Is it true?

There are some true things in the bible. You know, like the Romans who
were written down by name. The locations also exist....

The spiritual and religios part? Who knows? I don´t believe that is true.

My stance has always been: It contains truth, but isn't all true. The basic ideas of be good to your fellow man and the general "guide to life" aspects have varying degrees of truth to them. I do believe that the man Jesus walked the Earth.There is plenty of nonBible historical evidence to that. Anything else that sounds/reads like folklore/myth/legend/fairytale/fable/parable (The Flood, Creation in six days, blowing a horn causing the collapse of a giant stone wall, etc.), most likey was either just that and meant to be read as such, to help teach a lesson, much as the tales of Aesop and others, or it was simply an unscientific means of explaining the unexplainable.

It is historically and spiritually infallible. The Gospels of Luke have been scrutinized and tested numerous times and have been NOTED to be historically accurate and precise.

NOTED by hypocritical apologists.

What has, in fact, been noted is: NO evidence of the Exodus/Conquest NO evidence of Herod's infanticide NO evidence of a virgin birth NO evidence of a crucifixion/resurrection NO evidence of zombies walking around JerusalemIt is a story, hovering between fable and fraud, absurdly rationalized by arguments that are as disingenuous as they are laughable.

If the bible would be true, more people would believe in it.

If it would not be so boring, I would ask SouthStar again why he believes that everything, including god, that is written in the bible is true. But the argument never bears fruit...

The Bible is true because it is the directly dictated word of God. It says so in the Bible.

Oh wait .....

Something .....circular ......in that .......logic.......

The Bible is true because it is the directly dictated word of God. It says so in the Bible.

Oh wait .....

Something .....circular ......in that .......logic.......

That is a baseless, foolish claim and I would advise you to gather your "facts" from a different source.

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God". If it says so in the Bible, show me. Either that or stop making a fool of yourself ;)

"NO evidence of the Exodus/Conquest
NO evidence of Herod's infanticide
NO evidence of a virgin birth
NO evidence of a crucifixion/resurrection
NO evidence of zombies walking around Jerusalem"

That is why it takes FAITH to believe.

That is a baseless, foolish claim and I would advise you to gather your "facts" from a different source.

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God". If it says so in the Bible, show me. Either that or stop making a fool of yourself ;)

Totally agree..
The Christians said the Bible was revealed through "God's spirit". Not to mention the history, what was written in there are somewhat contradicting (to me.) And when someone told me what really happened during the history, it was very depressing. Kinda like "Wake up!!"
Dun get me wrong though. Personally I still learn a lot values from the Bible.. but no, it is not realiable... :m:

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God"Well that's the point, isn't it? It's the most powerful propoganda machine ever... not the 'word of God'.

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God"

Yes it is, if you believe what the Bible says is true.
II Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teachimg, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
II Peter 1:21
"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"

II Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is inspired by GodCongrats! You jsut defeated your own argument.

1) Um, so who is Timothy.. one of the names God decide to write with?
2) The Biography of Abraham Lincoln was "inspired by" Abraham Lincoln. That doesn't mean they are his words (or even 100% true).

The FACT that the Bible contradicts itself (within the same version and between different versions) shoots down your argument even further.

I honestly don't see how I defeated my own argument.
Timothy was a pastor in the years following the death of Christ. II Timothy is actually a letter written by Paul to Timothy.
"inspired" comes from the Greek word theopneustos meaning "God breathed."
Revelation relates to origin and giving of truth
Inspiration relates to recieving and recording the truth.
It also reveals that the writing of the Bible was a supernatural event, something we can't fully understand

I see no way at all that the Bible as we know it today could have anywhere NEAR the same meaning it did 2000 to 5000 years ago. It has gone through so many interpretations from one language to the next, much of that through word of mouth. Ever play the game where you whisper something like "There are fourteen ways to smother a house cat" to person number one, and by the time it gets back to person number 10 it's now become, "Three or four tons of mustard fell from the bay onto my hat?" Imagine intricate stories with many characters and names of specific areas and events, being passed via word of mouth over thousands of years. You can't tell me that today's King James or NIV Bible is anywhere near what was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. For that reason alone, the Bible cannot be considered an absolute true and completely factual piece of historical literature.

As Obi Wan Kenobi said, "Luke, you are going to find that a great many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on your point of view."

I have often wondered the same thing. The way I see it though, is that if God is powerful enough to inspire the writing of the Bible, then He is also capable of ensuring it is translated properly.

Given the large number of textual variants, he clearly failed.

No, I don't think so. Gold generally isn't just laying aroung, you have to go looking for it. The same is true of God's truth. Translasions into English is a start, but to find the real meaning you have to study the word, which includes looking at the original Greek/Hebrew texts or use a comentary.

It is historically and spiritually infallible. The Gospels of Luke have been scrutinized and tested numerous times and have been NOTED to be historically accurate and precise.
*************
M*W: There are so many discrepancies in the Bible that they are too numerous to list here. This subject has been rehashed many times on this forum. Even if some events may have been historically true, how does one determine that the spiritual truths are infallible? There's no way to do that. Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel. Luke and Paul were close associates. In fact, the gospel of Luke does not mean it was written by Luke. Paul also had Luke write the Acts. There is no proof of any of it. Please explain what you mean by "scrutinized and tested numerous times and by whom?

I saw an article from some way out there zealot discussing the whole 666 mark of the Beast on the hand thing ... you may not buy or sell save you have the number of the beast in your hand or forehead. The Bible clearly states, "...And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads." This fellow did some studying and he decided that it would just be too much effort for everyone to be fitted with some sort of implant, and that a tattoo or stamp would be more feasible. He had problems with this because Revelations clearly says "IN" the hand or forehead. Well, it just so happens that the words for "in" and "on" are quite similar, so perhaps the Bible really meant to say "on" instead of "in." If this were the case, then his stance re: the tattooing of the 666 would be right on target. This made me wonder if he realizes that he may very well have rendered the miracles of Christ completely meaningless, at least one of them anyway. Perhaps he only walked "in" the water and not "on" it.

I'd be interested in seeing the article if you could find it.

geez...It was awhile ago and it was a total fringe "The end times are coming" rag. I wouldn't even know how to google it.

http://new.jpdawson.com/REVELATI/markbeas.html

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God"

Yes it is, if you believe what the Bible says is true.
II Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teachimg, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
II Peter 1:21
"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"


Being "inspired" by God, and God "DIRECTLY DICTATING" to you is NOT THE SAME THING!!!!

How can you even say it is? You are presenting the very evidence to refute yourself!

I do not believe that the various authors of the bible ever intented it to be 100 % true.
Everyone is talking about gods word here. Do you really think he dictated all that crap? Imagine this, some thousand years ago, some guys were really fed up with being slaves and suppressed and all that.
What do they do? They run away. But you have to keep the group together, give it a common cause, otherwise it would fall apart and most would die or be suppressed again. So you create a new religion, for at that time a religion was the strongest body, even stronger that kings or states because religion tends to survive many generations. So they start this new religion, or better cult, because it was not big enough in the beginning. To make themself secure, they try to spread this cult, because bigger religion don´t like cults and sometimes destroy them.
So they needed converts. How to get them? Of course you can go and preach to people, but you can also write flyers, advertisement. In those advertisements, you put some information about the religion, about the god and try to give people a general idea of it. Perhaps you add some things to the advertisement that give it authority. Like the almighty god who created the earth and protected his followers. Very impressive, isn´t it?
It´s just like the slogan "whiter than white" for some cleaning product.
So the "missionaries" go out and preach the word of god, reading from their flyer and giving it to people. After a while you need something more, you embellish the flyer a bit, make it into a small book. You give people contemporary stories, involving place and people they know, to give them examples of the values the cult advocates. To transmitt some moral and ethical values. And at that time such things were commonly transmitted by such stories since it was the most common sort of communication.
So the people start talking about that cult, the stories of it and their god. As people tend to embellish, more and more things are accredited to the god and his followers, most are fantasies.
Meanwhile, more and more was added to the advertisement, making it into a story and rulebook. This book found its way over the centuries and millenia and was constantly edited and updated and not to forgett translated. In the end, it was a mixture of fictional stories containing real persons and places, the desription of the religios belief system, a few historicall facts and a lot of mouth to mouth information/propaganda.
But people started to see the whole book as something written by god or at least by gods will. They started to belief in everything that was written within it. And they believed in the written things literally, without abstraction or great thought. Even when some parts didn´t fit, they did not start to think, they started to explain it with gods will and say that you cannot reason about it, you can only have faith in it.
And on and on it went and here we are today. At a point were no one can really prove that the bible was written by god himself. No one can say which parts of the bible were written truthfully and which parts are only imagination. But I think it can well be said that not everything is true.

... to find the real meaning you have to study the word, which includes looking at the original Greek/Hebrew texts or use a comentary.
Nonsense. Neither you nor anyone else around has ever had access to "the original Greek/Hebrew".

Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel. Luke and Paul were close associates. In fact, the gospel of Luke does not mean it was written by Luke. Paul also had Luke write the Acts. There is no proof of any of it.
Well, that was clear. :rolleyes:

Here's most of your archaeological evidence:

The Evidence (http://www.rchristopherministries.org/P304.html)

I do not believe that the various authors of the bible ever intented it to be 100 % true.
Everyone is talking about gods word here. Do you really think he dictated all that crap? Imagine this, some thousand years ago, some guys were really fed up with being slaves and suppressed and all that.
What do they do? They run away. But you have to keep the group together, give it a common cause, otherwise it would fall apart and most would die or be suppressed again. So you create a new religion, for at that time a religion was the strongest body, even stronger that kings or states because religion tends to survive many generations. So they start this new religion, or better cult, because it was not big enough in the beginning. To make themself secure, they try to spread this cult, because bigger religion don´t like cults and sometimes destroy them.
So they needed converts. How to get them? Of course you can go and preach to people, but you can also write flyers, advertisement. In those advertisements, you put some information about the religion, about the god and try to give people a general idea of it. Perhaps you add some things to the advertisement that give it authority. Like the almighty god who created the earth and protected his followers. Very impressive, isn´t it?
It´s just like the slogan "whiter than white" for some cleaning product.
So the "missionaries" go out and preach the word of god, reading from their flyer and giving it to people. After a while you need something more, you embellish the flyer a bit, make it into a small book. You give people contemporary stories, involving place and people they know, to give them examples of the values the cult advocates. To transmitt some moral and ethical values. And at that time such things were commonly transmitted by such stories since it was the most common sort of communication.
So the people start talking about that cult, the stories of it and their god. As people tend to embellish, more and more things are accredited to the god and his followers, most are fantasies.
Meanwhile, more and more was added to the advertisement, making it into a story and rulebook. This book found its way over the centuries and millenia and was constantly edited and updated and not to forgett translated. In the end, it was a mixture of fictional stories containing real persons and places, the desription of the religios belief system, a few historicall facts and a lot of mouth to mouth information/propaganda.
But people started to see the whole book as something written by god or at least by gods will. They started to belief in everything that was written within it. And they believed in the written things literally, without abstraction or great thought. Even when some parts didn´t fit, they did not start to think, they started to explain it with gods will and say that you cannot reason about it, you can only have faith in it.
And on and on it went and here we are today. At a point were no one can really prove that the bible was written by god himself. No one can say which parts of the bible were written truthfully and which parts are only imagination. But I think it can well be said that not everything is true.

The people who wrote the Bible were eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus. Just because the Bible has things you wouldn't see everyday happen in it does not necessarily make it false. Today the words of eyewitnesses are taken very seriously because of the value they can have in the case. Sadly, the Bible has been categorized "Religion" and disregarded. But the people who wrote it lived within a century of Jesus' death. Luke was an eyewitness to all that happened. Matthew, Mark, and John were more like "Christian Detectives" and interviewed Luke, and other eyewitnesses, to put the whole story together. The people who wrote this down lived in a culture where writing things down was EXTREMELY important. You seem to be thinking that the bible was twisted into a legend over time, sort of like the story of Alexander the Great or Odysseus. In the time of Jesus, the Israelites, if they were going to write anything down, would have the document checked and double checked by elders, other eyewitnesses, and more. It was like the childhood game of "telephone", except for one thing: the third person would double-check with the first person, the fifth would check with the third, etc. so that the document would remain reliable.

There are things written in the bible before Jesus appeared or am I mistaken?
And at the time they were supposed to have happened, most people told tales to keep the stories alive. Only later were those things written down.
And even after a hundred years, a story can be twisted quite a bit.


And most did not double check, they copied....

Unless you are very young, you should be very much ashamed of yourself. That was easily the most inane tapestry of non sequitur and innuendo that I've seen in a long time. So, for example:
Evidence For The Garden Of Eden: "... The P-document, too, picked up a distinct flavor of the Tigris-Euphrates, including Babylonian views of cosmic origins based upon nearly three thousand years of thought dating back to the founding Sumerian tribes.... Consequently, in Genesis 2:14 the Garden of Eden is placed squarely in the land of the Hiddekel (known to the Greeks as the Tigris) and Euphrates rivers."9 Pellegrino later testifies: "... It is easy to think of the Tigris and Euphrates as two separate rivers. But satellite photos tell [us] that in antiquity there were at least four or five different branches cutting through the plain (and Genesis 2:10-14 seems to agree with the satellite view, describing a river parting into four heads, their names Pishon, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Perat)."10 [ibid]This is clearly not "Evidence For The Garden Of Eden" but, rather, evidence of a common folklore. From where do you think the proto-Israelites would pick up their folklore - Cleveland?

You really need to read through this stuff and understand what it's saying before you embarrass yourself further.

Consequent Athiest:
I DO have access to Hebrew/ Greek texts. I can go to a christian book store and find a Greek New Testament, or Hebrew Old testament. I can email my pastor and he can provide me with them. It's not really hard to find, just takes some time to understand if you don't know the language your reading very well.

Dreamwalker:
I think christianity is more than a cult. There has to be something more to it if people are willing to die for it, and not just a few; thousands of them,and all through history. Do you agree somewhat? The Bible was written by 40+ authors, on 3 continants, in 3 differant langauges, over a span of 1,500 years. Yet through all this, the Bible constantly maintains a theme of Gog's redemption of mankind. Taken all of the above, it seems highly unlikely that this text could be commposed and believed and read today, unless you credit a supernatural being with inspiring the work. Or you could come to the conclusion that this book is radom texts jumbled together, which in my mind doesn't seem very likely.

SouthStar:
Your right! Having something inspired and having something dictated are two seperate things. But if you look at what the word inspirated means in the Bible, it is shown that this was a supernatural event. It's not just guys saying: I think this is how this event occured or this sounds good, lets write it down. It was the Holy Spirit guiding them leading them, saying you need to share this with other people. That's why the differant books sound slightly differant. Each was written by people of differant walks of life. David was a king. Luke was a doctor. those were educated people. And then there's people like Jonh and James. They were fishermen. They didn't have much education. I think it just all adds to the uniquness of the Bible.

The people who wrote the Bible were eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus.
Not according to current scholarship.

Enigma:

I said christianity was a cult in the beginning.


Definition
cult (RELIGION) [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
1 a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people:
Their son ran away from home and joined a religious cult.

2 a particular system of religious belief:
the Hindu cult of Shiva

You see, in the earlier times of christianity, most people tended to believe in multiple gods, thus the first definition fits on christianity. But I also said that it spread and became a religion.

Alright. I got confused about it switching from a cult to a religion. In that aspect you are correct.

@ Enigma

Or you could come to the conclusion that this book is radom texts jumbled together, which in my mind doesn't seem very likely.

Nah, I didn´t say that it was random text. It had a purpose. It was written to spread the religion and to make it more interesting and attractive.

I just think that the bible was written to convey an image, an idea of god. Written in a form to make it easy to understand by every one. And I think that was best done by contemporary stories, because the people could understand and associate with that.
But to say everything that was written in the bible is true is enormously arrogant and naive.

Consequent Athiest:
I DO have access to Hebrew/ Greek texts. I can go to a christian book store and find a Greek New Testament, or Hebrew Old testament.
That is grossly ignorant. The earliest OT manuscriot is circa 2nd century BCE while the earliest Bible (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) is 4th century CE.

People make copies of books.

Well, If you agree that it was written for a purpose, then how do you explain it keeping them same purpose all though those 1500 years. Today you write a book like that in it will be good for a while, but new stuff replases it. The Bible is unique in this aspect.

I usually stay out of such debates as this because it could be concieved as "bible-bashing" which i dont do....but the most accurate account of Jesus's (saws)life isnt even in the bible which is the Gospel of Barnabas. He was a disciple(as a matter of fact he was the one who decided to let the disciples admit Paul/Saul into the group) and he accounted for the missing years from Jesus's(saws) life but his book didnt make the final cut because he confirm Jesus's divinity(he said Jesus was a Prophet)....peace

@ Enigma

I think, someone had an idea. He wrote it down or told it someone and it was written down later.
This idea he wrote down was picked up by other people. People who believed in the same thing. Perhaps people who were members of the religion or just liked their ideas. Anyway, they picked up the idea and thought about it. Then they wrote something new along the lines of that idea. And in the end it came to be compiled in the bible.
But I do not think that they have to be inspired by god to write about this idea. People were writing about other things for a longer time.

As I tried to express, I have no problems with people who believe in god. Or even in the bible. But I think that the bible is just a conduct for the idea of the christian god. It is full of metaphors, parallels and images. But it should not be taken for fact. I think you should read it and get an idea of god, an idea of what god is about. But it is no instruction that works like "follow what Paul has written and you go to heaven". The bible was created to convey the idea of what god is like, but it doesn´t convey god through facts, just through stories, images and metaphors.
God may exist, but I doubt that he is exactly that which was written in the bible. If god is really god, you cannot explain him through facts (if you can explain him at all).. All you can do is think up stories that make it possible for the reader to gain a small idea of god, of the morals and values he advocates.
But to say that those who wrote the bible were dictated by god is nonsense.

Gospel of Barnabas was not God-inspired, so therefore, could not be included in the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is absolute truth, then you also take on, in faith, that what you need to know about God and how to conduct your life is in the Bible, and what you don't need to know isn't. It takes faith to believe in God.

Some one who said no, and your a christian, perhaps you could explain why to me.

Gospel of Barnabas was not God-inspired, so therefore, could not be included in the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is absolute truth, then you also take on, in faith, that what you need to know about God and how to conduct your life is in the Bible, and what you don't need to know isn't. It takes faith to believe in God.

Some one who said no, and your a christian, perhaps you could explain why to me.





Well then you are saying that The Council of Nicea whom decided what would be in the bible must had been God inspired because they are the ones who took out the Gospel of Barnabas. I understand having faith but God also gave humans common sense(no disrespect towards you :) ) and the gospels werent written by a single person who knew Jesus(saws) only paul he claimed to have met Jesus(saws) in a dream no seriously tell me would you believe a disciple who walked with Jesus or a man who made a living persecuting Jews then claimed to have a dream saying Jesus(saws) came to him. Now im not saying that couldnt happen however if you even look at what paul preached it was different than what Jesus taught. Jesus taught not to eat pork....paul said it was ok.......Jesus taught to worship God......Paul said you had to believe in the trinity......me point being that God said he wasnt "the author of confusion" so why did everything get so confused after paul's "conversion"?.....peace

Surenderer, don't worry about being direspectful, I enjoy hearing what people think about the topic. :) You confused me a little bit with the part about who wrote the gospels.

Yes I do believe that God inspired the council as to what books to include. The gospels were written by four people, all of whom were diciples of Jesus. The trinity is a difficult thing to understand. I don't fully understand it myself, but I'll see what I can explain. THe Hebrew word for God is Elohim. It has a meaning of an all powerfull being, but it is in the plural; it is refering to the Father, Son, and Spirit. the trinity thefefore, in infact the same as God. Jesus taught that if you followed him, he would provide you with eternal life. this is then saying, if you follow Jesus, who is God, you will be saved! Before Jesus died, the law had to be followed to atone for sin. after Jesus died (when Paul was preaching) the law was no longer required. Jesus was the atonement. People get confused because there were alot of changes. Put it plainly, God is not the author of confusion, Satan is. He wants to mislead people, and confusion is one way of doing that. Paul wrote several letters to the new churches and this is because they were getting confused, so the letters explained more to them.

Does this make sense?

Well then you are saying that The Council of Nicea whom decided what would be in the bible must had been God inspired because ...
This is ignorance run amok. The Council of Nicea made no such decision. The Canons voted on at Nicea are available here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm).

Of course, if it is all proven true, then there's no need for faith. So, while those who don't believe will come to believe and say, "Oh...Ok. Cool. It's true. Whaddayaknow?" And the ones who already DO believe will now suddenly be that much less special because faith is now out of the picture. So the world will be full of faithless believers. What's the point in that?

I think it's only some sort of smug potential for a big ol' hardy-hardy-har-har that makes some believers really hope everything is true so they can jam in into the faces of the skeptics. If that's the case, their faith is weak, indeed. It's as if, deep down, they have to make everyone else believe in order to shore up their own belief ... It can't really be true unless everyone believes it. Like when you buy something and find out later that that item is considered by everyone to have ever reviewed it to be the best made, and if you bought it, you made a great choice and are, obviously, a smart shopper.

Surenderer, don't worry about being direspectful, I enjoy hearing what people think about the topic. :) You confused me a little bit with the part about who wrote the gospels.

Yes I do believe that God inspired the council as to what books to include. The gospels were written by four people, all of whom were diciples of Jesus. The trinity is a difficult thing to understand. I don't fully understand it myself, but I'll see what I can explain. THe Hebrew word for God is Elohim. It has a meaning of an all powerfull being, but it is in the plural; it is refering to the Father, Son, and Spirit. the trinity thefefore, in infact the same as God. Jesus taught that if you followed him, he would provide you with eternal life. this is then saying, if you follow Jesus, who is God, you will be saved! Before Jesus died, the law had to be followed to atone for sin. after Jesus died (when Paul was preaching) the law was no longer required. Jesus was the atonement. People get confused because there were alot of changes. Put it plainly, God is not the author of confusion, Satan is. He wants to mislead people, and confusion is one way of doing that. Paul wrote several letters to the new churches and this is because they were getting confused, so the letters explained more to them.

Does this make sense?






yes i understand what you are saying but what about the people who died before Jesus? how did they recieve atonement? Didnt Jesus say he didnt come to change any laws? he said he came to confirm the laws of Moses right? then why did it all change after he died? If the gospels were all inspired by God then why dont they match? One says Judas hung himself (matthew 27:1-5) another said he died from a fall (acts 1: 15-18) they both cant be right can they? and if not which one? if Jesus was a part of the trinity did he know he was going to die? then why on the cross did he ask "why have thou forsaken me"? would a God ask that? thats not the devil's doing that what you are saying God inspired man to write. What about Isiah 43:10 and 46:9 and 44 6-8 these verses dont claim trinity.......peace

"One says Judas hung himself (matthew 27:1-5) another said he died from a fall (acts 1: 15-18) they both cant be right can they"

Good questions! Most schollars take this to mean that he hung himself from from a tree, and eventually the rope broke, and his body burst open exposing his entrails. Acts doesn't say that he died from a fall, just that he did fall. Just a side note, Acts isn't conidered a gospel, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are.

Acts 1:18
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.(NAS)

In the old testament times, in order to be saved, people were faithful to God, by sacrificing to him and following the Old Testament rules. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, so after He died, all people had to do was trust in Jesus for forgivment. Now the reason we don't go around intentionaly lying and stealing is because we want to show God how greatful we are of Him saving us.



Jesus knew that He was going to die, it was not something He wanted to do, and yet He did it willingly becuase it was His Father's will. At that moment on the cross, Jesus became all the sin of the world. Because of that, God could not look upon Him, for God is holy and sin is not. Jesus was with God all the time, and now His Father turned His face away, and Jesus hadn't done any thing wrong. It was utter torment for Him, yet he knew it must be done so that humans could have fellowship with God.

John 16:19
...'A little while, and you will not see Me, and a little while, and you will see Me'(NAS)

Luke 22:42,44
saying," Father if you are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not my will, but Yours be done." And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.(NAS)

The word trinity, is formed when you combine the words tri and unity. It's kind of like saying a horse has a head, a body, and a tail, but it's still one horse. It is a difficult thing to comprehend, I know.

Does this make sense?

This is ignorance run amok. The Council of Nicea made no such decision. The Canons voted on at Nicea are available here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm).





http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm

Well then you are saying that The Council of Nicea whom decided what would be in the bible must had been God inspired because ...This is ignorance run amok. The Council of Nicea made no such decision. The Canons voted on at Nicea are available here (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm).http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm

Fool! Did you understand any of what you read in the cited text? Did you even bother to read it?

Please show us where http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm suggests that the "Council of Nicea ... decided what would be in the bible".

Consequent Athiest:
I DO have access to Hebrew/ Greek texts. I can go to a christian book store and find a Greek New Testament, or Hebrew Old testament. I can email my pastor and he can provide me with them. It's not really hard to find, just takes some time to understand if you don't know the language your reading very well.

Dreamwalker:
I think christianity is more than a cult. There has to be something more to it if people are willing to die for it, and not just a few; thousands of them,and all through history. Do you agree somewhat? The Bible was written by 40+ authors, on 3 continants, in 3 differant langauges, over a span of 1,500 years. Yet through all this, the Bible constantly maintains a theme of Gog's redemption of mankind. Taken all of the above, it seems highly unlikely that this text could be commposed and believed and read today, unless you credit a supernatural being with inspiring the work. Or you could come to the conclusion that this book is radom texts jumbled together, which in my mind doesn't seem very likely.

SouthStar:
Your right! Having something inspired and having something dictated are two seperate things. But if you look at what the word inspirated means in the Bible, it is shown that this was a supernatural event. It's not just guys saying: I think this is how this event occured or this sounds good, lets write it down. It was the Holy Spirit guiding them leading them, saying you need to share this with other people. That's why the differant books sound slightly differant. Each was written by people of differant walks of life. David was a king. Luke was a doctor. those were educated people. And then there's people like Jonh and James. They were fishermen. They didn't have much education. I think it just all adds to the uniquness of the Bible.

Goodness gracious! :bugeye:

Somebody actually agreed with me on the first try.. :D

*************
M*W: There are so many discrepancies in the Bible that they are too numerous to list here. This subject has been rehashed many times on this forum. Even if some events may have been historically true, how does one determine that the spiritual truths are infallible? There's no way to do that. Paul commissioned Luke to write a gospel. Luke and Paul were close associates. In fact, the gospel of Luke does not mean it was written by Luke. Paul also had Luke write the Acts. There is no proof of any of it. Please explain what you mean by "scrutinized and tested numerous times and by whom?

I will write a few quotes from McDowell's book, More Than A Carpenter.

"By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscripts (the John Ryland manuscript, A.D. 130; the Chester Beatty Papyri, A.D. 155; and the Bodmer Papyri II, A.D. 200) bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later data."

Sir Williams Ramsay, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived paid little attention initiallity to the New Testament in his research on the history of Asia Minor. He was however forced to conclude after investigation that "Luke is a historian of the first rank...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but was rather a mid-first-century account.

The New Testament and Oral Tradition
Simon Kristemaker, professor of Bible at Dordt College, writes: "Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time. But in conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the Gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation. In terms of the form-critical approach, the formation of the individual Gospel units must be understood as a telescoped project with accelerated course of action."

A careful at 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12, 25 shows the careful preservation and the existence of a genuine tradition of recording these words. In the Jewish religion it was customary for a student to memorize a rabbi's teaching. A good pupil was like "a plastered cistern that loses not a drop" (Mishna, Aboth, ii, 8)

When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarassing in contarst. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Illiad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament.

Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death.

Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1400 year-gap, and only five MSS are in existence.

The history of Thucydides (560-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1300 years after he wrote. The MSS of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F. Bruce concludes, No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals."

The New Testament Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee adds: "Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings fo the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the number of extant MSS in many instanes so small, it is clear that the reliability of the New Testament is likewise assured."


--------------

By now my hands hurt from typing so much. I hope your doubts about the New Testaments' historicity are now quelled. Remember, the historical reliability of the Scripture should be tested by the SAME criteria that all historical documents are tested by.

"One says Judas hung himself (matthew 27:1-5) another said he died from a fall (acts 1: 15-18) they both cant be right can they"

Good questions! Most schollars take this to mean that he hung himself from from a tree, and eventually the rope broke, and his body burst open exposing his entrails. Acts doesn't say that he died from a fall, just that he did fall. Just a side note, Acts isn't conidered a gospel, only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are.

Acts 1:18
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.(NAS)

In the old testament times, in order to be saved, people were faithful to God, by sacrificing to him and following the Old Testament rules. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, so after He died, all people had to do was trust in Jesus for forgivment. Now the reason we don't go around intentionaly lying and stealing is because we want to show God how greatful we are of Him saving us.

Does this make sense?

Thought this might prove interesting:

The key to understanding what Luke wanted us to understand is found in the following passage:

“And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.” (Luke 5:37)

Old skins cannot expand to accommodate the gases released from still-fermenting new fine, while new ones are still elastic enough to accommodate the release of gas. Luke was expecting his readers would see that Judas was holding on to the old law, the old way of thinking, and was unable to accommodate the new teachings of Jesus; thus, the Judas with the old ideas burst open just as does an old wineskin filled with new wine. Luke clearly never meant for his readers to take his description of Judas literally.

The only place in the New Testament (NIV) where the words "burst" are used are in the three parallel verses dealing with wineskins, and the one place in the rest of the New Testament where the word is used to describe what happened to Judas. Here are the references:

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Mark 2:22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

Luke 5:37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

Acts 1:18 Acts 1 Acts 1:17-19 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

This is not a coincidence, I believe; Luke is telling us in Acts that just as old wineskins burst when new wine is poured into them, so did the one with old ideas and beliefs (Judas) "burst" when new teachings (from Jesus) tried to enter him.

How Did Judas Die? (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/judas.html)

I don't think the wineskins relate to Judas as much as they do to the Pharasees, John's diciples and the rigid rules they follow. In context, the paragraph relates to the Pharasees asking why Jesus and His disciples didn't fast (in preperation of the coming Messiah). Jesus resopnds by saying that if your heart is hardend like like the old wineskins you will never be able to fully "hold" God's truth.

Goodness gracious! :bugeye:

Somebody actually agreed with me on the first try.. :D
Apparently a sequel to Dumb and Dumber ...

Thankfully though, they don't have to compeat over who's dumbest since you've already filled that position. :D

Show us where http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/nicaea.htm suggests that the "Council of Nicea ... decided what would be in the bible".

The Bible is NOT "the directly dictated word of God"

Yes it is, if you believe what the Bible says is true.
II Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teachimg, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."
II Peter 1:21
"For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God"That's true. Also from what I've understood the prophets used friends to write down the insights that they got, I guess because it would be hard to keep the concentration if they had to write down everything themselves.

I think the prophets were very careful that what was written actually was what they had experianced, to keep it true. But of course there might have been some mistakes, but the general message is still there, the exact facts aren't as important as the message of the facts. If it says "110 men" in one place and "112 men" in another place, it doesn't matter that much, it doesn't change the message into something else.

I am intrigued by the fact that the Bible has survived this long, and that some books of it wasn't found as late as the 1950's.