Now with new archeaological evidence coming to light they arent even sure whether some of the writers were even literate. I strongly disagree that it is the most accurate text of antiquity, I would say that anything written by Suetonius or even Meditations is highly more accurate and viable than the bible. What is the bible accurate on if not history? Surely religion is history?

    No one knows the content of the dead sea scrolls but the Vatican.

    The bible is a secondary source, and therefore is an edited text. Jeez, even the Devine Augustus can be called an edited text. A series of viewpoints on events.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The entilre NT was written within 70 years of the events and by eye witnesses (with the exception of Lukes Gospel), mostly around the years 50 to 70 AD.

    I think that you will find that there is no clear evidence as to where the cannon came from, but the earliest recorded was around 250AD. Yes, Church hierarchy would doubtless have met to discuss the content of the cannon (such as the Jewish council of Jamnia c.AD80 which consolidated the last few details of what became known as the OT), but does this mean that it is innacurate? I think not.

    I have to agree with your point that the bible is accurate on history however. Well said. Archaeological records actualy continue to coroborate this, such as the case of the Hittite civilisation, the temple gate called 'beatuifull', the walls of Jericho and a whole host of others.

    Accuracy is basicaly determined by the ammount of available source material (quelle) for any text. The bible has more than any other ancient text. Ergo - it is more reliable than any other.

    Furthermore, the dead sea scrolls? All the information that I have read states that the translation team contained a diverse group of faiths including catholics, protestants, evangelicals, muslims, JW's and even a mormon. if the Catholic church has the copies they certainly are not buried away, as tehy where displayed in edinburgh within the last 6 years.

    Please tell me your not one of those scary conspiracy types. There more frightening than evangelical fundamentalists like me

    I agree that it is edited insomuch as it is a serie as of viewpoints on events, but that does not detract from its translatory or historical accuracy.


    Does that clear things up? Should we just agree to disagree before we do a topic related marc bolan, veering of the road to oblivion?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    The entilre NT was written within 70 years of the events and by eye witnesses (with the exception of Lukes Gospel), mostly around the years 50 to 70 AD.

    I think that you will find that there is no clear evidence as to where the cannon came from, but the earliest recorded was around 250AD. Yes, Church hierarchy would doubtless have met to discuss the content of the cannon (such as the Jewish council of Jamnia c.AD80 which consolidated the last few details of what became known as the OT), but does this mean that it is innacurate? I think not.

    I have to agree with your point that the bible is accurate on history however. Well said. Archaeological records actualy continue to coroborate this, such as the case of the Hittite civilisation, the temple gate called 'beatuifull', the walls of Jericho and a whole host of others.

    Accuracy is basicaly determined by the ammount of available source material (quelle) for any text. The bible has more than any other ancient text. Ergo - it is more reliable than any other.

    Furthermore, the dead sea scrolls? All the information that I have read states that the translation team contained a diverse group of faiths including catholics, protestants, evangelicals, muslims, JW's and even a mormon. if the Catholic church has the copies they certainly are not buried away, as tehy where displayed in edinburgh within the last 6 years.

    Please tell me your not one of those scary conspiracy types. There more frightening than evangelical fundamentalists like me

    I agree that it is edited insomuch as it is a serie as of viewpoints on events, but that does not detract from its translatory or historical accuracy.


    Does that clear things up? Should we just agree to disagree before we do a topic related marc bolan, veering of the road to oblivion?
    yep sure, mate. I disagree totally with you. But I think youll find that the civilisations of both Greece and Rome have way more info on the life and times and history of the wolrd and its peoples than the bible.

    Im not a conspiracy artist thanks, Im not prepared to take the words of a book written thousands and thousands of years ago to be the truth. This doesnt mean I dont believe in god, not at all im a catholic, it simply means I reckon a lot of people were B.S.ing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    yep sure, mate. I disagree totally with you. But I think youll find that the civilisations of both Greece and Rome have way more info on the life and times and history of the wolrd and its peoples than the bible.

    Im not a conspiracy artist thanks, Im not prepared to take the words of a book written thousands and thousands of years ago to be the truth. This doesnt mean I dont believe in god, not at all im a catholic, it simply means I reckon a lot of people were B.S.ing.
    Erm..............ok............. ....The greece and Rome thing is a matter of opinion I would think.

    If your a Catholic I assume that your willing to take the words of an demented old man as the inspired and undiluted word of God. Fair doos, its your life. Seriously though, is it fair to say that your a catholic more by culture and upbringing than by actual belief in their doctrine? Im not having a go at you, Im just wondering.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i asked dougsie... freewill - copout... i already said the theodicies dont offer any kind of answer, in my opinion.

    tell god i'll apologise in person if your rite.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Uncledougsie)
    Erm..............ok............. ....The greece and Rome thing is a matter of opinion I would think.

    If your a Catholic I assume that your willing to take the words of an demented old man as the inspired and undiluted word of God. Fair doos, its your life. Seriously though, is it fair to say that your a catholic more by culture and upbringing than by actual belief in their doctrine? Im not having a go at you, Im just wondering.
    Oh im quite unique in what I believe. But I dont believe some of the stuff, becuase some of its, well, stupid.As for upbringing, my parents dont care what I believe as long as I am content, I could be a voodoo-practising, tree hugging Hippy for all they care. But what I believe is no concearn of anyone elses, thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Everdawn)
    Oh im quite unique in what I believe. But I dont believe some of the stuff, becuase some of its, well, stupid.As for upbringing, my parents dont care what I believe as long as I am content, I could be a voodoo-practising, tree hugging Hippy for all they care. But what I believe is no concearn of anyone elses, thanks.
    Fair doos Everperson. I just find that allot of people confuse being associated with a belief culturaly, like being brought up in a particular church, with being associated by choice, faith and action. The difference between the 2 groups is usualy quite large.

    For instance - many Jews dont practice the religion of judaism outside of its social context - that is to say, they may practice some or many of the traditions but hold no real belief in any of it outside of its immediate cultural context. They are still jews by birth however. Am I making sense?

    Similarly - I meet allot of people who assume that they are christians because of their uk citizenship, the uk being a supposed 'christian' country and all that. However, for many of these people this doesnt really go deeper than the claim that they are 'not bad people' and have a fairly agnostic view of God.

    Not that this has anything to do with anything. Im just typing for the sake of it now.

    Good on yer parents by the way. Much kudos.

    PS - Monkeybloke........I'll do no such thing. You can speak for yourself
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.