1. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    16 Aug '14 12:21
    ...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?

    Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4

    I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
  2. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8619
    16 Aug '14 13:04
    Originally posted by C Hess
    ...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?

    Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4

    I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
    I would say that typos in the Bible are not really your main reasoning for regarding it lightly. I would say "numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largly missing sources" is an intellectual excuse to hide a moral reasoning.

    I would say your excuse "It is not reliable" masks another disdain which is more about wanting to be unaccountable to God and be left in peace to live a life which powerful sources driving you, seem best to just accept without conviction from God or the need for reconciliation to God.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Aug '14 13:07
    Originally posted by C Hess
    ...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?

    Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4

    I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
    there is no ancient manuscript more reliably attested to than the Bible, there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts, codices and papyri.
  4. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    16 Aug '14 13:34
    Originally posted by C Hess
    Or what say ye?
    I say the Bible is a masterful work of fiction, still the best seller of all time. Find a place for it on your nightstand.
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Aug '14 14:14
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    I say the Bible is a masterful work of fiction, still the best seller of all time. Find a place for it on your nightstand.
    really. Jesus is a fictional character? Can you cite any other fictional character that has influenced mankind to the extent of the Christ? Spider man? Bat man? Speedy Gonzalez?
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Aug '14 14:231 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Jesus is a fictional character?
    Not what he said. A large percentage of fictional works contain some actual historical figures.
    I personally however think that the character portrayed in the Bible as Jesus is mythical and no, I don't know many other mythical characters that have had as much influence. But having influence doesn't make you real as most of the gods of the past have discovered to their great displeasure..
  7. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    16 Aug '14 14:311 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really. Jesus is a fictional character? Can you cite any other fictional character that has influenced mankind to the extent of the Christ? Spider man? Bat man? Speedy Gonzalez?
    The extent of the influence that the claims made about Jesus have had on people is not evidence of the veracity of the claims but is instead evidence of their influence.
  8. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    16 Aug '14 14:45
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really. Jesus is a fictional character?
    I didn't say that. Think before you write.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Aug '14 14:471 edit
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    I didn't say that. Think before you write.
    you said the Bible is a work of fiction, practically all we know about Jesus is contained in the Bibles and so how did you determine which parts are fictional. Are you also contesting that the historical aspects are fictional, if so on what basis, because many are attested to archaeologically.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Aug '14 14:48
    Originally posted by FMF
    The extent of the influence that the claims made about Jesus have had on people is not evidence of the veracity of the claims but is instead evidence of their influence.
    As you wish spangled one!😵
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Aug '14 14:50
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not what he said. A large percentage of fictional works contain some actual historical figures.
    I personally however think that the character portrayed in the Bible as Jesus is mythical and no, I don't know many other mythical characters that have had as much influence. But having influence doesn't make you real as most of the gods of the past have discovered to their great displeasure..
    on what basis is Jesus mythical, because you see, you may get away with outlandish claims without evidence is Science, here we are interested not what is merely plausible, but what is true, so out with your evidence.
  12. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    16 Aug '14 15:01
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really. Jesus is a fictional character?
    I think we all agree that Jesus Christ was a real person, though he never wrote anything down
    and left no records that we know of. What you choose to believe about him is based only on what
    others wrote many years after his crucifixion.
  13. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8619
    16 Aug '14 16:554 edits
    A few suggested debates between NT Textural experts / NT History scholarship

    1.) Bart Ehrman verses Craig Evans - "Does The New Testament Misquote Jesus?"

    YouTube

    2.) Derrall Bock verses Bart D. Ehrman - "Was The New Testament Forged?"

    YouTube

    3.) Michael Licona verses Bart Ehrman - "Bart Ehrman on his loss of faith"

    YouTube

    4.) Richard Carrier verses Mike Licona - "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?"

    YouTube

    5.) Michael Licona verses Dan Barker - "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?"

    YouTube
  14. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    16 Aug '14 17:00
    Originally posted by C Hess
    ...is a source consisting of numerous incomplete, badly translated, now largely missing sources?

    Ancient Bibles: http://youtu.be/tmVY1Az5ij4

    I found this most enlightening. I always doubted that the bible was a reliable source, mainly because it was compiled by a group of men with their own agenda (choosing what goes in and what is left out) long after the events took place, but apparently the problem is even bigger than that. Or what say ye?
    Doesn't that depend on the purpose of the source?

    What should its purpose(s) be, today?

    For example it's not likely to be reliable as a chess manual.
  15. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    16 Aug '14 17:22
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    I think we all agree that Jesus Christ was a real person, though he never wrote anything down
    and left no records that we know of. What you choose to believe about him is based only on what
    others wrote many years after his crucifixion.
    many years? the few accounts we have of Alexander the great were written five hundred years after his death, even the letters of Paul are dated to within sixty years of Christ death and yet we never hear you complain that the accounts of Alexanders life are fictional. What you were actually asked is what parts of scripture you deem to be in your own words 'fictional', and how you arrived at that evaluation.
Back to Top