Religion

[west]

Oh man, Pie. I'm actually speechless.

[formerly known as hf]

Jesus in North America?

Sorry, but I thought those who claim Jesus visited Western Europe must be out of their minds... but North America... *shrugs* Maybe he just flew, I dunno.

And Pie. You claim that you know the origins of the Bible. For one, you just cannot prove that. I can't prove you wrong, necessarily, but your 'proof' of their origin comes solely from your own personal faith, which as strong as it may be for you, and other believers, is not very convincing for others, myself included.

Going back over an old point I've made a few times, what I also want to ask, is what language would the original Bible have been written in?
Then, consider this. Those original texts must have been translated. Anyone who understands anything about translation will acknowledge that a translated text often bears increasingly less resemblance to the original text.

Now, consider how many thousands of years have passed. During that time, the Bible has been translated into Latin, then a wide variety of other Western European langugaes, up to almost every contemporary language in the world.

Most English Bible texts are actually based upon Latin 'originals'. Now, that means there have been at least two stages of translation. That in itself leaves a fairly massive opportunity for some quite fundamental differences to have occured through translation.

That's not even considering that in times past, as well as in recent times, Bible texts have been, both subtley and not so subtley, altered by powers that be, those high in Christian religions. It is widely acknowledged that the contemporary Bible owes a large amount to medieval European Christianity in how it has been formed. The scholars then were certainly not past adapting certain passages, focusing on particular ones, skipping others, in order to persue whatever they wanted to persue. There is some quite convincing evidence that the Bible we read now went through some quite fundamental alterings at the hands of various monks during the 12th to 16th Centuries.

The result is a number of things. Firstly, we have a wide variety of English 'translations'. The fact that there is not even one, widely acknowledged, translation, indicates the differences that have occured. Secondly, the 'word of God', if it ever was, has, over time, been quite heavily infected by the words of various men, for various causes.

Alongside the fact that the Bible is open to the widest interpretation. As I have been shown before, there's a passage in the Bible to excuse and explain anything and everything, it only, depends on how you decide to interpret it.

Does this really seem a book which can be used as reliable evidence for anything?

Maybe Islam has it right, in considering the only version of their Holy Book worth anything, is the text in the original langugae, which has gone through few alterations.

[SekoETC]

I don't know where the hell has this conversation gone to... There was a period after Resurrection where Jesus showed himself to several people around the country, for example to road of Emmaus. He wasn't limited by walls and locks, though he had a physical body so that people (for example Thomas) could touch him and feel that he's real, not some ghost or apparition. So technically he could've visited any place on Earth (or the Universe, why not?) in that state, BUT seeing him only had a meaning to those who had seen him before he was crucified, and heard of his execution. Otherwise it would only be some guy with nail holes through his wrists.

Farmer complained that the Bible has been altered by people when translated. That's true, it cannot be compared to the original scriptures. Therefor I've started to see the reason of studing ancient Hebrew, I've heard that it's in fact not that hard since the vocabulary is limited. Words should be taken by concept, there may be several words translated as the same (for example, soul, spirit) when originally there was a difference. Also the cultural background is important to know to understand some comparisons. For example, my dad was telling how for the saying "it's easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven" there are at least two alternative explanations. One is that in Jerusalem there was a gate called "Eye of a needle", which was so narrow that a loaded camel could not get through it. But if you unloaded it, it would fit through. The second explanation is that it wasn't camel but gamel, which means a thick rope. So it's easier to imagine a rope somehow fitting through a needle's eye than an animal. My dad is not in faith but he has a lot of general knowledge of a lot of stuff.

In many things it's important to compare things to the general spirit of Christ's teachings and if there's a conflict, then there must've been an error. Therefor it's important to know the Bible as a whole, not just verses here and there. Since taken out of context things change.

Edit, I have (or my mother has) a Bible with footnotes explaining a lot of stuff. Not all can be trusted, it's coloured a bit, for example different things have been taken as the Beast from the Apocalypse, for example they used to think Napoleon was the one, or some empiror of Russia, or Hitler, the Pope or even Bill Gates. Anyway what I was going to was that Hebrew letters also represent numbers. So when it was said that the Number of the Beast is the number of it's name, it's likely that the name referred to must be written in Hebrew letters.

[Pie]

May I know reffer to the 5000 scriptures of the gosples(written in greek), corosponding in compleasaty with the gosples iln the bible. And I understand that many cardinals and popes could have changed the bible(they actually did, but it was the fith gosple, wich was compleatly ludicrous. I don't remember the name though... Again, I place my referances to "a case for crist") but, everything we have in the new testiment AT THIS TIME has many corosponding historical texts around the mediteranian, wich cannot be denied.

And also, These texts were excivated out of the earth, correct? So, by the time the church was corrupt, these texts would have been lost forever to them, and they cant change what they cant see.

And... H.F, here is a passage frome the web-site named http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus(JESUS right there), from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

I just wanted to press a point. (He never went to WESTERN europe. Who sais that?)

[formerly known as hf]

And also, These texts were excivated out of the earth, correct? So, by the time the church was corrupt, these texts would have been lost forever to them, and they cant change what they cant see.

I'm not sure what you are refering to here? I'm assuming you mean the (somewhat inaccurately named) gnostic gospels which were found about 60 odd years ago?

I think, however, they are a good example of my position. They are understood to be some of the oldest gospel manuscripts, which include, quite substantially passages about and by Mary Magdalene. Yet, since then, Mary Magdalene has been written-out by a male-dominated church, and, indeed, portrayed as a prostiture. This portrayal is only about a thousand years old, some pope or other said it, but it has stuck.

I read the link you provided Pie, and I have read many many others like that. Despite by quite deep atheism, I have studied, and hold a lot of interest in the histories of religious texts and histories, primarily Biblical, ancient Greek, Buddhist and Hindu. What is common, across the board, is the very, very high differences in interpretation of the 'meanings' the texts / stories, and of particulars, but at the same time, a very high correlation with known history, including non-religious accounts, and geological/environmental events (especially in the case of Hindu myths).

What this does not provide, however, is 'proof' that Christ, who I do believe existed in some form, is either the son of God or a miracle worker. belief in that is only ever going to be dependent upon faith. What they can provide is a degree of substance to the Bible, in that it is historically accurate. But the same accuracy can be said of the history of Buddha. So, given that the Buddhist history is as accurate as the examples you provide Pie, should I become Buddhist? As i believe Jesus Christ must have existed in some form, so I believe Buddha existed in some form, does not mean they necessarily must have, therefore, had the significance they are given, more likely, this significance has been post-scribed upon these people.

Historical accuracy, and alternate accounts of miracles do not provide proof. If that was the case, then a majority of religions, including ancient Greek religion, can be said to be 'prooven'.

The Bible is, in itself, has roots in history, some very strong ones. But that does not mean all the particulars, the exact words spoken, the paths walked, are precisely accurate.

The contemporary Bible, whilst it still has its roots in ancient stories, including pagan ones, and is broadly historically accurate, has undergone very, very extensive changes, adaptations and interpretations over the past millenia. It seems that the contemporary Bible is more of a reflection of the Christian establishment, the religious elite, over the past two thousand odd years, rather than of its original form, if it ever had one.

[Pie]

...... Alright. I see your point.

proof that Jesus is who he sais he is.

Alright, common sence. These men, the desiples, they have common sence. I mean, to write the gosples would be death to them. Compleat and utter marterdom. So why would these people actually lie to get INTO trouble?

The resurrection of Jesus is challenged today on evidentiary grounds. Therefore, to be fair, the evidence should be judged like any other historical event. Based on standard rules of evidence, consistent eye-witness testimony from multiple credible witnesses would be considered the strongest form of evidence available to a litigant. Therefore, if we find such testimony present in credible accounts of the historical record of Christ’s resurrection, we have satisfied a major evidentiary challenge under traditional rules. In fact, we do have multiple eye-witness testimonies regarding the resurrection of Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-6, Paul established the following:

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

Manuscript studies indicate that this was a very early creed of the Christian faith, written within a few years after the death of Jesus Christ. Therefore, it’s dramatic that Paul ends the passage with “most of whom are still living.” Paul was inviting people to check out the facts. He wouldn’t have included a statement like that if he was trying to hide something like a conspiracy, hoax, myth or legend.

And many other people, who all faced marterdom for there belief.

Now we have established the fact that these men believed that they saw crist risen. now, what other reasons are there for them to see crist..... Halusination? no. To many people have seen him. Hypnoses? no. To many people have seen them. what other reasons are there?

And marterdom, also, can prove everything in the new testimant.(Well wat do you know. I'v just given you perfict evidence of crist.)[/quote]

[formerly known as hf]

So, because some guys were prepared to die to qrite about Christ - then Christ must be the son of God? And have performed lots of miracles?

Ok, people were prepared to make matyrs of themselves in spreading the Islamic faith. Does that mean that the Qu'ran is all true?

People have been prepared to matyr themselves for their belief in Buddhism in the past - does that make Buddhism and the existence of Buddha real?

All that people being prepared to matyr themselves prooves, is that they held a very strong faith in what they believed. People are prepared to die for all sorts of things - doesn't validate it. Not in the slightest. All those Japanese fascists were prepared to die to bring down the US - does that validate their cause?

You speak about the Bible as if what you read was written as it happened, and hasn't changed since. Apart from the huge changes, quite fundamental, that it has undergone, in the past thousand odd years - it was only ever written after events. By disciples who believed so strongly in the Christian faith - in a world which doubted and criminalised them. If you wanted to make non-believers join your faith - maybe you'd embellish the reality?

[Pie]

Where you listening at all?What posible reason would drive someone to marterdom? The only thing I can think of, Is that he actually believes it. Those islamic people, they believed it(and plus, the islamics, around 500A.D, were also Living in a time were islamics were in..... whats it called? the opiset of marterdom....) Ok, back on track. That they believed Everything. Now, if they were lied to or not, thats a differen't story. Now, these men, the five-hundred people on the olive mount... the deciples... They went to marterdom becous they believed in jesus crist. Now, They couldn't have posible been lied to. They are EYE WITNESES to this. Nobody could have lied to anyone, exept them, to others, of wich they were marterd for. And thats just ludicris.

Now, that proves, again, that they actually believed Jesus died and lived again. What other proof do you need?

(And plus, These were written 3-5 years after his death. maby 10. But even if it was 100 years later, the chances of it being corupted so much that makes it unbelievable, is compleatly imposible. Back then, Jewish people would have been memorizing the intyer old testiment. (ENTIER OLD TESTIMENT!!!) And you think that they would forget just one chapter in a story(mathew, mark, luke and jhon only neededed to rememer one chapter. all the other ones, were written by themselves after the hapening, or they were letters to other places.) And we have 5000(agian i reffer to this. )copys of the gosple, and other things, I'm sure(but i wouldn't know. I'm not a perfetional.) all corosponding. So everything in the new testiment can be easaly proved true. We don't know if we left somthing out... and I hope not.)

[formerly known as hf]

Now, They couldn't have posible been lied to. They are EYE WITNESES to this. Nobody could have lied to anyone, exept them, to others, of wich they were marterd for. And thats just ludicris.

You seem to think that eye witnesses and martyrs are limited only to Christianity? And that people declaring eye witness accounts, backed up by their willingness to die for a cause constitutes validity for a belief?

Consider this. The Qur'an is believed to be the word of God, revealed to Mohammed via the Angel Gabriel. In addition to Mohammed memorising these passages, his followers not only memorised them, but inscribed them upon stone and parchment. Resulting in the modern day Qur'an which is suggested to be very similar to that which was collated only a few years after Mohammed's death. The claim that the Qur'an is very close to the ancient original is a much stronger case than any similar cases for the Bible. But I digress.

Eye witnesses - well, Mohammed had many followers at the time, who, as I said, enscribed his teachings as well as memorised them, these are what form the basis for the Qur'an, and there has been a general additude of prsderving the original form of the Qur'an which hasn't existed within Christianity. Now, of course, they could just have made a lot of it up. But, if, as you suggest, a willingness to die for their beliefs in what they wrote suggests a validity, we do not need to look very far to find it. Mohammed was involved in various wars, some initiated by him, some waged against him and his followers. Obaidah ibn al-Harith ibn Abdul-Muttalib (or various translations thereof - I'm picking these names and examples from an academic text book I have here) is considered to be the first Muslim to have been martyred during a battle, in this case the Battle of Badr, against the Polytheist Meccans of the time, which was during Mohammed's lifetime, in fact, it was headed by him. The first person to have been considered a Muslim Martyr was a woman, a slave in fact, known as the seventh person to accept Islam. She was killed by a leader of the Meccans. This is alongside the thousands of other killed Muslims who followed Mohammed during his various wars.

So, if eye witness accounts and preparedness to die mean validity - as you seem to be suggesting Pie - then the Qur'an has as much, if not more, validity than the Bible. Does that mean we should all believe that the Qu'ran is exact in its historic accuracy, and that the various miracles and so forth actually happened, should, on the basis of your argument, we believe in the Islamic faith?

[Joshuamonkey]

Sorry, but I thought those who claim Jesus visited Western Europe must be out of their minds... but North America... *shrugs* Maybe he just flew, I dunno.

This was after he was dead.

Edit, I have (or my mother has) a Bible with footnotes explaining a lot of stuff.

The Mormons have a footnoted version. And there's also a Joseph Smith Translations, which has a lot about St Matthew.

The second explanation is that it wasn't camel but gamel, which means a thick rope. So it's easier to imagine a rope somehow fitting through a needle's eye than an animal. My dad is not in faith but he has a lot of general knowledge of a lot of stuff.

I know you were just using this as an example, but you switched one letter in the English Language, not the original language.

So, because some guys were prepared to die to qrite about Christ

I'm guessing qrite as in write?

Otherwise it would only be some guy with nail holes through his wrists.

Pretty sure it was his palms...

Back then, Jewish people would have been memorizing the intyer old testiment. (ENTIER OLD TESTIMENT!!!)

Jesus Christ would be one example. He sure was smart...

And also, I think its even less possible that Joseph Smith could have made it all up. Otherwise, he's the best author ever, which he wasn't....

NALARIS I NEED YOUR HELP!

Oh, and by the way, abortion is bad.

[west]

Sorry, but I thought those who claim Jesus visited Western Europe must be out of their minds... but North America... *shrugs* Maybe he just flew, I dunno.

This was after he was dead.

Makes so much more sense now

Otherwise it would only be some guy with nail holes through his wrists.

Pretty sure it was his palms...

Would have been his wrists. Palms couldn't support the weight; they'd tear. This is assuming he was crucified in the manner typically portrayed in art (arms spread, upright, nails through wrists/hands and feet); there were dozens of methods.

Back then, Jewish people would have been memorizing the intyer old testiment. (ENTIER OLD TESTIMENT!!!)

Jesus Christ would be one example. He sure was smart...

But he didn't, as far as we know, spend most of his first thirty years studying religion. He was busy carping. carpenting?

And also, I think its even less possible that Joseph Smith could have made it all up. Otherwise, he's the best author ever, which he wasn't....

Plenty of people have fabricated religious experiences. Swedenborg, for one. Most of the Dark Ages "prophets". Dan Brown, for another. Borges. L. Ron Hubbard.

Oh, and by the way, abortion is bad.

Can we PLEASE talk about ANOTHER controversial topic wherein neither side will ever convince the other?

[Nalaris]

Now I'm seriously getting ticked. Joshuamonkey, I don't mean to be rude, but please stop posting. You're seriously not helping.

First off, changing Christ's word is bad, but who're you to say the Book of Mormon isn't Christ's word?

Second off, I know all this through personal revelation. It's something exclusively LDS in that every human on the planet can pray about this, and if they're sincere they'll get the answer. The answer, every time, is yes, it's true.

Also, just to trump the traditional "but the Book of Revelations said not to add onto this book" manuever, that only applies the Book of Revelations. We didn't change anything there. I don't know why they decided to put the BoR at the end of the New Testament, because chronologically that's not where it goes.

Nephites and Lamanites were not Native American Indians. Descendants of the Lamanites were Incan, Mayan, Aztec, etc. They had a written language, wrote on metal plates, and, by the way, had mountains of gold lying around.

HF, I can't make you believe. That's true for everyone. To try would be wrong.

[west]

Second off, I know all this through personal revelation.

Glad that's settled then.

[SekoETC]

Otherwise it would only be some guy with nail holes through his wrists.

Pretty sure it was his palms...

Actually, the thing about palms is a delusion created by artists who didn't know the facts. If the nails would go through the palms, the weight would be too heavy and rip through the hands, thus the body would fall from the cross. But if you hit them through the nails (and in a correct spot to avoid the veins), the bones and sinew will carry the weight better and allow a slow, torturous death.

The second explanation is that it wasn't camel but gamel, which means a thick rope. So it's easier to imagine a rope somehow fitting through a needle's eye than an animal. My dad is not in faith but he has a lot of general knowledge of a lot of stuff.

I know you were just using this as an example, but you switched one letter in the English Language, not the original language.

Yes but I'm assuming the word for camel is very close to the English version. In Finnish a camel is kameli, very close you see, and yet Finnish is not related to English. Or think about coffee (kahvi in Finnish, kaffe in Swedish), assumed to come from an Arabian root word "qahwa".

[Dee]

The second explanation is that it wasn't camel but gamel, which means a thick rope. So it's easier to imagine a rope somehow fitting through a needle's eye than an animal. My dad is not in faith but he has a lot of general knowledge of a lot of stuff.

I know you were just using this as an example, but you switched one letter in the English Language, not the original language.

I don't know what you guys are talking about, I haven't read through all of the posts, but if it helps.. Gamel, or gamal, means camel in Arabic.