I’m right here. Unlike Jehova/Yaweh/Doug, I’ve never gone anywhere.

Don’t forget the Death Star. Darth Vader’s UFOs are just as important as anyone else’s….

Mayhem, come on, dude. You know as well as anyone, that there are no eye-witness accounts in any of the gospels, and that there’s almost an entire generation between the “actual events” and the writings themselves.

I understand that Historians can’t write about an event, until such event takes place, but we’re not talking about historians, are we?
Those who followed Christ around the Holy Land believed that they were following the Son of God. You’d think that they’d be writing about the events- not waiting 30-plus years for someone else to do it for them. I mean, this was the Messiah. Not some insignificant Jewish carpenter. Why wouldn’t they chronicle the life of the Saviour, as the events happened?

The fact of the matter is that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Otherwise, we’d have Gospels written by Mary Magdalene, Joseph of Aramathea, and others mentioned in the Gospels. The bible would be huge…

Because I question the authenticity of the Bible in general, I can’t say for sure that there were people who actually witnessed the events of the Bible. Outside the Scripture itself and writings based on such, there’s very little evidence for the existence of most Biblical characters, apart from Roman records proving the existence of political figures of the era.

The Bible, whether right or wrong, isn’t claimed to be an historical account? First time i’ve heard that argument and what Chester said. I’ll probably be back with more but in the mean time…

… i too respect your honesty, obvious intellect and hilarious wit; that is why i engage you, Bill Zebub.

Actually: I’ll leave it with what Chester and am123 have said but i could pile on, robust, evidence also. I recall asking you to read a short-ish article canvassing many of these evidences. But chew this over, if you would. Should the Bible be proven a hoax do you think the Atheists would ever rest from claiming the victory? I could imagine the Agnostics getting over it but not the haters. I suggest there’d be planes flying over popular locations dragging banners behind them if not a whole new line in screen printed tee-shirts.

I’d like to tell you a little about myself, Mr S.A. Tan, like the bits that i don’t mention on here, and if you’d drop me a line i’ll get back to you but from a different email address than the one i’m posting here.

First i need your word that you can separate private conversations from those in the public arena. Not that i care too much because it’s more about being able to show up the character of those who blab, than it is about protecting my privacy.

Oh and i don’t debate by email so you needn’t worry about me bending your ear. In fact; the folk who have emailed me get one or two private messages in a year, if that.

[email protected]

Mayhem:
Thank you for inviting me to speak with you, outside of BIN. I look forward to it.
If you choose, you can also contact me at [email protected]
Cheers.

As for your question, there’s little doubt that Atheists would be screaming “We told you so” for eons; much like the devout would, it the situation were reversed. Biggest issue being that the devout have been saying that for about 1800 years, with nothing but faith to back it up.

Mayhem:
I never said that you were closed-minded. I’ve yet to hear you claim to be, or act as though you are the absolute authority on a given topic.

As we’ve discussed on another thread (pertaining to the Book of Daniel), my issues with the bible derive from a lack of physical evidence, to support the stories. No original manuscripts, relics that may or may not be genuine, and third and fourth-hand accounts of events that may or may not have happened. In my mind that equates to fiction, given absence of faith.
The missing 18 years of Christ’s life is a hard hurdle for me to climb for me. This missing time would have been formative for a man. It would explain how he came to terms with the knowledge that he was the son of a God, and I think that it’s absence is the greatest plot hole in the entirety of literature. Those would be his rebellious, teenage years.
The virgin birth is missing from some of the gospels. You’d think that something that important would be in all of them. I mean, it’s the root of Christ’s divinity.
As for your take on science, I’m inclined to agree that any theory on the creation of the universe requires faith; regardless of which side you approach it from. I’m also prepared to admit that I don’t know the answer, but I also hold to the notion that no one else does, either.

I’m off for a couple days, so if you’d like to continue this, please feel free to email me.
Cheers.

True Satan wrote:

“Beef…”

See folks? Even pork chop sideburns aren’t enough to fool the Prince of Darkness.

“I’d suggest that of all the people that followed Christ, at least one of them would actually be able to write about the factual events.”

We speculate when we suggest no one did exactly that. What reason have we to presume that all written documents from that period would survive to be transmitted across time, arriving safely in our laps?

“As for them worrying about the world coming to an end, I’m not so sure I buy that. Christ wasn’t a Doomsday prophet, unlike, say, John the Baptist.”

The Messiah wasn’t a doomsday prophet? Oh boy, do I feel like quoting a few scriptures now. But I know you hate it when we do that, so I’ll suppress my urge. But let’s leave that aside and recall the fact that each of the called disciples were VERY familiar with the Scriptures and with the prophecies. They thought – to a man – that when the Messiah came, He would kick Rome’s butt and usher in the New Age, as per the (mistaken) notions they had after reading (Old Testament) Scripture. The Messiah didn’t have to say a word to them with respect to the concept of impending earthly destruction.

“I’m in no way qualified. I’m no scholar.”

That makes two of us.

“What I am is an avid reader.”

That makes two of us.

“From what I’ve read, the earliest dating estimates of the bible range between 30-100 years after the alleged death of Christ.”

Fair statement. But do recall there’s an inconvenient issue of agenda at work here. You will admit, I am sure, that in the EVENT everything written in the (original) Scriptures is true, it would mean (as a matter of course) that so too is the world-wide hate-driven agenda to OPPOSE the Scriptures, also real. I give you an example: Historians, theologians and other academic ‘types’, when looking at the Book of Isaiah, virtually mangle the text even before their examination begins. They DEMAND that since prophecy, as a phenomenon, can in NO WAY be real, that the Book of Isaiah HAD to have been written by no fewer than three authors. The reason for this, so they say, is simple. Portions of Isaiah are easily datable. But way too many of the prophecies contained within the work came to pass exactly as written. And history shows the events in question occurred AFTER the text was written. Therefore, the prophetic portions of the texts must have been super-added on top of datable descriptive material which itself was added to the original text of Isaiah. This gets us three authors. The problem is this: The ‘academics’ have rejected, from the outset, the possibility that the Book of Isaiah is exactly what it purports itself to be. And this is exactly the opposite of what a non-biased and impartial investigator would have done. An impartial investigator would have FIRST examined the work to determine whether or not the claims it contained were true, rather than BEGINNING with the conclusion that the work is an unreliable fraud on its face. If is for this reason, and many similar reasons, that we look askance at all academic findings pertaining to any dates or suggestions or conclusions, as touching the Scriptures. Academics in general are liars. They’ve proven that fact beyond all possible refutation.

“Due to the lack of an ORIGINAL text, concrete numbers are impossible.”

That is the nature of the study. There’s nothing concrete about ANY of it. It’s almost as if the entire thing were meticulously, painstakingly, universally crafted to yield precisely that result. This too is evidence made available for our thoughtful examination.

“Perhaps I misspoke, in a way. My point was that there is little empirical evidence to support the existence of many figures who were close to Jesus, himself.”

There is even less empirical evidence to support the existence of Pontius Pilate. Do we doubt he existed?

“The Book of Kings, in my opinion, is the closest the bible could come to being a historical document.”

Do we need to assume the Bible was interested solely in functioning as a historical document?

“…there have been no scientific discoveries, pertaining to Christ himself, or those who followed him; to my knowledge, anyway.”

I think I know what you mean by ‘scientific’ discoveries – I think you mean artifacts, relics or forensic evidence. And I would agree with you. And I would also strongly suggest that to know the Scriptures makes this readily identifiable as one of the ‘foot prints’ of the Most High. One thing He does not do is to leave behind anything which might be construed as ‘bullet-proof’ evidence, except to a very select few at very specific times for very specific reason. Those reasons are always lessons. This is why I reject the Turin Shroud out-of-hand. I am un-swayed by all compelling evidence for that relic’s authenticity, simply because it doesn’t jive with the historical M.O. of the Most High. His evidence is enormous. So much so, in fact, that it tends to be overlooked by us because the view we are confined to is inadequate to the purposes of right-thinking. We learn to expand and to elevate our ‘view’ by incorporating the lessons of His Instruction.

“As for my skepticism of the Bible as a whole, I’m familiar with the inspiration to write, and create. I’m a musician, and I’m inspired to write frequently. However, I don’t think my inspiration comes from God. If it did, God has some serious issues. He also loves punk rock, evidently.”

We are either in synch with the Spirit of the Most High, or we are in synch with another spirit. There are no exceptions to this maxim. I used to be an artist and a writer of fiction. When I drank alcohol or imbibed (other) substances, I would sometimes generate the most profound-seeming visual and written imagery. Having subsequently studied the Ancient Mysteries, and the secrets of initiation into those mysteries, I can tell you unequivocally…

…if I read today some of what I myself have written in the past, not a soul on this planet could EVER convince me that the material was not authored by an initiate into those mysteries. And yet I did author it, and am no such initiate. No surer proof could ever come my way that I myself, at that time, was beholden to, was at least in part animated by, ANOTHER SPIRIT than the Spirit of the Most High. Today I know precisely who and what that other spirit belongs to. Does God inspire your creative ability and your musical talent? You better believe he does. But you better find out which ‘God’ you’re talking about. There is a ‘God’ of this world. And I do not believe you mistake my meaning.

Your honesty and ability to control your emotions is greatly appreciated, Mr S, as are your well thought out arguments. A trifle disconcerting given it’s not what i’ve come to expect from these discussions and i’ll do my best to extend the same courtesies.

I couldn’t say this any better so i stole it, changed it up a bit and added another point: “I’m in no way qualified. I’m no scholar.” and that makes three of us. “What I am is an avid reader.” and that makes three of us. “I don’t wish to change the opinions of others” and that makes two of us.

What i’m doing is stealing away all the lies of men (“them”) but still leaving you to make up your own mind based on what you know, what you learn, what i can prove or what i consider to be true. There is nothing blind about Faith irrespective there is much we don’t know and some we are not permitted to know.

Your point regarding the relics, that may or may not be genuine, sounds plausible if a solitary historical person was referenced but there were 50 examples given. Really; we’re that bad at archaeology and unraveling the historical record? It doesn’t sound, to me, like you’ve thought that one through.

So then, Mr S: since you agree that the science of the beginning relies on believing in things, that are unseen and cannot be empirically proven, why do you then choose something other than creation by intelligent design? This position makes Science the only arbiter of knowledge yet it’s wise wizards so often let us down. That’s the point at which, in my opinion, Agnosticism fails to make sense.

How’s your math?… Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah and concludes, “Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world”. The chance was calculated to be 1 in 10 to the 17th power. How big is that number? Stoner put it like this… Take that many silver dollars “and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep”.

How are you doing with proving Pontius Pilate existed? And speaking of Chester Arthur, since he has addressed some of your points i’ll leave it to you to let me know if something has been overlooked or seemingly ignored.

To every one in this thread (except MannTurd, he can take a long walk off a very short pier):
Thank you for your input. It’s given me much over which to ruminate, and I appreciate it very much. I may not agree with most of it, but I’m trying to understand faith, so I have to accept all viewpoints.

Chester Arthur:
It’s hard to mistake your writing style. If you choose to quote scripture to prove an aspect of Christ’s personality, then by all means, go ahead. My problem with people spouting scripture, is when they do it to prove their superiority, and how they are the only ones who know the true meaning of the Gospels. It scripture aids me in understanding, I’m all ears; but I have no time for self-aggrandizement from anyone, nor am I interested in people attempting to convert me to ANY religion, or belief system. I thank you for not trying, or being sneaky enough about it that I don’t notice.

am123:
I can appreciate your comments about Brahms, Beethoven, and the like. I’m sure that they felt that their compositions were divinely inspired, but that has always been one of my problems with faith, and Christianity in particular: You’re not allowed to take credit for your own work. Much like in college, I had an amazing teacher. I thanked him for all his help, and he told me “Don’t thank me… You did the work”. Why can’t we, as humans, take credit for wonderful works of art? If I write a song, It’s from my mind, and experience- not God’s. It’s always seemed to me, that if something beautiful is created by human hands, it’s because God inspired it, but if it’s ugly or profane, it’s the work of man? It seems like a double standard, and shouldn’t God be above that?

Mayhem:
“So then, Mr S: since you agree that the science of the beginning relies on believing in things, that are unseen and cannot be empirically proven, why do you then choose something other than creation by intelligent design? ”
I am completely open to the concept of intelligent design. I’ve never claimed otherwise. I am of the mind that the Big Bang could very well have been set in motion, by an intelligent source. I also realize that what we know as science now, was once referred to as magic. In turn, I believe that what is considered super-natural now, is science we haven’t figured out, yet.
I’m totally willing to entertain the notion that there’s a supernatural power that set our universe in motion. I also believe that mankind is responsible for it’s death.

Elijah:
Thank you for the book suggestion. I’ll check that out.

MannTurd:
As usual, you miss the point of the threads, entirely. I am not a Satan worshiper. I am a believer in the LaVeyan Satanic philosophy. No gods but man. Satan is used as a symbol for the desires of mankind to do as they will, in this philosophy. I take the name, because I look for knowledge, which is considered to be “of the Devil”. As for why they have Dicks, I’d have to say that because the writers were men, and God gave up his say in the editorial process, due to his intangibility. Speaking of dicks, why are you one?

Because they are NOT “conspiracy’s” at all.
What is spoken about all you mentioned IS TRUTH!!