# Were the Synoptic Gospel writers atheists?



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 12, 2012)

Something I was going over in my head today....just wondered what your thoughts were on it.   

Why do you guys (the atheists here) think the Gospel writers wrote them?   (for the sake of argument, let's all assume that, yes, they were written by the purported author, and in the 1st century)    IMO, if they were writing what they knew to be lies, then they had to be atheists, without fear of what came after death.    The Gospels paint the apostles in a bad light ... running scared ... disbelieving ... etc.    Why would they write these books, uplifting a dead Man, and not themselves?    

Just curious as to what you guys think.   Please try to be serious....


----------



## Four (Jan 12, 2012)

it's an interesting thought. Maybe they did think him god like, and lied in order to further what they saw as the truth?

It could be a mixture, some delusional, etc. 

It could just be mob mentality, exaggerating what was seen, i cant help but think of a life of brian by monty python.

Also it could be in some way a distortion of stories, a bad game of telephone as it is.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Something I was going over in my head today....just wondered what your thoughts were on it.
> 
> Why do you guys (the atheists here) think the Gospel writers wrote them?   (for the sake of argument, let's all assume that, yes, they were written by the purported author, and in the 1st century)    IMO, if they were writing what they knew to be lies, then they had to be atheists, without fear of what came after death.    The Gospels paint the apostles in a bad light ... running scared ... disbelieving ... etc.    Why would they write these books, uplifting a dead Man, and not themselves?
> 
> Just curious as to what you guys think.   Please try to be serious....



In all seriousness I don't think they wrote what they knew to be lies any more than what made it into scripture was written to be true. I think what was written was the story the authors wanted to tell. No different than today. Some truth, some fiction and some personal feelings/bias/agenda mixed in.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 12, 2012)

Think of the stories that would be written if each of us that frequent this forum would write about what we think is true or might have happened.
Each believer would have a similar story but with their personal spin as would each non-believer.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 12, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Something I was going over in my head today....just wondered what your thoughts were on it.
> 
> Why do you guys (the atheists here) think the Gospel writers wrote them?   (for the sake of argument, let's all assume that, yes, they were written by the purported author, and in the 1st century)    IMO, if they were writing what they knew to be lies, then they had to be atheists, without fear of what came after death.    The Gospels paint the apostles in a bad light ... running scared ... disbelieving ... etc.    Why would they write these books, uplifting a dead Man, and not themselves?
> 
> Just curious as to what you guys think.   Please try to be serious....


It's hard to assume, for argument sake, that which is incorrect. Mark was an apostle of Peter, so his gospel is not first hand. Luke was a follower of Paul, who surely did not have even second hand information about that which he wrote. Paul's writings were before the gospels and he never quotes sayings from Jesus as Luke does. So where did Luke get his info. He copied Mark and a source that we no longer have, given the name Q. John's gospel was not from John. It speaks in 3rd person, many places this is made clear. It seems to be a patch work of his writings. The prolouge was added later, chp 1 and 2. You will notice that John the baptist is introduced twice. The last chapter was added also, notice the double ending. Matthew, or someone recording the oral traditions of Matthew, also copied Mark as well as "Q". Matthew and Luke revised what Mark said to make a more appealing story. So to sum it up, I believe that the story of Jesus spread orally for some time. As time went on, the stories or truth began to get distorted. Someone probably thought that we had better write this down for future generations before it gets more distorted. So, no I don't think they were athiest. I think they were devout believers that recorded what they had heard and believed to be true.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> It's hard to assume, for argument sake, that which is incorrect. Mark was an apostle of Peter, so his gospel is not first hand. Luke was a follower of Paul, who surely did not have even second hand information about that which he wrote. Paul's writings were before the gospels and he never quotes sayings from Jesus as Luke does. So where did Luke get his info. He copied Mark and a source that we no longer have, given the name Q. John's gospel was not from John. It speaks in 3rd person, many places this is made clear. It seems to be a patch work of his writings. The prolouge was added later, chp 1 and 2. You will notice that John the baptist is introduced twice. The last chapter was added also, notice the double ending. Matthew, or someone recording the oral traditions of Matthew, also copied Mark as well as "Q". Matthew and Luke revised what Mark said to make a more appealing story. So to sum it up, I believe that the story of Jesus spread orally for some time. As time went on, the stories or truth began to get distorted. Someone probably thought that we had better write this down for future generations before it gets more distorted. So, no I don't think they were athiest. I think they were devout believers that recorded what they had heard and believed to be true.




Wow.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

Thanks, guys.   It was interesting hearing your thoughts on the Gospels.   I think it's fair to say that most of you agree that the writers, especially Matthew, in writing during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, were lying or only passing on hearsay.   

I will say that "mob mentality" may account for one or two of the 'miracle' stories, but not for every listed miracle.   The writers either knew them to be lies or thought they were all true.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> He copied Mark and a source that we no longer have, given the name Q.



Not only do we not have it, it’s questionable whether _anybody_ ever had it.  Years ago, I read a very lengthy article about Q.  From what I remember, its existence was determined by pure inference.  Nobody has ever found a copy of it or even a fragment.  No church father ever mentioned it.

IMO, it takes far more faith to believe in a gospel that does not exist than it does to believe in the four we have.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Not only do we not have it, it’s questionable whether _anybody_ ever had it.  Years ago, I read a very lengthy article about Q.  From what I remember, its existence was determined by pure inference.  Nobody has ever found a copy of it or even a fragment.  No church father ever mentioned it.
> 
> IMO, it takes far more faith to believe in a gospel that does not exist than it does to believe in the four we have.



From what I have read the "Q" gospel was never found or known to exist.
 How intact were the Gospels that were used?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> From what I have read the "Q" gospel was never found or known to exist.



That's correct.




bullethead said:


> How intact were the Gospels that were used?



I’m not sure I understand.  Are you asking how good/complete were the copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am asking about the originals.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

We don't need the originals.        Know why?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am asking about the originals.



We don't have the originals.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> We don't have the originals.



Right.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Right.



So?  

My point was only that we have lots of copies of MML&J and no copies of Q.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> We don't need the originals.        Know why?



oooo oooo oooo pick me! pick me!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> oooo oooo oooo pick me! pick me!



lol    It's exactly what Centerpin said....because no other book of antiquity was as copied as the Gospels!   There is a mountain of supporting manuscripts, early as 130AD, that quote the NT writers.    2nd place pales in comparison.    These early manuscript discoveries also gave us confidence on how accurately the gospels were copied through history.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 13, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    It's exactly what Centerpin said....because no other book of antiquity was as copied as the Gospels!   There is a mountain of supporting manuscripts, early as 130AD, that quote the NT writers.    2nd place pales in comparison.    These early manuscript discoveries also gave us confidence on how accurately the gospels were copied through history.



I was gonna say because we have copies of the originals..

I also read that a manuscript of John was found and dated to be as early as 90AD, if I remember correctly. It was in the book Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 13, 2012)

wouldn't surprise me        I've got that book.   I'll check it out tonight...


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> So?
> 
> My point was only that we have lots of copies of MML&J and no copies of Q.



Yep lots of translated copies but no originals.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yep lots of translated copies but no originals.



If having the original documents is a necessity, then we should throw out most of ancient history.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm guessing you meant to say "no originals".  Regardless, if having the original documents is a necessity, then we should throw out most of ancient history.



Yeah, skipped "no". I'll fix it.

I wish we had the originals to see how original the copies are.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I wish we had the originals to see how original the copies are.



If we had the originals and the copies turned out to be exact duplicates, would you convert on the spot?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> If we had the originals and the copies turned out to be exact duplicates, would you convert on the spot?



Convert on the spot?, no, no more than I would convert to Homerism because the copies of the Iliad are accurate.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Convert on the spot?, no, no more than I would convert to Homerism because the copies of the Iliad are accurate.



So this fascination with the originals is just an academic thing?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> So this fascination with the originals is just an academic thing?



Fascination? LOL
Just always thinking.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jan 14, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Thanks, guys.   It was interesting hearing your thoughts on the Gospels.   I think it's fair to say that most of you agree that the writers, especially Matthew, in writing during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, were lying or only passing on hearsay.
> 
> I will say that "mob mentality" may account for one or two of the 'miracle' stories, but not for every listed miracle.   The writers either knew them to be lies or thought they were all true.



I think we tend to ignore the drugs they had access to back then. I would imagine a miracle or two was witnesses by someone either drunk or high on hallucinogens or Opiates? Or any mixture of all of them..


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 14, 2012)

The originals would be very interesting. Just to see how close, or how far they are from original. It might be surprising. Such as, everyone I have ever heard says that all of the NT was written in greek. But I can show you 6 or 7 early church fathers who make comments about Matthews gospel being written in Hebrew.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 14, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Not only do we not have it, it’s questionable whether _anybody_ ever had it.  Years ago, I read a very lengthy article about Q.  From what I remember, its existence was determined by pure inference.  Nobody has ever found a copy of it or even a fragment.  No church father ever mentioned it.
> 
> IMO, it takes far more faith to believe in a gospel that does not exist than it does to believe in the four we have.



It's a hard sell, for sure, but I'm impressed that you are at least informed of the issues. Most will not face the hard issues


----------



## bullethead (Jan 14, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The originals would be very interesting. Just to see how close, or how far they are from original. It might be surprising.



That's what I'm talking about!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 14, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> It's a hard sell, for sure, but I'm impressed that you are at least informed of the issues. Most will not face the hard issues



The argument that M,M,L are so similar that they could have used an earlier written source to get their info is very plausible.
If nothing else I can see two of them copying from the earliest written of the three.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 14, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Wow.


Hi Ronnie, It was only a few years ago that I felt the same way that you do. I'm sorry to say that after facing the issues head on, the evidence was to great to maintain my previous thoughts about the scriptures. Like I said, the evidence is solid. Most never venture into this area so they have no idea what constitutes as evidence. This is not a study for those weak in faith, for I can see how it might cause a crisis, but for me, I have learned how to deal with this. It does not weaken my faith because my faith is not in the scriptures, but in the simple gospel found within


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Convert on the spot?, no, no more than I would convert to Homerism because the copies of the Iliad are accurate.




LOL    and you base that on manuscripts that are 1000 years after the original!   lol    (it is my understanding that the Iliad is comprised from manuscript copies that are 1000 years after the original)    1000 years is a far cry from the 20-30 years of possible change we see in the NT copies.    

No comparison.    Plus, as I stated before, the manuscript evidence we have shows that we can trust the copies we now have.   The changes would have had to occur within 20-30 years of the original.    

If you're going to stick with the "it changed over time" excuse, you'll have to believe that the changes happened within 20-30 years of the original, and within the lifetimes of many eyewitnesses.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bigreddwon said:


> I think we tend to ignore the drugs they had access to back then. I would imagine a miracle or two was witnesses by someone either drunk or high on hallucinogens or Opiates? Or any mixture of all of them..



Just guessing, but I'd think there were probably at least 20-30 miracles per Gospel listed.   Doubtful that they would be on drugs for more than but a few.   That would mean that they would have just made up the other miracles....just for the fun of it, and knowing they were lies.    

In other places in the NT, (Acts 2) strange behavior was blamed on heavy drinking, but I don't believe drugs are ever mentioned in the NT.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL    and you base that on manuscripts that are 1000 years after the original!   lol    (it is my understanding that the Iliad is comprised from manuscript copies that are 1000 years after the original)    1000 years is a far cry from the 20-30 years of possible change we see in the NT copies.
> 
> No comparison.    Plus, as I stated before, the manuscript evidence we have shows that we can trust the copies we now have.   The changes would have had to occur within 20-30 years of the original.
> 
> If you're going to stick with the "it changed over time" excuse, you'll have to believe that the changes happened within 20-30 years of the original, and within the lifetimes of many eyewitnesses.



LOL to your lol.

The 1000 years between the Iliad is why I referenced it. Saying that even because that stood all those years with very little change I still would not convert on the spot for something that "stood the test of time" for 20-30 years.
With how inaccurate "our" current methods of dating things are( I am told that all the time) how do we know if 20-30 years was not 50-100 years?

Being that there are no originals to access are the "copies" the actual originals? Made out to be copies as if something was written before it actually was written?
When were the originals lost, gone, awol?


There are plenty of Gnostic gospel originals around. They tell a different story than the Synoptic Gospels but the Original Synoptic gospels are long gone with only copies of interpreted copies of lost in translation copies.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Just guessing, but I'd think there were probably at least 20-30 miracles per Gospel listed.   Doubtful that they would be on drugs for more than but a few.   That would mean that they would have just made up the other miracles....just for the fun of it, and knowing they were lies.
> 
> In other places in the NT, (Acts 2) strange behavior was blamed on heavy drinking, but I don't believe drugs are ever mentioned in the NT.



And where are these 20-30 miracles recorded within Jewish history outside of the Bible?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> LOL to your lol.
> 
> The 1000 years between the Iliad is why I referenced it. Saying that even because that stood all those years with very little change ...



lol to your lol to my lol    and just how is it that you know that the Iliad changed "very little" over 1000 years?    

Like I said before, we don't need the originals when the earliest extant copies we have are so close to the original as to be negligible.   What you'd have to do is assume that almost no changes occured in over 1900 years, but that lots of changes occured during the first 20.     Wouldn't surprise me if you did, though.   

As to the 'miracles outside the bible' question, Josephus (1st century non-Christian Jewish historian) records that Jesus "performed wonderous works"       Let me guess....someone paid him to put that in his book?   lol


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And where are these 20-30 miracles recorded within Jewish history outside of the Bible?



the point of this thread was to discuss whether the writers knew the miracle stories to be lies....not whether they were actually true.   IMO, they either knew they were true or knew they were lies.    No middle ground.   

albeit, this thread could have got derailed along the way somewhere....I'd have to look   lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol to your lol to my lol    and just how is it that you know that the Iliad changed "very little" over 1000 years?



I researched it.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Like I said before, we don't need the originals when the earliest extant copies we have are so close to the original as to be negligible.   What you'd have to do is assume that almost no changes occured in over 1900 years, but that lots of changes occured during the first 20.     Wouldn't surprise me if you did, though.



Without the originals to use as reference how do you know what changes were made?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> As to the 'miracles outside the bible' question, Josephus (1st century non-Christian Jewish historian) records that Jesus "performed wonderous works"       Let me guess....someone paid him to put that in his book?   lol



As if Jesus was an accomplished carpenter? A poet? His works as a storyteller? Paintings????


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I researched it.



So, not having the original, how could they know it didn't change from 800BC to 200AD?    Surely you have at least one piece of evidence?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> As if Jesus was an accomplished carpenter? A poet? His works as a storyteller? Paintings????



They were enough that Josephus said you couldn't even call Jesus a man.   lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> the point of this thread was to discuss whether the writers knew the miracle stories to be lies....not whether they were actually true.   IMO, they either knew they were true or knew they were lies.    No middle ground.
> 
> albeit, this thread could have got derailed along the way somewhere....I'd have to look   lol



To figure out whether or not the writers knew the miracle stories to be lies, wouldn't we have to figure out if the miracles actually happened in the first place?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Without the originals to use as reference how do you know what changes were made?



you lost me....   ????    What we currently have as NT text matches what the earliest manuscript copies have, with the exception of a few additions.    What we do know is that every copy of MML&J all have the resurrection recorded....and John 3:16 reads the same in all the copies we have.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, not having the original, how could they know it didn't change from 800BC to 200AD?    Surely you have at least one piece of evidence?



Hey, don't make your case by using my case against yours.

Now you know where I'm coming from!!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> To figure out whether or not the writers knew the miracle stories to be lies, wouldn't we have to figure out if the miracles actually happened in the first place?



lol    that would be impossible, as nothing in the past can be repeated.   As I've mentioned before, we have to use the legal-historical method when it comes to past events.   eyewitnesses, documents, etc.    

If you already (a priori) don't believe in the miraculous, then no amount of legal-historical evidence, or scientific evidence, will sway you.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Hey, don't make your case by using my case against yours.
> 
> Now you know where I'm coming from!!



I'm not.    you keep ignoring the fact that there's a HUGE difference in 1000 years and 20.   Any scholar will tell you that 20 years is not enough time for the changes to have come about.    

Fool yourself, but no one else reading this will agree with you that 1000 years is the same as 20   lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> you lost me....   ????    What we currently have as NT text matches what the earliest manuscript copies have, with the exception of a few additions.    What we do know is that every copy of MML&J all have the resurrection recorded....and John 3:16 reads the same in all the copies we have.



A few additions? How did they get in there?
Record of resurrection, written by guys that didn't witness it.
John 3:16 copied by at least two of those writers from the first one who had written it!

Plagiarism.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I researched it.



One thing I've learned about you, Bullet, is that you love to say stuff that you have not researched.   lol     


Something tells me you won't be saying that the Iliad didn't change over 1000 years, having no original, anymore


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> A few additions? How did they get in there?
> Record of resurrection, written by guys that didn't witness it.
> John 3:16 copied by at least two of those writers from the first one who had written it!
> 
> Plagiarism.



So, like evolution, your theory covers any evidence?   lol

if the stories match, you'll say they copied (Q  lol)   if they don't, you'll say they copied, or borrowed from another source.   lmbo

love your logic, Bullet


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm not.    you keep ignoring the fact that there's a HUGE difference in 1000 years and 20.   Any scholar will tell you that 20 years is not enough time for the changes to have come about.
> 
> Fool yourself, but no one else reading this will agree with you that 1000 years is the same as 20   lol



I'm not saying 1000 is the same as 20.
What I want to know is why would something that is 20 years old need to be "copied"? Why would these independent writings all vanish? They had to exist individually before someone put them into the Bible and then what happened to them?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Record of resurrection, written by guys that didn't witness it.



lol   no one witnessed the resurrection


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm not saying 1000 is the same as 20.
> What I want to know is why would something that is 20 years old need to be "copied"? Why would these independent writings all vanish? They had to exist individually before someone put them into the Bible and then what happened to them?




Uh, for the same reason we make copies of books today?   To share???????????


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

Maybe Jerusalem needed a National Archive to house the originals and make believers come there to read?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, like evolution, your theory covers any evidence?   lol
> 
> if the stories match, you'll say they copied (Q  lol)   if they don't, you'll say they copied, or borrowed from another source.   lmbo
> 
> love your logic, Bullet



Just looking for the facts to back up what you are telling me is true. Without facts logic is all I have to go by.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Uh, for the same reason we make copies of books today?   To share???????????



And the original writings that define a religion are lost?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, like evolution, your theory covers any evidence?   lol
> 
> if the stories match, you'll say they copied (Q  lol)   if they don't, you'll say they copied, or borrowed from another source.   lmbo
> 
> love your logic, Bullet



At the very least two of those authors copied from one of those authors. It is where that first author got his info is what I am trying to find out.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Maybe Jerusalem needed a National Archive to house the originals and make believers come there to read?



In hindsight YOU BETCHA!

There are originals(albeit pieces) that didn't make it into the bible that exist. Someone kept those.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And the original writings that define a religion are lost?




Get it in your head, it does not matter!!   It would matter if there were 1000 years in between the original and the copies....but with the NT, there are over 20000 copies of the original very very close to the original.   Anyone with sense knows what that means.      accuracy.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> At the very least two of those authors copied from one of those authors. It is where that first author got his info is what I am trying to find out.



Speculation again?      You have to admit...they didn't COPY...as they don't match word for word.   At the very best it would be 'referenced'.    But, if they matched perfectly, we know what you guys would be saying....


COLLABORATION!!!!!    either way...it wouldnt make a difference with you.   

Well, gotta run.    Grill is hot, and backstrap is about to be grilled!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol   no one witnessed the resurrection



Who did outside of scripture?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Get it in your head, it does not matter!!   It would matter if there were 1000 years in between the original and the copies....but with the NT, there are over 20000 copies of the original very very close to the original.   Anyone with sense knows what that means.      accuracy.



You are telling me that there are 20000 of the original yet no original exists to check the accuracy of those copies.
Then so you say "or very very close to the original". If it was only 20 years later I think to the crossed "T" and dotted "i" accuracy would be followed. Very close doesn't cut it. Add in the words lost in translation and the "originals" are rolling over in their dust.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Speculation again?      You have to admit...they didn't COPY...as they don't match word for word.   At the very best it would be 'referenced'.    But, if they matched perfectly, we know what you guys would be saying....
> 
> 
> COLLABORATION!!!!!    either way...it wouldnt make a difference with you.
> ...



Speculation, well without evidence I have to go with what makes the most sense.
No collaboration. Writings copied by different authors(maybe trying to preserve written and oral traditions) that used what was already written and added their own style or flavor to the rest.
The only reason they made the final cut is because they fit the story that organized religion wanted told. There were(and still have ORIGINAL TEXTS of) other writings of the times that told different stories about the same events. They didn't tell the same outcome and are not used.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> One thing I've learned about you, Bullet, is that you love to say stuff that you have not researched.   lol
> 
> 
> Something tells me you won't be saying that the Iliad didn't change over 1000 years, having no original, anymore



You, again, would be wrong.

All I am doing is using the exact same argument for a fictional book that you are using for your fictional book.
I am not making a case FOR the Iliad. I used it as an example after reading up on......dare I say researched.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 15, 2012)

Another coincidence is the authorship of either book we are talking about. Obviously someone wrote the stories. Someone wrote poems and bits and pieces of stories but were they also the same people that got the credit? Was there a Homer? Were the NT writers first hand witnesses of the events? Did each side take bits and pieces and finish them? Did they each actually exist or were they created?
Lots of questions with no definite answers.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Speculation again?      You have to admit...they didn't COPY...as they don't match word for word.   At the very best it would be 'referenced'.    But, if they matched perfectly, we know what you guys would be saying....
> 
> 
> COLLABORATION!!!!!    either way...it wouldnt make a difference with you.
> ...



No, not all of what Luke or Matthew wrote was copy but there is evidence that some of it was directly copied. It's interesting stuff


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 15, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Get it in your head, it does not matter!!   It would matter if there were 1000 years in between the original and the copies....but with the NT, there are over 20000 copies of the original very very close to the original.   Anyone with sense knows what that means.      accuracy.



It does not take much to be considered a major change from original. If the addition of Matthew 28:19 of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" instead of "in Jesus name" was the only variance, I still consider it major inaccuracy.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 15, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> it does not take much to be considered a major change from original. if the addition of matthew 28:19 of "father, son and holy ghost" instead of "in jesus name" was the only variance, i still consider it major inaccuracy.



if???????????


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 15, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> if???????????


 "If it were the only one". The conversation was about whether what we have now will match the originals. Matthew 28:19 is an example. Context threw a red flag on this one.It was a corrupt later addition. Why would Jesus say all authority has been given to me so therefore go and baptize into the three part name of the F,S & HS? It should read all authority given to me so go baptize in my name. Also, we are baptized into his death. The Father and HS never died. Also I can show you where 6 or 7 early church fathers commented about Matthews gospel being written in Hebrew. The Hebrew copy of Matthew that we have has "go baptize in my name". Also, nowhere else in the NT do we have this baptismal formula. We have 6 or more instances of baptizing in Jesus name.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 17, 2012)

Hello, new poster here. I found this link explaining how Matthew 28:19 was added later. 
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 17, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hello, new poster here. I found this link explaining how Matthew 28:19 was added later.
> http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html



That's not exactly an unbiased source.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's not exactly an unbiased source.



Check into what the source is saying and let us know if it truthful.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 18, 2012)

Does it make a difference to the message of the gospel if a trinitarian fella decided to throw a little denominational spin in his translation of Mathew 28:19?

The point of the passage is to tell folks about Jesus, and baptise them.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Check into what the source is saying and let us know if it truthful.



I already did – the last time this website was used as a source.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Does it make a difference to the message of the gospel if a trinitarian fella decided to throw a little denominational spin in his translation of Mathew 28:19?
> 
> The point of the passage is to tell folks about Jesus, and baptise them.




Message is still the same. Message is from man.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I already did – the last time this website was used as a source.



And you have found that the trinity was always in there or what have you found?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And you have found that the trinity was always in there or what have you found?



Early church fathers, such as Ignatius, use “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and not just “Son” when referring to this passage.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Early church fathers, such as Ignatius, use “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” and not just “Son” when referring to this passage.



So did the actual author of Matthew write the passage or was it added in later?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So did the actual *author of Matthew *write the passage or was it added in later?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

I'll play it either way:

So did Matthew write the passage or was it added in later?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'll play it either way:
> 
> So did Matthew write the passage or was it added in later?


Matthew did not write Matthew and it was added in by a zealous scribe.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 18, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So did the actual author of Matthew write the passage ...



Bingo!


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Matthew did not write Matthew and it was added in by a zealous scribe.



(I know Matthew did not actually write Matthew, but I have to play along sometimes to keep them on track)


----------



## bullethead (Jan 18, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Bingo!



Is your answer that the passage concerning the Trinity was always in the original writing?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Is your answer that the passage concerning the Trinity was always in the original writing?



As we already discussed, we don’t have the originals.  What we do have is a boat load of copies that have the same Matthew 28:19 that we have today in our modern Bibles.  We also have overwhelming support for the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in the writings of the early church.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 19, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As we already discussed, we don’t have the originals.  What we do have is a boat load of copies that have the same Matthew 28:19 that we have today in our modern Bibles.  We also have overwhelming support for the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in the writings of the early church.


I can respect centerpins answer because unlike many who will blindly argue with you, his answer comes from a decission based on information instead of tradition. What I mean is that he has looked into these issues, decided what he believes based on the evidence. We disagree but respectfully disagree


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> (I know Matthew did not actually write Matthew, but I have to play along sometimes to keep them on track)


Yea, I know you know, just playing around myself


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 19, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As we already discussed, we don’t have the originals.  What we do have is a boat load of copies that have the same Matthew 28:19 that we have today in our modern Bibles.  We also have overwhelming support for the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in the writings of the early church.



Just want you to know that, like you, I am aware of the devine connection that God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 19, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yea, I know you know, just playing around myself



Just for clarity, what evidence is there as to who wrote what we refer to as "Matthew"??


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Just want you to know that, like you, I am aware of the devine connection that God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have.



Nothing wrong with having that connection.  The connection is the message within, I get that.

When we discuss what is written in the Bible, who wrote it, and how accurately it is written has nothing to do with that connection. I don't think later additions are as divinely inspired as the rest claims to be.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Just for clarity, what evidence is there as to who wrote what we refer to as "Matthew"??


Hi Ronnie, the biggest issue is that Matthew should have been a first hand eyewitness to the life of Jesus, unlike Luke or Mark. Yet Matthew copied Mark. If he wrote this gospel, then he would have no need to copy anyone. He would have an endless supply of his own stories. Yet we only see originality in John's gospel. Are you interested in how they determine that Matthew copied Mark?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2012)

I am!


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 19, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hi Ronnie, the biggest issue is that Matthew should have been a first hand eyewitness to the life of Jesus, unlike Luke or Mark. Yet Matthew copied Mark. If he wrote this gospel, then he would have no need to copy anyone. He would have an endless supply of his own stories. Yet we only see originality in John's gospel. Are you interested in how they determine that Matthew copied Mark?



Actually, no I'm not.
Heard it before.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 19, 2012)

Really, I am interested in hearing the truth.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 19, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can respect centerpins answer because unlike many who will blindly argue with you, his answer comes from a decission based on information instead of tradition. What I mean is that he has looked into these issues, decided what he believes based on the evidence. We disagree but respectfully disagree


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 19, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Just want you to know that, like you, I am aware of the devine connection that God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am!


I debating on whether I should open this can of trouble or not. I can see that I might get caried away with my point. Many believers faith is based on the bible being inspired. These kind face a crisis when situations like this arise. They are not ready to deal with such. So, I trying to decide whether to or not. It would probably need it's own thread


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 20, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I debating on whether I should open this can of trouble or not. I can see that I might get caried away with my point. Many believers faith is based on the bible being inspired. These kind face a crisis when situations like this arise. They are not ready to deal with such. So, I trying to decide whether to or not. It would probably need it's own thread



You know as well as I, that the world is filled with $20 dollar theologians.  There are few things concerning the Bible that haven't been doubted, or called a lie, or used to give some old preacher or deacon the feeling that "he knows more than someone else".

You and the others can discuss away on the subject but you'll never be certain that you're right.  It's just a subject I'm not going to get into on the world wide web.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 20, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You know as well as I, that the world is filled with $20 dollar theologians.  There are few things concerning the Bible that haven't been doubted, or called a lie, or used to give some old preacher or deacon the feeling that "he knows more than someone else".
> 
> You and the others can discuss away on the subject but you'll never be certain that you're right.  It's just a subject I'm not going to get into on the world wide web.


Yes, the world is full of opinions, but the evidence is right there, and lots of it, been there for us to overlook all this time


----------



## bullethead (Jan 20, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I debating on whether I should open this can of trouble or not. I can see that I might get caried away with my point. Many believers faith is based on the bible being inspired. These kind face a crisis when situations like this arise. They are not ready to deal with such. So, I trying to decide whether to or not. It would probably need it's own thread



It is a tough pill to swallow for many. I felt like someone kicked my dog and took away my birthday when some things that I always believed turned out to be something else entirely. But down the road I was glad to have known the information. It made it much harder to argue and stand behind my initial beliefs when I found out new evidence though. It is what I fought with myself over for years.
No matter what,who,or how other evidence is presented some people refuse to change their beliefs. That is fine. It is their choice. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue or make it go away either. Many don't want to discuss it because it is easier to ignore it and hopefully let it go away rather than let others see and hear it and get them thinking.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 20, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You and the others can discuss away on the subject but you'll never be certain that you're right.



THAT is exactly how I felt 20 years ago when I stood up for my old beliefs.
I fought hard for them but the more I talked about them the less sense they actually made. I felt for sure something was not right.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is a tough pill to swallow for many. I felt like someone kicked my dog and took away my birthday when some things that I always believed turned out to be something else entirely. But down the road I was glad to have known the information. It made it much harder to argue and stand behind my initial beliefs when I found out new evidence though. It is what I fought with myself over for years.
> No matter what,who,or how other evidence is presented some people refuse to change their beliefs. That is fine. It is their choice. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue or make it go away either. Many don't want to discuss it because it is easier to ignore it and hopefully let it go away rather than let others see and hear it and get them thinking.


I still ignore things. I face many issues head on, choosing to be informed of the arguments, but I have not dealt at all, in any way with "the problem of suffering".


----------



## bullethead (Jan 20, 2012)

I have come to the conclusion that in my quest to find out the truth I have to look at as many sides as possible and try to cover and uncover all the facts and information that I can.  I am prepared to accept the outcome once I feel that I have done as much as possible to get to the truth.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No matter what,who,or how other evidence is presented some people refuse to change their beliefs. That is fine. It is their choice. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue or make it go away either.



Maybe we’re not ignoring it.  Maybe we’ve looked at the same info you have and just came to a different conclusion.  Look at the epic “Who are the elect?” thread, for example.  It’s obvious that nobody ignores the issue of election.  They just weighed the evidence and came to different conclusions.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 20, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Maybe we’re not ignoring it.  Maybe we’ve looked at the same info you have and just came to a different conclusion.  Look at the epic “Who are the elect?” thread, for example.  It’s obvious that nobody ignores the issue of election.  They just weighed the evidence and came to different conclusions.



That is why we are all individuals.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I debating on whether I should open this can of trouble or not. I can see that I might get caried away with my point. Many believers faith is based on the bible being inspired. These kind face a crisis when situations like this arise. They are not ready to deal with such. So, I trying to decide whether to or not. It would probably need it's own thread


Maybe we should open up this can of trouble, since nothing is going on here lately


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2012)

Jar of enlightenment.......


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> ... nothing is going on here lately



It's gotten so bad, I've actually been reading the Politics forum to pass the time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 23, 2012)

1GR8bldr, Centerpin fan is bored, and i'm a new poster that doesn't think the Bible is the inspired word of God. I also believe the Trinity Doctrine was added later. It might be time to start your new thread.


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> 1GR8bldr, Centerpin fan is bored, and i'm a new poster that doesn't think the Bible is the inspired word of God. I also believe the Trinity Doctrine was added later. It might be time to start your new thread.



I don't think there is any argument that the trinity was added later.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 24, 2012)

I agree a new thread should be started.  Go ahead 1gr8bldr.

I have been in the political forum also, trying to argue with centerpin......much prefer the religious discussions.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't think there is any argument that the trinity was added later.



There's obviously an argument.  They've been arguing about it since the Council of Nicea.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Centerpin fan is bored



That's an understatement.  Last night, I actually posted in a "Bigfoot" thread.


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> There's obviously an argument.  They've been arguing about it since the Council of Nicea.



Yea, and it wasn't developed and accepted as cannon until  the Council of Constantinople. Some 35 years later.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

Four said:


> Yea, and it wasn't developed and accepted as cannon until  the Council of Constantinople. Some 35 years later.



The concept of the Trinity had been around long before that, as St. Athanasius successfully argued at Nicea.

Also, the "canon" you’re talking about only has one "n".


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The concept of the Trinity had been around long before that, as St. Athanasius successfully argued at Nicea.



Yup, people had talked about it, but it wasn't officially added till later, to which there is no argument.



centerpin fan said:


> Also, the "canon" you’re talking about only has one "n".



No, and i would appreciated you not correcting me. God Jesus and the holy spirit merged into a power-ranger like mech in the form of a water cannon, which sprays people with a "cooling mist" sometimes referred to as holy fluid, or holy water.

Hence, the trinity becoming cannon.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

Four said:


> Yup, people had talked about it, but it wasn't officially added till later, to which there is no argument.



Adding a doctrine and recognizing a doctrine that had always been taught are two different things, to which there is no argument.




Four said:


> No, and i would appreciated you not correcting me. God Jesus and the holy spirit merged into a power-ranger like mech in the form of a water cannon, which sprays people with a "cooling mist" sometimes referred to as holy fluid, or holy water.
> 
> Hence, the trinity becoming cannon.



That’s pretty much the response I expected.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That's an understatement.  Last night, I actually posted in a "Bigfoot" thread.



That's pretty bored....to which there is no argument.

But, you and 4 seem to have a decent debate going now....


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Also, the "canon" you’re talking about only has one "n".





Four said:


> It was either a spelling error on my part or I didn't know it was spelled that way in the first place, either way, I like to sound smart and obviously don't like to admit when I make mistakes so I'll give you this answer..... No, and i would appreciated you not correcting me. God Jesus and the holy spirit merged into a power-ranger like mech in the form of a water cannon, which sprays people with a "cooling mist" sometimes referred to as holy fluid, or holy water.
> 
> Hence, the trinity becoming cannon.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


>



Careful string, you may have to award yourself some of those "points" you been handing out


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Careful string, you may have to award yourself some of those "points" you been handing out





I got in a lil' trouble for those "points" so I won't be giving anymore out. If anybody would need one it would have been for the power ranger answer though.


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

I thought it was a fairly funny response to being grammar/spelling nazi'd.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> That's pretty bored....



Tell me about it.  I just posted in _another_ Bigfoot thread.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If anybody would need one it would have been for the power ranger answer though.



I understood he was just being funny, but either way, in the name of fairness, why don't we all get some points.......

I didn't know you got in trouble for it.  I will stop bringing it up.  

I have only been around since last summer, has this board ever gotten so quiet?  When I first signed on it was a bunch of folks hammering away all day long.  Now, one thread will last weeks with only a few comments a day.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Tell me about it.  I just posted in _another_ Bigfoot thread.



On this forum? 

Are you pro or anti big foot?  I just think he is misunderstood.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> On this forum?



Yep.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=666004

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=670762




JB0704 said:


> Are you pro or anti big foot?  I just think he is misunderstood.



It’s a she, and she’s cheap and vulgar – makes Courtney Love look like Princess Diana.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

you guys are derailing a great thread!   

too many trailcams out there for bigfoot to escape.   

He's a myth.   Like Santa and the Easter bunny.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

Almost as if he is an invisible creature that exists only in the minds of his believers.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I understood he was just being funny, but either way, in the name of fairness, why don't we all get some points.......
> 
> I didn't know you got in trouble for it.  I will stop bringing it up.
> 
> I have only been around since last summer, has this board ever gotten so quiet?  When I first signed on it was a bunch of folks hammering away all day long.  Now, one thread will last weeks with only a few comments a day.



I don't know why it's been so quiet lately We all pretty much know each others arguments by now I guess. Maybe a few fresh faces will come on board a livin' things up a bit. This is probably my favorite forum so I hope it picks up soon!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Almost as if he is an invisible creature that exists only in the minds of his believers.



No doubt there, Bullet!   No evidence for the beast!


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Almost as if he is an invisible creature that exists only in the minds of his believers.



*Almost*


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know why it's been so quiet lately We all pretty much know each others arguments by now I guess. Maybe a few fresh faces will come on board a livin' things up a bit. This is probably my favorite forum so I hope it picks up soon!




Needs some new 'hot topic' threads!      I think they thought they found life on Venus the other day.   LOL


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Needs some new 'hot topic' threads!      I think they thought they found life on Venus the other day.   LOL



I read that article but could not find where it said what the scientist believed in. What if he believes in God and thinks there is life on Venus?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I read that article but could not find where it said what the scientist believed in. What if he believes in God and thinks there is life on Venus?



think he was sifting through some old Russian data....

If he knew anything about science at all, he'd know there was no life there, and never had been.   Venus isn't even in the circumstellar habitable zone.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> think he was sifting through some old Russian data....
> 
> If he knew anything about science at all, he'd know there was no life there, and never had been.   Venus isn't even in the circumstellar habitable zone.



Not even an all powerful supreme being could design a creature to withstand such an environment.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not even an all powerful supreme being could design a creature to withstand such an environment.



Yep...He could.   If life is there...He put it there.   Didn't just spring up out of thin acidic gas.   lol


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yep...He could.   If life is there...He put it there.   Didn't just spring up out of thin acidic gas.   lol






BANDERSNATCH said:


> If he knew anything about science at all, he'd know there was no life there, and never had been. Venus isn't even in the circumstellar habitable zone.



Which is it?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Which is it?



lol    There's no life there.    God didn't even create any there.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> lol    There's no life there.    God didn't even create any there.



Can't wait to read your research.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Can't wait to read your research.



Doesn't take research.   Any scientist will tell you that there is no life there.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 24, 2012)

You see?  It just took a couple of off-topic Bigfoot posts to get this thread rolling again.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You see?  It just took a couple of off-topic Bigfoot posts to get this thread rolling again.


----------



## Four (Jan 24, 2012)

What's the definition of life?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 24, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Doesn't take research.   Any scientist will tell you that there is no life there.



But,but,but........the scientists are wrong, what do they know, their methods are inexact, hypothesis, guesses, theories.......


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 24, 2012)

Four said:


> What's the definition of life?



Probably requires a new thread (shameless attempt to get another one started), but I dug up an old biology textbook:



> "Life" is not easy to define. It is just too big, and it has been changing for billions of years.  Even so, we know that all living things have similar characteristics.  All living things require energy and raw materials; they sense and respond to change; and they reproduce with the help of DNA. (Starr, C., Evers, C., & Starr, L. 2010. _Biology: Today and Tomorrow (3rd ed.)_. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning).



Seems like it is defined by similar characteristics rather than a set formula.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 24, 2012)

If we talk about Big foot, no one gets offended. The bible inspired or not?? That causes some hard feelings. Me being a Christian, hard place to be. It's a little strange, though, Within the errors, I see something almost as if it were inspired. Strange I know. But errors, yes. Lots of them. But the problems come when you realize things like, Lukes gospel was without a doubt copied from Marks. So his gospel can't be inspired. Opens up a door that has us questioning everything. But I had rather do that than I had blindy believe traditional things


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 24, 2012)

Four said:


> What's the definition of life?


Would be interesting for discussion.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 24, 2012)

How big do you think big foots feet actually are. Wonder if Nike makes his size?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't think there is any argument that the trinity was added later.




Origin of the trinity doctrine....   Gen 1:26

"Let us make man in our image..."


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Origin of the trinity doctrine....   Gen 1:26
> 
> "Let us make man in our image..."



So either god has multiple personality disorder, or there is someone else there with god, be it a god, or something else.

I don't follow how the premise reaches the conclusion.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> So either god has multiple personality disorder, or there is someone else there with god, be it a god, or something else.
> 
> I don't follow how the premise reaches the conclusion.



No doubt Someone else was with God.    Plainly stated throughout scripture; not just centuries after Jesus' time.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> No doubt Someone else was with God.    Plainly stated throughout scripture; not just centuries after Jesus' time.



So wouldn't this imply that either there are two gods, or god is talking to an angel or some such?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

Four said:


> So wouldn't this imply that either there are two gods, or god is talking to an angel or some such?



So you agree that there are at least other 'beings'/persons being addressed early in the Judeo-Christian religion?   Just want to make that clear.... 

Just want to make sure that you are admitting that the Trinity doctrine was established early....


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So you agree that there are at least other 'beings'/persons being addressed early in the Judeo-Christian religion?   Just want to make that clear....
> 
> Just want to make sure that you are admitting that the Trinity doctrine was established early....



I don't see how multiple beings being addressed implies that the trinity doctrine.  It might support part's of the trinity doctrine.

Maybe i dont understand the trinity?

In my most simple understanding There is God, Jesus, and something called the "holy spirit" that are different, but all the same.

Kind of like a more eastern pseudo-polytheistic religions were gods have different aspects or faces.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

I believe you can see how the Trinity doctrine came to be, though.  It wasn't just something dreamed up after 300AD.   Some may have fine tuned it down to what EXACTLY they thought was meant by being "one"...but it was believed for millenia that God was not alone in the beginning.


----------



## Four (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I believe you can see how the Trinity doctrine came to be, though.  It wasn't just something dreamed up after 300AD.   Some may have fine tuned it down to what EXACTLY they thought was meant by being "one"...but it was believed for millenia that God was not alone in the beginning.



oh yea. I get it. 

Only thing i was saying is that the official doctrine of the trinity was adapted after the completion of the bible.

Some still don't recognize it (Jehovah's witness, etc)

On another note, since it's known that Yahweh originally came from the Babylonian pantheon, maybe it was a hold over from the more polytheistic Babylonian religion? God was referring to the other gods of Babylon.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Origin of the trinity doctrine....   Gen 1:26
> 
> "Let us make man in our image..."


No one seems to grasp what a stretch it is to say they see the trinity in Gen 1:26. Just like John 1-14. At best this could be used by the oneness crowd to fight trinitarainism


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 26, 2012)

anyone can see that God is talking in plural form.   it's only a stretch if you don't want to believe that He's referring to others.     You seem to be getting into semantics.    Ever how you want to describe it, God was not alone in the beginning, thus, a doctrine of plurality.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 26, 2012)

I would think Gen 1:26 is proof against the trinity doctrine. Proof that Jesus was  separate  and not part of God. When we get to heaven we'll be able to see both of them. The Holy Spirit is just God's spirit.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 26, 2012)

Was Elohim not used in a plural sense in the first verse of the bible?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> anyone can see that God is talking in plural form.   it's only a stretch if you don't want to believe that He's referring to others.     You seem to be getting into semantics.    Ever how you want to describe it, God was not alone in the beginning, thus, a doctrine of plurality.


I'll agree on the plural of us, but not that he is plural. The debate over Elohim will never be decided. But my point is us does not mean three. It could be 2, 3, 4 or more. Nothing there to the assume trinity


----------



## bullethead (Jan 26, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> anyone can see that God is talking in plural form.   it's only a stretch if you don't want to believe that He's referring to others.     You seem to be getting into semantics.    Ever how you want to describe it, God was not alone in the beginning, thus, a doctrine of plurality.



Who was God with in the beginning? Other God's? Other always existing supreme beings?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Who was God with in the beginning? Other God's? Other always existing supreme beings?



This was a 'trinity doctrine' discussion, which is built on the assumption that god/gods exist.   It's not an argument to prove/disprove God.   Four had mentioned that the Trinity doctrine only 'came about' hundreds of years after Christ.    We were just discussing that this 'doctrine' actually has its foundation in scripture in the very first chapter on Genesis.


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> This was a 'trinity doctrine' discussion, which is built on the assumption that god/gods exist.   It's not an argument to prove/disprove God.   Four had mentioned that the Trinity doctrine only 'came about' hundreds of years after Christ.    We were just discussing that this 'doctrine' actually has its foundation in scripture in the very first chapter on Genesis.



and i would say that's a very weak argument for the trinity.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> and i would say that's a very weak argument for the trinity.



Shocker!  Wouldn't expect you to say anything else!


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Shocker!  Wouldn't expect you to say anything else!



lol, i guess? It just seems if we assume the bible is correct, specifically that passage, i think it would be proof more of a pantheon than a trinity.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> This was a 'trinity doctrine' discussion, which is built on the assumption that god/gods exist.   It's not an argument to prove/disprove God.   Four had mentioned that the Trinity doctrine only 'came about' hundreds of years after Christ.    We were just discussing that this 'doctrine' actually has its foundation in scripture in the very first chapter on Genesis.



I was following along in the discussion. But because Trinity is mentioned and the word "our" is found in scripture does not exactly a match make. Being that a specific Trinity is mentioned nowhere else(like in the earliest Greek manuscripts) the words "our" "we" "us" cannot be automatically linked to it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But because Trinity is mentioned and the word "our" is found in scripture does not exactly a match make.



But, it would be a foundation for believing in more than one person....which the Trinity doctrine incorporates...and it's well before 300AD.    There's just no need to talk like the Trinity doctrine was never thought of until hundreds of years after Christ, which I think we all can agree on now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 27, 2012)

The Trinity Doctrine is not that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit exist but the fact that they are one in the same. Did the early Christians during Jesus' time on earth think he was God? Especially when he would say stuff like "I don't know the answer to that question, only my Father does, or "No one is good excet the Father.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> But, it would be a foundation for believing in more than one person....which the Trinity doctrine incorporates...and it's well before 300AD.    There's just no need to talk like the Trinity doctrine was never thought of until hundreds of years after Christ, which I think we all can agree on now.



I don't think we all can agree now. In Genesis it sounds like God acknowledges other Gods and in the commandments he acknowledges those "other Gods" too.

Maybe all these Gods are sitting around in a teachers lounge setting doing what they each do for their believers and God"the A#1" just wants you to acknowledge him first.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> The Trinity Doctrine is not that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit exist but the fact that they are one in the same. Did the early Christians during Jesus' time on earth think he was God? Especially when he would say stuff like "I don't know the answer to that question, only my Father does, or "No one is good excet the Father.



Claiming to be God was what got Him killed.   lol


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Claiming to be God was what got Him killed.   lol



I thought his dad / himself sent him to die on purpose? Human sacrifice style


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I don't think we all can agree now. In Genesis it sounds like God acknowledges other Gods and in the commandments he acknowledges those "other Gods" too.
> 
> Maybe all these Gods are sitting around in a teachers lounge setting doing what they each do for their believers and God"the A#1" just wants you to acknowledge him first.



I'd never expect you to admit that anyway.   At least give in to the plurality of God/Gods being stated early????    Surely you can agree there?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> I thought his dad / himself sent him to die on purpose? Human sacrifice style



Yep, but humans killed him with their own reasoning....blasphemy.    Its kind of like how the Ezekiel 44 prophecy was fulfilled....it was prophecied that the gate would be closed after "God walked through the gate" and Muslims closed the gate centuries after Jesus walked through the gate so that they could "keep the Messiah from walking through it"    lol    They don't realize that He already has!


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'd never expect you to admit that anyway.   At least give in to the plurality of God/Gods being stated early????    Surely you can agree there?



Yes, so I can say that the doctrine of trinity wasn't established till after the completion of the bible is accurate.

Yes, god said "us" at some points, and jesus refered to his 'father' at other times, as if they were two different people.

Not till later did they finally agree that he is himself and his own son at the same time.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> Yes, so I can say that the doctrine of trinity wasn't established till after the completion of the bible is accurate.
> 
> Yes, god said "us" at some points, and jesus refered to his 'father' at other times, as if they were two different people.
> 
> Not till later did they finally agree that he is himself and his own son at the same time.




Thank you!


----------



## Four (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yep, but humans killed him with their own reasoning....blasphemy.    Its kind of like how the Ezekiel 44 prophecy was fulfilled....it was prophecied that the gate would be closed after "God walked through the gate" and Muslims closed the gate centuries after Jesus walked through the gate so that they could "keep the Messiah from walking through it"    lol    They don't realize that He already has!



Interesting, can you call the killing of Jesus blasphemy when it was apart of the divine plan, and the backbone of the entire religion?

Its hard to say "jesus died for you" implying it was jesus that was responsible, and also call the ones holding the metaphorical gun, evil, or blasphemers.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'd never expect you to admit that anyway.   At least give in to the plurality of God/Gods being stated early????    Surely you can agree there?



Well sure it is stated early. It is the context of what is meant that is unclear.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

Four said:


> Interesting, can you call the killing of Jesus blasphemy when it was apart of the divine plan, and the backbone of the entire religion?
> 
> Its hard to say "jesus died for you" implying it was jesus that was responsible, and also call the ones holding the metaphorical gun, evil, or blasphemers.



yep...very easy.   It says that Jesus didn't try to talk His way out of it....as a sheep to the slaughter.   He obviously made a big impression with Pilate, too.   I think Pilate feared Him.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> yep...very easy.   It says that Jesus didn't try to talk His way out of it....as a sheep to the slaughter.   He obviously made a big impression with Pilate, too.   I think Pilate feared Him.



There could have been no other outcome.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 27, 2012)

The plurality of God is debated. It could have been angels that he was refering to with the "us". Especially since the true view of angels is not at all like we think due to hollywood. They were so much like us that Gen 6 says they had relations with women. Hebrews says something like, "Many have entertained angels without even knowing it". Matthew says that an angel met Mary at the empty tomb. Mark says a young man dressed in a white robe. My point is that we are made in God's image, but also the angels, therefore, it could have been angels and does not have to be a trinity for "us". As far as Elohiym being "plural God", see Ex 21:6 and 1Sam 2:25 to see that the judges were also called Elohiym.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 27, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The plurality of God is debated. It could have been angels that he was refering to with the "us". Especially since the true view of angels is not at all like we think due to hollywood. They were so much like us that Gen 6 says they had relations with women. Hebrews says something like, "Many have entertained angels without even knowing it". Matthew says that an angel met Mary at the empty tomb. Mark says a young man dressed in a white robe. My point is that we are made in God's image, but also the angels, therefore, it could have been angels and does not have to be a trinity for "us". *As far as Elohiym being "plural God", see Ex 21:6 and 1Sam 2:25 to see that the judges were also called Elohiym.*



Elohim can be used a singular or plural from my understanding, in the first verse in Gen. it was used as plural. 

In Ex 21:6 "Judges" meant God. With the "s" on Judges I would assume that is refering to the Trinity... but I'm a little bias

I would have to look at 1Sam, but this is completely off topic of this thread so I'll leave it be.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 28, 2012)

bullethead said:


> There could have been no other outcome.



Jesus had freewill, he didn't have to go through with it. Otherwise it would not have been much of a self sacrifice. He was the Son of God, not God. God was in Heaven where Jesus went later to meet him in a Glorified body that he is in right now. He will come back one day in that same body. God will stay in Heaven. God's spirit will be with Jesus just as his spirit can enter you. If Jesus was a man and didn't have a choice, that's called predestination. Most Christians don't believe in that.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus had freewill, he didn't have to go through with it. Otherwise it would not have been much of a self sacrifice. He was the Son of God, not God. God was in Heaven where Jesus went later to meet him in a Glorified body that he is in right now. He will come back one day in that same body. God will stay in Heaven. God's spirit will be with Jesus just as his spirit can enter you. If Jesus was a man and didn't have a choice, that's called predestination. Most Christians don't believe in that.



Sorry I don't buy that for a second.


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus had freewill, he didn't have to go through with it. Otherwise it would not have been much of a self sacrifice. He was the Son of God, not God. God was in Heaven where Jesus went later to meet him in a Glorified body that he is in right now. He will come back one day in that same body. God will stay in Heaven. God's spirit will be with Jesus just as his spirit can enter you. If Jesus was a man and didn't have a choice, that's called predestination. Most Christians don't believe in that.



This is when it becomes just so dumb its hard to take seriously.

God sent his son jesus to die, but jesus had a choice, but god is jesus, so god sacrificed jesus, but jesus sacrificed himself too, because they're the same person, but they (him?) came back to life! (some sacrifice...) 

So give god credit for sending jesus, but give jesus credit for dieing (but not staying dead!) Or just both credit because they're the same thing?

But He (they?) are all powerful, so you'd think they could just ditch the dog & pony show...

All of this happening in one of the lease civilized places on earth, before science and video cameras.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

Four said:


> This is when it becomes just so dumb its hard to take seriously.
> 
> God sent his son jesus to die, but jesus had a choice, but god is jesus, so god sacrificed jesus, but jesus sacrificed himself too, because they're the same person, but they (him?) came back to life! (some sacrifice...)
> 
> ...



Were you not taught in school to capitalize proper nouns?


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Were you not taught in school to capitalize proper nouns?



If i did it didnt stick


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sorry I don't buy that for a second.



Out of curiosity, how much of the gospel do you "buy?"  I know you don't believe in the deity, but do you believe Jesus was an historical figure?  Crucified?  Any of it?

It doesn't change the debate one way or the other, I know, just pure curiosity.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Out of curiosity, how much of the gospel do you "buy?"  I know you don't believe in the deity, but do you believe Jesus was an historical figure?  Crucified?  Any of it?
> 
> It doesn't change the debate one way or the other, I know, just pure curiosity.



I do think Jesus was a man. I don't think he was anything but a man. I am not convinced that any of the gospels are an accurate account of what happened during those times. I think they are a collection of various stories written to further a movement by people that were not happy with their current leaders in the church. There are too many coincidences with the "god-like" stories of Jesus that have been written about long before by other cultures. Each claiming the same things. I think he was an outspoken hero of the common people who's movement was kept alive by others because he died for speaking out for what he thought was wrong. Giving him god-like qualities enhanced the stories and in turn enhanced the movement.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2012)

I don't believe God & Jesus are the same person.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I do think Jesus was a man. I don't think he was anything but a man. I am not convinced that any of the gospels are an accurate account of what happened during those times. I think they are a collection of various stories written to further a movement by people that were not happy with their current leaders in the church. There are too many coincidences with the "god-like" stories of Jesus that have been written about long before by other cultures. Each claiming the same things. I think he was an outspoken hero of the common people who's movement was kept alive by others because he died for speaking out for what he thought was wrong. Giving him god-like qualities enhanced the stories and in turn enhanced the movement.



Ok.  I think I remember some on here claiming he was a fictional character all together. I couldn't remember where you stood on that. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 30, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't believe God & Jesus are the same person.



But, from your perspective, are they both God?

I think that is the confusion.  Is it like two generals both being "military?"  Different parts of the same organization?  Just asking for informational purposes about your position.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.  I think I remember some on here claiming he was a fictional character all together. I couldn't remember where you stood on that. Thanks for clarifying.



Check this link out:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth

It is from the Jewish encyclopedia and their "take" on Jesus. It is a long read but really gives some insight into why they do not believe he was anything other than a man.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 30, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't believe God & Jesus are the same person.



Neither do trinitarians.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2012)

I thought trinitarians thought Jesus was God in human form. I just recently stopped believing in the trinity. I haven't decided what Jesus' divinity is. I believe in only one God. I realise it's confusing. I don't take anything away from Jesus. He died for our sins. He is our savior. What kind of sacrifice would it be if he didn't have a choice or if he was God?


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 30, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought trinitarians thought Jesus was God in human form.



We do.  For more details, check out the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought trinitarians thought Jesus was God in human form. I just recently stopped believing in the trinity. I haven't decided what Jesus' divinity is. I believe in only one God. I realise it's confusing. I don't take anything away from Jesus. He died for our sins. He is our savior. *What kind of sacrifice would it be if he didn't have a choice or if he was God?*



What kind of sacrifice would it be if He was not God incarnate?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Check this link out:
> http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth
> 
> It is from the Jewish encyclopedia and their "take" on Jesus. It is a long read but really gives some insight into why they do not believe he was anything other than a man.



You want us to read what the people who wanted Jesus crucified thought of Him? I think we know.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought trinitarians thought Jesus was God in human form. I just recently stopped believing in the trinity. I haven't decided what Jesus' divinity is. I believe in only one God. I realise it's confusing. I don't take anything away from Jesus. He died for our sins. He is our savior. What kind of sacrifice would it be if he didn't have a choice or if he was God?



It wouldn't be a sacrifice at all, just a show.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What kind of sacrifice would it be if He was not God incarnate?



Again none.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Again none.



You answered both of our questions the same but we asked two different questions.

He asked what kind of sacrifice it would have been had Jesus been God, I asked what kind of sacrifice it would have been if Jesus wasn't God.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You answered both of our questions the same but we asked two different questions.
> 
> He asked what kind of sacrifice it would have been had Jesus been God, I asked what kind of sacrifice it would have been if Jesus wasn't God.



Your right my bad. If Jesus was just a man.  With absolutly no direct connection with god, other than faith, then it was a selfless sacrifice. But if he was god incarnate, or had direct communication with god, then no, no sacrifice.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Your right my bad. If Jesus was just a man.  With absolutly no direct connection with god, other than faith, then it was a selfless sacrifice. But if he was god incarnate, or had direct communication with god, then no, no sacrifice.



How do you think that a regular old Jewish guy could be the sacrifice for the sins of mankind?

I know you don't believe He was the sacrifice for anything, but if you did, don't you think He would have had just a little God in Him?

 I mean, a lot of Jews died on a cross, and for some reason, millions of people tend to gravitate to Jesus' death on a cross, I find it hard to believe He was just some Jewish dude that was a good teacher.


----------



## TheBishop (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How do you think that a regular old Jewish guy could be the sacrifice for the sins of mankind?
> 
> I know you don't believe He was the sacrifice for anything, but if you did, don't you think He would have had just a little God in Him?
> 
> I mean, a lot of Jews died on a cross, and for some reason, millions of people tend to gravitate to Jesus' death on a cross, I find it hard to believe He was just some Jewish dude that was a good teacher.



A sacrifice would a assume the loss of something of value or a gift to a diety.  

So, if he was/is a part of this diety he cannot gift himself to himself. 

Ok he did lose his life.  But what value is the motal life to one about to be immortalized? None really.  When you know eternal glory awaits you, dieing isn't really a sacrifice, at least not a great one. It's like sacrficing a five dollar bill to make 100, it doesn't really hold the same kind of meaning.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 30, 2012)

He was a sacrifice, pictured by Abraham's firstborn son. No he was not the first but he was the first promised. Gives hint to the "before Abraham". I had better not derail my own point. But he was God's firstborn son, the first among many brothers. Being the "*first*"born son is what made him a sacrifice.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You want us to read what the people who wanted Jesus crucified thought of Him? I think we know.



Up to you if you want to learn the reasons why or not.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

Was it a sacrifice at the time or did that part come later to benefit the story?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You want us to read what the people who wanted Jesus crucified thought of Him? I think we know.



Without reading it I seriously doubt you know the reasons why they think what they do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2012)

Since Jesus was a human. I would call it a human sacrifice. It wouldn't be much of a sacrifice if Jesus was God. God said he would sacrifice his only son  not himself. It would be easier for me to sacrifice myself vs my own child.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 30, 2012)

I think the writers wrote stories about a man and tried to make him the messiah.
Except for his birth there is nothing written about the Son Of God until he was @ 29years old! No one followed him around and kept tabs on him.
How did he introduce himself when he started his preaching? "Remember me? I'm the manger kid...born under the north star...wisemen.....all the first born killed trying to find me......does it ring a bell" ""OHHHH YEAH! Now I remember! So what's been up? Where ya been?""
The problem is all those "details" were written down 40-70years later. They just so happened to coincide with prophesy, but not quite. Jesus was the beginning of a religious movement and to gain followers he was made into more than what he was. He was executed for breaking the law at 33 yrs of age. He was "sacrificed" 40-70 years later.These writers wanted to take their religion in another direction and including some prophetic examples from the OT into their stories was a sure way to gain followers. But in reality none of these prophesies were actually fulfilled. They used a man and started THEIR  religion around him. He HAD to be the Son of God and all of those things in order for people to buy into it. It certainly did not happen over night, but gradually because people were not happy with their current beliefs. People fell in love with and gained hope from a story without ever knowing the man. The promise of a better loving life after death was quite a selling point over all the fire and brimstone written before. Easy sell quite frankly.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2012)

Much of the story is embellished. Matthew and Luke forever distorted the truth with their upgrading. Take Mary's song for example. There is no way that he knew these details unless he were inspired by God to write them. And I know without doubt that he was not inspired or he would have had no reason to copy Mark gospel, a second hand account at best. They were trying hard to convince the world that Jesus was the messiah. Trying to hard. If we could cut out all the misrepresentations of Jesus, it would be accepted by many more today


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Much of the story is embellished. Matthew and Luke forever distorted the truth with their upgrading. Take Mary's song for example. There is no way that he knew these details unless he were inspired by God to write them. And I know without doubt that he was not inspired or he would have had no reason to copy Mark gospel, a second hand account at best. They were trying hard to convince the world that Jesus was the messiah. Trying to hard. If we could cut out all the misrepresentations of Jesus, it would be accepted by many more today



You know that is the honest truth! Had they left out the Son of God part the messiah prophesy would have actually worked out better!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You know that is the honest truth! Had they left out the Son of God part the messiah prophesy would have actually worked out better!


It fits that he was the firstborn son, at his baptismal


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I think the writers wrote stories about a man and tried to make him the messiah.
> Except for his birth there is nothing written about the Son Of God until he was @ 29years old! No one followed him around and kept tabs on him.
> How did he introduce himself when he started his preaching? "Remember me? I'm the manger kid...born under the north star...wisemen.....all the first born killed trying to find me......does it ring a bell" ""OHHHH YEAH! Now I remember! So what's been up? Where ya been?""
> The problem is all those "details" were written down 40-70years later. They just so happened to coincide with prophesy, but not quite. Jesus was the beginning of a religious movement and to gain followers he was made into more than what he was. He was executed for breaking the law at 33 yrs of age. He was "sacrificed" 40-70 years later.These writers wanted to take their religion in another direction and including some prophetic examples from the OT into their stories was a sure way to gain followers. But in reality none of these prophesies were actually fulfilled. They used a man and started THEIR  religion around him. He HAD to be the Son of God and all of those things in order for people to buy into it. It certainly did not happen over night, but gradually because people were not happy with their current beliefs. People fell in love with and gained hope from a story without ever knowing the man. The promise of a better loving life after death was quite a selling point over all the fire and brimstone written before. Easy sell quite frankly.



Well, they weren't the smartest guyes in the world because history (not Bible) says most of them died at the hands of men because of their strong stand for this man that many claim they 'made up'.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

There was a man that was in our area for a while. He walked barefoot, accepted rides only if necessary, dressed in "Jesus" type garments, wore his hair long and sported a beard. Literally he was known as...and was asked to be called "What's Your Name"! He said that after years of people asking him that very question, he started to use it. I am sure he can be found with a search online.
Anyway, he never claimed to be the Son Of God, posses mystical powers or heal anyone but he went from town to town spreading the word of God and Jesus. A few years later he passed through the area again, made the local news and was gone. Speaking to people locally that met him and watching people that were interviewed by the news media said they felt enlightened by his message and he was very charismatic. He really made an impression on some people. I wonder how little the stories would change or stay the same if many that met him wrote it down 50 years in the future?? I wonder if a few that met him would embellish his actions and claims just a bit in order to make an interesting story and man a little more interesting??

Remembering this recently it got me thinking about someone making such an impact 2000 years ago without all the media and in a less hectic world. I am sure Jesus was very charismatic an incredible speaker and one heck of a story teller and well schooled in religion. I am sure within small groups of people he was well thought of. No doubt he made close friends that spent a lot of time with him listening to his thoughts. I have no doubt he was very influential. I think he got to the point where he was so influential that he was thought of as a threat to the religious hierarchy. I think he pushed the limits to where they were happy to get rid of him. After he was gone his stories and teachings lived on albeit in small amounts by the people that he left an impression with. Years later I think he was the perfect candidate to build a new religious movement around. In order to really bring attention, good-bad-or otherwise(cause ANY attention is better than none) the writers tied him in with OT prophesy in order to make people think that he was what they have been waiting for as told in in the Torah. It worked. Slowly at first(ie: a few centuries) but it worked. It offered in an afterlife what the believers lacked in their life on Earth. As it grew so did the additions and indoctrination. It became a religion. It is not  unique as there are denominations within Christianity that put a man on or near the same level as Jesus. They got lucky enough to reinvent the religious wheel and get some people to follow along. Kinda like what the text that made the NT did.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Well, they weren't the smartest guyes in the world because history (not Bible) says most of them died at the hands of men because of their strong stand for this man that many claim they 'made up'.



True! And there are a few sources, (Bible being one them that is supposed to be inerrant) that have those same guys dying a few different deaths, in different countries at the same time they were killed somewhere else and/or years later! Some of them died multiple times! NOW that is impressive!!

Those guys were part of the gang and when the authorities caught up with them they paid the price. Which ones actually died and how they actually died are left to which version you want to believe.

If you think a few buddies dying for each other is exclusive to the disciples you are not well read in history. Remember Koresh in Waco?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Well, they weren't the smartest guyes in the world because history (not Bible) says most of them died at the hands of men because of their strong stand for this man that many claim they 'made up'.



Look at the site I posted that was about why the Jews do not believe he met the criteria for the Messiah. Jesus simply did not meet the criteria.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jan 31, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Remembering this recently it got me thinking about someone making such an impact 2000 years ago without all the media and in a less hectic world. I am sure Jesus was very charismatic an incredible speaker and one heck of a story teller and well schooled in religion. I am sure within small groups of people he was well thought of. No doubt he made close friends that spent a lot of time with him listening to his thoughts. I have no doubt he was very influential. I think he got to the point where he was so influential that he was thought of as a threat to the religious hierarchy. I think he pushed the limits to where they were happy to get rid of him. After he was gone his stories and teachings lived on albeit in small amounts by the people that he left an impression with. Years later I think he was the perfect candidate to build a new religious movement around. In order to really bring attention, good-bad-or otherwise(cause ANY attention is better than none) the writers tied him in with OT prophesy in order to make people think that he was what they have been waiting for as told in in the Torah. It worked. Slowly at first(ie: a few centuries) but it worked. It offered in an afterlife what the believers lacked in their life on Earth. As it grew so did the additions and indoctrination. It became a religion. It is not  unique as there are denominations within Christianity that put a man on or near the same level as Jesus. They got lucky enough to reinvent the religious wheel and get some people to follow along. Kinda like what the text that made the NT did.



This scenario requires as much faith as anything Christians believe.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

This is probably totally out there....as usual.

It took me many many years to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac.  I thought, wow, God could actually ask someone to sacrifice their son to prove they loved/believed in/trusted/obedient to/ Him. I thought what a cruel God, course I was blind.

I had lost my first husband and only had my one daughter left, I was not willing for God to put me on 'that' spot. I did not see or comprehend that God let Abraham off the hook about Isaac and said He (God) would provide His own lamb/sacrifice who was Jesus. So I found it safer for me to hide from God before He ask me to give up my child or something weird like that for my sins.

I finally figured out because I felt that way my own self how God used that as an example of how much He gave for us, because He loved us and wanted us to be with Him.

How many of y'all would give up your son as a sacrifice for anything? Say to save your other children, would you send your only son into a burning building to get the other children? Would you give up your only son/child to save the rest of your starving children? That story of Abraham brought me to the point that I realized how hard it would be for me or anyone to give up their only child for the salvation/eternal life/redemption/deliverance of every other child/man/woman on earth. And how I would feel if no one appreciated it, and I knew they wouldn't, but did it anyway.

God thank you for your Son, Jesus....who saved me and my only child and my grandchildren and their grandchildren and my parents and grand parents...so that we are not eternally seperated from them or You!

I'm speaking as a human in the flesh, and that's what Jesus was, and that's the only way we could understand what God was willing to do for our salvation. God's word says He created Adam and Eve so He wouldn't be alone, and He's given us the gift of salvation by sacrifice so He can have us with Him.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

bullethead said:


> There was a man that was in our area for a while. He walked barefoot, accepted rides only if necessary, dressed in "Jesus" type garments, wore his hair long and sported a beard. Literally he was known as...and was asked to be called "What's Your Name"! He said that after years of people asking him that very question, he started to use it. I am sure he can be found with a search online.
> Anyway, he never claimed to be the Son Of God, posses mystical powers or heal anyone but he went from town to town spreading the word of God and Jesus. A few years later he passed through the area again, made the local news and was gone. Speaking to people locally that met him and watching people that were interviewed by the news media said they felt enlightened by his message and he was very charismatic. He really made an impression on some people. I wonder how little the stories would change or stay the same if many that met him wrote it down 50 years in the future?? I wonder if a few that met him would embellish his actions and claims just a bit in order to make an interesting story and man a little more interesting??
> 
> Remembering this recently it got me thinking about someone making such an impact 2000 years ago without all the media and in a less hectic world. I am sure Jesus was very charismatic an incredible speaker and one heck of a story teller and well schooled in religion. I am sure within small groups of people he was well thought of. No doubt he made close friends that spent a lot of time with him listening to his thoughts. I have no doubt he was very influential. I think he got to the point where he was so influential that he was thought of as a threat to the religious hierarchy. I think he pushed the limits to where they were happy to get rid of him. After he was gone his stories and teachings lived on albeit in small amounts by the people that he left an impression with. Years later I think he was the perfect candidate to build a new religious movement around. In order to really bring attention, good-bad-or otherwise(cause ANY attention is better than none) the writers tied him in with OT prophesy in order to make people think that he was what they have been waiting for as told in in the Torah. It worked. Slowly at first(ie: a few centuries) but it worked. It offered in an afterlife what the believers lacked in their life on Earth. As it grew so did the additions and indoctrination. It became a religion. It is not  unique as there are denominations within Christianity that put a man on or near the same level as Jesus. They got lucky enough to reinvent the religious wheel and get some people to follow along. Kinda like what the text that made the NT did.



You sound like L Ron Hubbard. Chariots of the Gods had more logic than he did.

I couldn't get past the first 2 pages of Mr Hubbards book....the only one I tried to read anyway. And that was before I was into Bible study.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> This scenario requires as much faith as anything Christians believe.



Amen!!!

That was way too confusing for me.

Those people in the Old and New Testament musta been brillient to pull all that off....wow. I'll go with that.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> This scenario requires as much faith as anything Christians believe.



Hardly.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Amen!!!
> 
> That was way too confusing for me.
> 
> Those people in the Old and New Testament musta been brillient to pull all that off....wow. I'll go with that.



There are lots of talented writers.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 1, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You sound like L Ron Hubbard. Chariots of the Gods had more logic than he did.
> 
> I couldn't get past the first 2 pages of Mr Hubbards book....the only one I tried to read anyway. And that was before I was into Bible study.



I never read any of his books but it sounds like there were no talking animals in there to help make it sensible.


----------

