You Christians sure are a hostile bunch. Why is it that Randall cant just express his opinion without you having to resort to name calling, Troop? Check out Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 in your Bible and there are references to the Book of Jasher (which no longer exists) just for starters. Ill post more verses that refer to lost books of the Bible if you need more proof. Doo-doo head.

troop, ever hear of the Council of Nicaea? That was the main purpose to the council, to decide what books would be included in the "official" bible of the Roman church. That effort of Emperor Constantine is also why Christmas is celebrated on the date Mithra was born.

History is not opinion. History is facts. And Ehrman simply made up "his story" from unsubstantiated "comments" which are not facts. He does not in his book, nor can he, sustantiate any of the so-called truths that he uses. This issue is not new, except perhaps for Ehrman. It has been dealt with more than adequately in the past. But Ehrman must "publish or perish" at UNC-CH. Therefore, he justs makes up his facts or else he lies outright. This is why no one but an academic trusts an academic anymore. They have become charlatans and an university education has become an unnecessary luxury. The idea that a university education is meaningless has become more than a popular talking point.

mikeljhn, I guess that explains the Republican and Tea Party to a tee. Just keep believing that a university education is meaningless and you will continue to produce a society that believes in fairy tails, fantasy and folklore. Critical thinking and reasoning skills are essential if we are to continue to progress.

As far as the contention of this article, it is and has been well known among religious historians that many books in the New Testament are thought to be forgeries. Some people even claim that William Shakespeare did some of the "ghost writing" for the early bibles.

Ultimately, it comes down to a "personal decision" for every individual. After all we come into this world individually and that's the way we will leave it. If there is a "Heaven" then everyone will most likely get the answer to their question once they leave this plane of existence.

Dear mikeljhn,

You are exposing your ignorance about scholarship, and I suspect, a lack of education which bred that ignorance.

If you truly think -- no, scratch that -- if you *believe* that "no one but an academic trusts an academic anymore" and "a university education is meaningless", don't go to the doctor or to a hospital. Don't use a lawyer. Those people were trained at universities and often publish scholarship. Throw away the computer on which you typed your response. Get rid of all of your technology and your medicines and go live in a cave. Don't enjoy the benefits of modern life that were produced by people educated at universities.

You are part of the cult of ignorance that is destroying the Republic and rapidly turning this country down the path to being a second- or even third-rate one.

P.S. You don't seem to know jack about what constitutes "history". Thus spake I, a historian.

Sayitaintso I strongly disagree with your statement. Generalizations are bad no matter how you do them. While you can apply your standards to some of them not all of them are like that and I have seen things on the liberal side that makes me shake my head just as much but I am not foolish enough to lump them all together in the same group. As much as I look at the bible and all religious texts and categorize them as stories that have morals to them I still don't think that every written work is a moral bound work that I must abide to live a better life. If that were the case I would be learning every form of martial art, dressing like a bat, and jumping off of rooftops. So instead of trying to say that everyone is bad because they are from a certain political party try to remember what The Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.".

Good morning everybody.

Once again Alan you have been a naughty boy and opened a can of worms for the intolerant to feast on.

And, once again, I am forced to step in as the voice of reason. It's a dirty job, but someone has got to do it.

Ok, folks, once more with feeling.

"FAITH" requires no proofs of justifications. If you believe in God and the Bible, then you have FAITH and that should be sufficient for you. All the rationalizations and nay-sayers should not raise your hackles or require you to lash out at the unbelievers. You should be secure and content in your faith.

Non-believers, why must you bait those who seek comfort from the Bible and their God? Yes, great evil has been done and will be done in the name of religion and poking the faithful with the inconsistencies contained in their holy book is like a holy crusade to you. Why?

We have freedom of religion in this country. As long as you are not harming any living thing you may practice your religion, follow your chosen mythology or choose not to follow any mythology as you wish.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Christian. I am an aetheist, or a "Secular Humanist" if you prefer. But I do not begrudge the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Shinto, the Catholic, the Mormon or the "pastaferrians" their preferred mythology. As long as you're not harming anyone you have my blessing to follow whatever mythology gets you through the night and makes your life journey more bearable.

So, c'mon everybody, give it a rest. If you believe, no further proof should be necessary. If you do not believe then show some tolerance for those who do, just don't elect them to your local school board or text-book committee and you should all get along just fine.

I've said it a million times and I'll say it again.

Religion fails not just on multiple levels, but on all levels.

Emotionally, spiritually, philosophically, intellectually....

Why are we so blind to this?

Who looks through the very real revelations that a telescope and a microscope have to offer and thinks: "meh, I find much more beauty within this book." It boggles the mind .... such beauty and grace for all to behold ... and we can't even get past our own tribal notions of truth to bear witness to such a glory.

I can't even count the amount of times I've listened to the religious scientists who still try and rectify the majesties of science with what they find through scripture. "The god of the bible is magnified by the scope of the universe, and we can see his work well defined," we are told.

Really?

How can a scientific mind look at the unquantifiable and claim any such reality of truth? How can you define terms that are indefinable?

If there was a god (which there could be) wouldn't he/she/it surely be well beyond the grasp and confines of our tribal, dogmatic "holy" books. Wouldn't the very nature of these scriptures be an insult to such a beautiful creature?

I submit that they would. And, I beg no ego into question for making such a claim. As, I freely admit that I don't know ... but I'm pretty sure neither do you.

By itself, the suggestion that nearly half of Paul's epistles and both of Peter's were not written by Peter or Paul is not all that surprising. Most scriptural scholars, even those who are true believers, acknowledge that's the likeliest explanation for the New Testament's disagreements in narrative and anomalies in writing style.

I ask all science-minded faithful out there: How can any rational mind read such a statement and still claim the right to free inquiry? Are you not, through this very submission, forfeiting your claim to evidence? If you find "revelation" through such indoctrinations, and claim any sense of "truth" through these means .... I simply ask the question:

What evidence can you provide someone who obviously doesn't value evidence?

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
--Douglas Adams

"History is not opinion. History is facts"

_________________________________________

The Bible is not history. it is pseudo history. And this is hardly new information. we know almost certainly the authorship of much of this tome is unknown. It was common practice to attribute someone'sname of importance to documents in those times. Nevermind that much of this when finally written down was done from oral repetition. We all know the childhood game of starting with a phrase then having it circulate around the room from person to person and then noting the difference from the beginning. Clearly there are absurd exaggerations in the Bible that result from this process. Never comes back the same. Never mind that there is about a 40 year gap between the supposed death of Christ and any written account of that event. Surely embellishment occurred.

Why are Christians in such denial of the actual known history?If you want to believe in something it would seem essential to research its roots. And independently, not by the view of the Church which obviously holds a biased interest.

To be clear I am an agnostic and rationalist largely because of my research on the Bible. It should come as no surprise after reading the Old Testament that a prophet was created. The disturbing part is how little information we have on the life of Jesus. The birth story is clearly factually inaccurate, there is but slight mention of Jesus in his youth and only the very last years of his supposed life are chronicled. No mention of his existence is made by any historian until nearly a century after his death and then only from well beyond third person accounts

Most Christians refuse to hear any of this or discount it all based on faith. That is there perogative but it makes the story no more factually accurate.

Skip

I think you completely gloss over many of the points your fellow unbelievers are making in regards to stories such as this.

No one cares if people find beauty, grace and peace through their personal relationship with god. If people could simply do that (keep it personal) we wouldn't even need to have this discussion.

The problem is, religion is the greatest tool our society enforces upon the masses in order to cripple scientific progress and reinforce tribalistic, dogmatic, social injustices.

As Jefferson said:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

But, it's when the personal liberties of the few are trampled on by the personal reflections of the many that our society breaks down. Religion, while not the only culprit, can be a polarizing and major force within this concept.

It's not what defines "religion" that we fight, it's the cognitive dissidence that breaks down the rational mind that we oppose. It's the poison within that destroys critical thinking that we must combat. It's not a crusade against religion that we support, it's a fight to restore the sanity and the beauty and the power of the phrase "I don't know" in the face of theocratic meanderings of "truth, and revelation."

It's only through the power of admitting that we don't have all the right answers, that we can finally unite on a mutual path of understanding .... and who knows ... maybe figure some of this stuff out along the way. Together, as human beings. As cognitive, sentient beings who share the human condition. Not separately as christians, muslims or jews.

"Non-believers, why must you bait those who seek comfort from the Bible and their God?"

Because people that allow medieval mythology to guide their thinking are inherently dangerous to society at large. What they believe and practice in their private lives is not a problem nor any business of ours, but when those beliefs intrude into politics and how the law is applied (stem cell research, planned parenthood, LGBT rights, etc.) it becomes a national problem and we seek to point out the error of their ways in the hopes that they will achieve enlightenment.

As a counter example, look at the hostility towards Islam in this country. Is it caused by people that disagree with the words of Muhammad? No, it's caused by people who take his words a little too seriously (ok, a LOT) doing crazy things and killing a bunch of people. Religion is dangerous because it grants people a moral license to commit heinous acts, that is why we point out every discrepancy in their faith in the vain hope that a few might develop some critical thinking skills.

Today, student loan debt is approaching $1T, exceeding the collective US credit card debt. Over the last thirty years, education costs have increased tenfold, healthcare costs sixfold, and inflation threefold. Thus, universities have been called "the US debt machine, a national disgrace'. Over the same thirty years, the far-left has dominated the academic community, leading many to question the value of a college degree. The cause and effect relationship between a college degree and entrpreneurship is unestablished, and the worth of a degree is more that a fashionable idea but an idea that cuts to the quick of the academic far left. Read the article in the NY Times letter entitled "The University Has No Clothes". Also, just Google "failure of higher education" and read some of the myriad of articles that come in response. Now, this is the state of credibility of those who question the historicity of the Bible and the value of faith in the world today. Just tell me why I should listen to any of these morons wax elequent about history, religion, science, or anything. They simply cannot be trusted. The far leftys on these pages cannot be given any factual veracity. Not one word has been written here by them that has substance much less credibility. They are all "historical ignorant miscreants".

This isn't news, I've known this since I was like 10 years old.

Mike,

So essentially, you're in agreement with individuals like the Texas school board. The ones who basically rewrite (or simply omit) any individual from the textbooks (like Jefferson) who doesn't provide the correct and appropriate christian, right-wing narrative with which you agree with? So, essentially, let's just appropriate academia to fit your standards of "higher learning"?

Furthermore, I must submit your post for hypocrisy of the day.

In one paragraph, you rally vehemently against "social leftists" .... yet at the same time, defend your notions of faith through your designated savoir, Christ. Do you seriously not see how funny this is?

I can think of few historical figures that would be as socialistic and leftist as Christ.

Why do christians rally against what they purport to believe in so fervently?

Some weeks ago after the Japanese quake, I asked why after such a disaster people prey to their god; the christian element castigated me with foul language and threats of eternal damnation.

I still do not understand the god thing and even less so religion. Religion is a crutch for the feeble minded, those who desire someone/something to cling to.

As to the subject of this blog: The bible and it's teaching are a guide to humanity on how to be civilized, as postulated by a particular sect. The Qumran, basically the same set of guidelines followed by a different sect. Both documents are a thousand plus years old, if taken on face value, and were relevant to mankind of that era, and to some extent modern man could be guided by some of its content.

However it must be born in mind religion is a man made thing (man being the operative word here). If you believe that a god created all we are & all we see go and worship that god in a forest, on a beach at sunrise, in a meadow full of flowers, stare into a volcano, whatever, but one must differentiate between god and religion

Folks, thanks for the votes and for the civil responses.

I totally agree that great evil has been done in the name of religion, ALL religions and sadly, that will continue to be the case until the end of time. The Hindus hate the Moslems, the Baptists hate the Catholics, and in the words of Tom Lehrer "....and everybody hates the Jews." (National Brotherhood Week by Tom Lehrer) Those who claim most vociferously that they are "Christians" rarely exemplify the teachings of the Jesus, whom they claim to worship.

Likewise, I stated very clearly that I was against them (religious zealots of any stripe) being elected to School Boards or Text Book committees or public office in general. Look at what's happening in Texas and poor Kansas. It's very sad.

But poking them with sticks and jibes about their beliefs is not the answer.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing, it is a waste of time and it annoys the pig.

Tolerance and Vigilance is what I preach. Leave the rest of it alone.

I was going to stay out of this, but mike... You don't really seem to understand how historians work or how universities work, or at least not very well. "Publish-or-perish" is in fact, a "civilian" idea and is very much misunderstood by the general public. Professor Ehrman's position is secure, both by his scholarship and his teaching. He is not going to lose his job if "he doesn't publish something" all the time. This is part of your misunderstanding of how we work.

Professor Ehrman is, or was, Chairman of the Religious Studies Department at Chapel Hill, one of our countries most respected universities. To gain that position, his research and scholarship would have to have been above reproach and subjected to the scrutiny of all the scholars in his field in this collegial effort we call "doing history".

Research and finding which do not comport with fact, are simply not accepted as valid, and such a person cannot obtain either tenure or promotion. As a teacher, I hope that you will take the opportunity to educate yourself more fully and to attempt to control your hostility to others who differ with you. Peace to you and to your family, and I wish you a good life.

dharmakid--How naive, wrong, and putrid are your comments about academia. Publish or perish is the bane of academia. It is the way that the left controls its members. Prof. Ehrman gained his tenure by conforming to the far left domination of the university. I have been an academic for over thirty years. I have over 200 refereed publications, so I know how the game is played. I know full well what it takes to gain promotion and tenure in higher education. Just how long would Prof. Ehrman last at UNC-CH if he were a conservative scholar who voted for many Republicans. He would not last long at all. The prospects of a conservative getting a tenure track position at UNC-CH or anywhere else in the UNC system is about as good as a prostitute gaining admission to the Vatican. And by the way, is "doing history" the same as "doing physics"? No, it is not, and if you are a historian then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to offer you. Please do not try to placate those on this blog with your innane and banal comments. They are indeed "a pile of horse manure" and that is the polite-ist way that I can put it.

Mike

How does such a ravaged conservative choose such a socialized liberal as his personal savior?

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-- Mohandas Gandhi

You got it Chad. Jesus may not have been the first Liberal, but he's one of the most important liberals.

I saw that on a bumper sticker.

Mike: I am sorry that you feel that way. I meant no offense to you. Are you a physic professor? If so, congratulation on such a lengthy list of publications. That is, indeed, a formidable list of scholarly contributions. And yes, you are absolutely correct that "doing history" is not like "doing physics"; we certainly have no disagreement there.

Tenure and promotion, as I am sure you know, if you are a physics professor is based on scholarship, teaching, and service to the community. Publications are required (not sure why you use the term "bane of academia"), but they are only one component in a scholar's life.

I am sorry if all of this has caused you to become angry, at least your post seems to indicate anger, and hope that you will let that anger go. Your ad hominem attacks and your fallacies of false dicotomy not only detract from helpful discussion, but hurt your ability to calmly, and perhaps persuasively, state your positon. I would much perfer to hear you give a reasoned summary of your position, becasue I believe it would be more informative to us all and helpful to this community of discussion.

The UNC system has Republican thoughout, and any decent medieval historian can assure that streetwalkers often made it -- and still do -- into the Vatican.

Again, I wish you peace and happiness for you and your family.

Have to leave the discussion now. My nineteen year old cat is ill and I must take her to the vet. My first post is on page 3, it has a link to a very lengthy bibliography on ancient religions. All, please feel free to check it out.

Peace to you all. Take care and care for those around you. Help the helpless and the weak. We all may get though this together if kindness prevails and compassion endures.

Peace as well to you dharmakid, I hope your cat gets better.

Thank you, skip. That is very kind of you. She is very elderly, we found her when she fit in my shirt pocket. It would be obvious to say that we love her. She has had a long life and we have cared for her the best we could. Her older friends recently passed away at 21 and 25. It may be her time to go, as well.

Take care and be well.

He does not in his book, nor can he, sustantiate any of the so-called truths that he uses

You can't substantiate any of the so-called truths in the Bible. It's all based on faith, not evidence.

This article brings up a very valid point "style of writing"...Its a habit that is difficult to change like the way a person walks. If the scholars who study texts and writings styles notice a difference it is because they read the texts and can see the difference. I am willing to bet average people who read the bible also notice the difference. They read some writings and all of a sudden notice something written and notice they don't understand the use of verbiage of something when normally they can understand it.

Why were the writings of Mary Magdalene not added too the new testament ? She travelled with Jesus ?

The entire bible old and new is written by humans...It makes a person wonder what view a woman would have had about the old or new testament since women have no representation as writers in the entire book.

Last time I looked women make up a good portion of the population.

(excuse the typos)

Many Hebrew Scholars believe that Matthew was not a Hebrew because it is obvious that he knows nothing of the Hebrew's fondness for play on words. The example they give is that Matthew saying in his gospel that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and an ass. In my opinion, this particular scripture was not written by Matthew or was edited by a follower of his."

This play on words is also why the OT seems to contradict itself. There is much use of many words for the same thing.

Ben. Since when are BuyBull folks interested in "evidence"??

Danny--And you want me to believe that you are interested in "evidence"? That's laughable and a real load of horse manure. The Bible is first and foremost, an historical document. It has been attacked for millenia and these attacks have never stood the test of time. Yet, they keep coming back because that's all the critics have. And, the critics are part of the so-called "academic community", who must publish or perish in their unprotected little cubby holes. Since they have no facts, they mostly lie or else make up new facts which are non-facts. So, Danny Boy, you have no bloody evidence, only lies on which to base your criticisms. And you want me to believe that you care one whit about evidence. Your type of evidence is nothing but horse manure, and after centuries of application, it has become stale, horribly smelly, and very offensive to your touch.

mikel The Bible is a collection of stories that is supposed to explain how we were created and provide a framework for how to live our lives. Same with the Quaran and every other religious text out there. 2000 years ago when a plague of locusts came it was because "God" was angry with them. Not the fact that every so often there is a breeding burst that causes locusts to reach a critical mass and devour everything they could for miles before dying off. The recent deaths of the birds and fish that happened last year by the thousands would have been explained as "God" was giving us a sign that he is angry even 500 years ago. Religion for the most part was a way to explain the unexplained and control the masses. Why do you think that in every society until the last 300 years or so (not counting the catholics of course) that priests were the head honchos? The Egyptians called the Pharaoh a god given flesh or a god king. Anything to control the masses.

mikeljhn- What? How is the bible a historical document? The fact that the Vatican had to vote on each book in itself proves that it isn't histroical. Historical documents don't have editorial boards. As far as the bible having it's critics and standing the test of time, all religions can easily make such claim. The proof is that the religion makes plenty of claims but has never offered any proof or hard evidence to any of them. Where I come from, it's the ones who make the claim who bears the burden of proof, not those who questions it. Let me clearify myself. I do not have a problem with religion. If it helps you become a better person an have a positive effect on the world around you, then it's a great thing but we must keep in mind that there are those who don't need that placebo type mechanisim. Religion teaches faith in something better than what we are spritually. Science is mearly a way to get there physically. I believe more in the tagible result than intagible.

Hmmm... the Koran, Torah, and Sutras are also historical documents that have been attacked and "stood the test of time."

MIKELJHN - I suspect you haven't read Erhman's book. I have also noted over the years that the level of vitriol you are inflecting is typically either associated with a doubter who is over compensating for their own self doubt or a person whose beliefs are more of a "I was told to believe this as a child and that's what I believe" approach to religion. Typically people that believe in Christianity with a quiet, accepting faith have done enough soul searching and educated themselves on the history of the Bible enough to the acknowledge that the "Bible" is not a perfect text.

If nothing else, the logical inconsistencies in the Bible point to the potential for books and/or passages that are not from the same narrative. Stop being an ostrich.

Please provide a "logical inconsistency" so that I can enlighten myself. I have read Ehrman's book, I know him personally, and your analysis of my personality is from another planet. I really don't know what "a quiet accepting faith" is, especially when the enemies of Christianity keep spreading their brand of history to vilify and verify their vitriol. Also, you need to study exactly what is the historical veracity of the documents really consists of. Please do so before you run off at the mouth and show people what a truly uneducated person you are.

mikeljhn -I really don't know what "a quiet accepting faith"....

Maybe that's something you should consider. You might be happier if you went that route instead of going after people that don't believe as you do. You will never change my mind, and as a secular humanist, I will never change yours.

I don't want you to "believe as I do". I care less what you believe. But, when you express your "opinion" please say something new and not the same old tired hyperbole and rhetoric used by unbelievers down through the ages and answered time and time again. And why the hell should I believe that you give one tinker's damn about my happiness? What an innane worthless statement of absolutely no import.

Mikel,

I'm sorry to disagree, but describing the Bible as a book of historical fact is tantamount to (dare I abuse yet again this cliche') equating the Flintstones a documentary.

Mikeljhn,

Please, please educate yourself. History is fact written by the victor. Fact is subjective in all areas but mathematics. This is why different histories exist. After all, if history is fact, then how can both the Bible and the history of prehistoric man be fact at the same time?

@Mike - Are you stating that the Bible is a historical document in the context of just a historical document or in the context that it is historical fact. If it is the first context then I agree with you, if it is the latter, then I partially agree with you. I have not seen any evidence that disputes the Bible in its entirety, but I have read about disagreements on the authenticity of the some the books. Have I accepted the arguments for or against, no. But I am very interested in the history and the arguments. Do I believe in the Bible literally? No. Any text, be it historical or modern, is related in context to the time it was written. The language and the societal interpretations of the world around the writers has a huge impact on what is being written and for those whom it was written for. Strip away the divinity and Jesus was trying to introduce change to the Jewish system at that time. He was a progressive and he was crucified for that. He was a threat to the status quo in the Jewish hierarchy. But for those who blindly believe that the Bible has been untouched and is in its purest form, well that is your belief. For myself, the history of the Bible and other religious texts I find very interesting and useful, especially when trying to understand their viewpoints 2000 years ago.

Mike: Again, you misunderstand. Any document or set of documents, past or present is/are "historical documents", but all historical documents do not have the same order of value as "historical sources". Many documents from the past contain errors, or sometimes, knowing or unknowing falsehoods, or are just inaccurate. For instance, think of the many early variations on the exact details of the SEAL attack no the bin Laden compound. Historians will be interested in all of those, as well as how, the early confusion came about, what really happened, what was the sequence, was the final account accurate, and so forth.

The bible does, indeed, discuss many verifiable historical places, people, and occurrances. No legitimate scholar disputes that. However, because a document is identifed as "historical" , does not mean that one can automatically say that it is all "true fact". And even among facts, there are varying orders of values, which is too long a discussion for here. Peace to you and your family.

First, it is all a matter of presuppositions. Most critics of the Bible begin with the simple presupposition that "miracles do not occur in nature" and since the Bible describes certain miracles that occured in nature, such as the resurrection of Jesus, then it must not be an historical document. This is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy and anathema to any real historian. My position is very simple. Begin with the historical statements and content of the Bible. Show me one that is proven historically incorrect in its basic content. When examined in this manner, the Bible proves to be one of the best attested historical documents ever examined. We can believe that "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" and "Pontius Pilate was curator of Judah" for the exact same historical reasons. If we examine the resurrection described in the Bible as an historical event, none of the historical statements about the resurrection can be disproved, such as the fact that there were over 500 eye witnesseses alive when Luke wrote his gospel account. Now, do you dismiss this historical event because you believe that miracles of nature simply do not occur? If you do, then you are the historical charlatan, and not me.

I'm sorry sir, but my stipulation about the bible as a historically (in)accurate document stands... find my earlier post and read it, it trumps that last, specious, arguement of yours.

Mikeljhn; you ask for logical incosistencies? I give you The Skeptics Annotated Bible.

skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

* How many sons did Abraham have?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abes_sons.html

* How old was Abraham when Ismael was born?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/abram_ishmael.html

... want something more substative than age or number disagreements? Fine...

* Is it wrong to commit adultry?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/adultery.html

* Did Jesus tell the deciples everything?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/allthings.html

...How about something simnple and concrete?

* How was the universe created?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

* What were the names of Jesus Christ's deciples?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/apostles.html

..Or, even better, let's just ask the Bible what should we believe?

skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/believe.html

There are currently over 450 documented contradictions on the site.

Have you ever heard of the Mark 16 controversy? Or the Q document?

Please, look up some stuff and educate yourself. I don't mean to ask you to change your beliefs, you are more than welcome to them. But it would be in everybodies best interest if you knew these things before hand.

If we examine the resurrection described in the Bible as an historical event, none of the historical statements about the resurrection can be disproved

You do realise that there are conflicting accounts of the resurection, don't you?

How can conflicting accounts be "historically accurate"? One of them is, by the very nature of conflict, wrong.

Look up the Mark 16 cotroversy and see if you can support the historicity to the Bible.

I am sorry, Mike, but again, I find it necessary to disagree.

You misunderstand at a very basic level how historians approach the text and what historians do. And your claims of accuracy do not stand up to even the simplist test. And our notions of what is historical and what is not in the bible do not begin and end or rise and fall on the questions of miracles. We all agree that individuals in that time and place believed in such things, and that that belief affected how the acted. And we all agree that they recorded these things in good faith. It was part of their world view.

May I make a suggestion. Do you know what a Harmony of the Gospels is? It is a set of gospels, where each episode, if it occurs, is laid out side by side, with the same episode in other gospels.

Turn to the story of the demoniac and the pigs. Irrespective of whether miracles occur, we are told that the pigs run into the sea and drown, correct? Well the city mentioned in Mark (and Luke, as he copies Mark), is 35 miles and three ranges of mountains from the Sea of Galilee. Matthew knows something is wrong and moves the story to a town only about five miles from Galilee. Clearly, something is inaccurate, somewhere.

In Mark and Matthew, John baptizes Jesus, but in Luke, John is already in prison and Jesus is baptized during a general baptism of the people, and so it goes.

Not trying to be an asshat or anything. Just encouraging you to read, in order for you to make your arguments more clear and precise and in a less disordered fashion. Once again, Peace to you.

."The Bible is first and foremost, an historical document."

You're kidding right? The Bible is myth, related to the known world of the time. You do realize this was a time of tremendous scientific ignorance where fear and superstition ruled?

The Bible suggests the Earth is contained in a vault. We have found that vault quite infinite in size. We also know that lightning can cause a bush to burn and is that is not the wrath of God but rather an easily explainable atmospheric event.

It is just sad that belief has made many ignorant (not a pejorative) in an age where we do find some answers. Yet religion has long attempted to constrain science. Perhaps the reason for our existence is not for man to know or understand. If there were some all powerful entity controlling it all such a being would be of indefinable intelligence to humans. In other words we could not relate. There would be little point in grovelling to such an entity. Begging for forgiveness or asking for salvation (praying in general). These would surely be meaningless acts.

More than anything religion is about the fear of death. If we believe that there is an infinite existence it reinforces man's place in the grand scheme of things. We are then a superior being. To say death is the final act and that we just rot in the ground is perhaps not a pleasant thought but it is a far more likely reality than heaven and hell.

@Mike - For the account of Jesus' resurrection, other than the Bible's, can you give references to these accounts. First, for my personal interests and secondly, for alternative or matching descriptions to the Bible's account. I like reading different perspectives to events, not so much for one particular truth, but for the perspectives themselves. The perspectives can sometimes show something about the person who wrote it or observed it.

So, you give me the skeptics bible. This is old hat. I have read every criticism contained in this rag. The best response to it is "The Big Book of Bible Difficulties" by Geisler and Howe. The skeptics bible contains over 6000 supposed contradictions, and each and every one of them has been addressed. including the story of the demoniac and the pigs. This supposed contradiction was introduced almost 200 years ago, and has been addressed by many scholars. Unfortunately, the far left critics don't read history, except their own brand, so these contradictions keep coming up in different venues by pseudo-intellectuals who quite frankly don't know their ass from first base. Finally, the question of death is nothing but a red herring, to draw our attention away from the most formidable of questions, which is why are we here and what is our destiny. We may "just rot in the ground" but to argue that is a far more likely reality than heaven or hell is a very sure and certain sign of some fool whistling through the graveyard.

darmakid--You bring up the story of the demoniac and the pigs, you tell me to read some Harmony of the Gospels, and then you say, QED--the Bible is historically inaccurate. Just which Harmony are you referring to? Why don't you just look up "Legion" on Wikipedia for their answer to the question you raise, or perhaps you might read the article "The Deliverance of the Demoniac"? I easily found ten answers to the question you raise, which again is a red herring that diverts us from the fundamental questions. Surely, you cannot be an history professor and use this tripe to justify your unbelief. The issue of the historical location of where the demoniac was rescued and the demon transferred to the swine has been answered time and time again, more than adequately, and you want me to place some confidence in your abilities as a historian. Surely, you jest. I am sorry about your cat, though.

well, i see your shrieking and screeching is still alive and growing. LOL!

TReed--If your interest in the resurrection is real, then I would refer you to the recent 750 page tome by J. T. Wright entitled "The Resurrection of the Son of God". This contains the best history and extra-biblical sources that you would find most enlightening. Please forgive me if I do not respond further, because I have found that the people responding on these pages are not really interested in answers. They are only interested in seeing their names in print, and nailing the poor, pathetic Christians to the wall. I have grown very cynical by reading these pages every day. I must stop, but somehow I am drawn to idiots and the myriad of ways that they can express their unbelief.

Mike: thank you for your kindness regarding my cat. She is very ill and I appreciate your thoughts, that means a lot.

A harmony is, as I say, the gospel stories side-by-side. Nothing more. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for many things. We give people "F"s for using Wikipedia. I am sure that there are many theories; I don't recall proposing one, only that inaccuracies seem to exist in the story. what were some of the more convincing theories you found? I would like to know them.

Did you get a chance to look at the baptism story, yet? Let me know what you think. We, at least I, am very interested in answers, just having some difficulty separating answer from what some people might consider abuse. However, if you are a kind enough person to tell me you are concerned about my cat, then I am sure that you don't mean anything negative in what you say. Come, let us reason together as men of good will. I hope you have a safe and happy weekend. Take care.

I think this is a perfect example of "Teach the controversy" that christians seem so keen on. If they want to teach Intelligent design in science class, then it should be mandatory to teach the innacuracy of the bible in Religion class.

mikejhn: but somehow I am drawn to idiots

Ah, finally - we see your reason for going to church...

Danny--Just how do you know that I go to church? And just who the hell mentioned "intelligent design". Why do you atheists keep bringing up "dead (red) herrings", non-issues with no content or meaning. I conclude it is because you have nothing knowledgeable to say. By the way, have any of you read the Bible all the way through? From, the conversations I doubt that any of you have. I have read all the atheist books from Voltaire and Rousseau through Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet. They are boring and unfruitful but I do it so that I won't be like you guys, ignorant and uninformed. And don't tell me you have read the Bible for the Bible says that "Thou shall not bear false witness" and if you do then you're going straight to Hell. That's hell with a capital H for you ignorant and uninformed unbelievers.

Darmakid:

I love animals, all animals, but mainly dogs and cats. I now have a dog, an English Setter named Stonewall after my favite civil war general. I don't trust anyone who doesn't love animals, and those who mistreat animals deserve a special place in the deepest part of Hell.

My life's path has led me from atheism to Christianity. I have known many atheists and unbelievers. Most have not been friendly or amicable relations. However, one of my best friends, was an atheist for many years, who died of lung cancer in 2009. According to his wife, another close friend, he converted to Christianity on his death bed two hours before he died. I believe her and because of him I have studied extensively in the realm of unbelief for over thirty years. I can say with certainty that I do not know of a single example of a purported historical contradiction or inconsistency in the Bible that does not have a rational answer or explanation. On these pages, it seems that you guys never introduce anything new and you expect me (or someone like me) to answer your objections, time and again ad nauseum. I have plenty of time to do battle, but I wish that once in a while something substantial could be introduced instead of the same old meaningless banter that comes from your side. I feel obligated to respond but I do so with much anger and resentment. Enough said from me.

Mikeljhn- "I have read Ehrman's book, I know him personally". I'm sure you have and sure you do. That's why you're having this discussion on a forum on MSNBC and not debating your views with him personally. Sorry to sound cynical but the fallacy of your claims and views are getting to big to ignore, Mikeljhn.

Mike - thanks for the reference. I will look into it. I search for knowledge, scientific, historical and religious. Do I believe everything? No. I like reading different perspectives to try to understand all of the point of views, even ones I don't agree with. There are things in the Bible that I struggle with because I have an analytical mind, but I also have seen what strong faith can produce. But in my mind, I use science and math to understand the world around me because these are tools that come easy to me. But I also meditate, it help clears my mind and is my preferred method of prayer. My biggest problem with modern religions is my feeling of a loss of spirituality in the churches. It could be me, but is one of those things for me to resolve.

Jandi1--I don't really give a damn about your skepticism of my claims. I do know him, I have discussed these very issues with him, and the discussions on these pages simply took the direction they took because of the respondents. In fact, one other respondent, Darmakid, works in the same department at UNC-CH that Ehrman retired from. I'm not trying to impress you. You are about as significant as a nit on a nat's nut, the same as me in the overall scheme of things. So take your banal comment and retreat to your bat cave or wherever the hell it is that you hang out.

he "knows" him, probably in the same way he "knows" the jesus-myth.

ugh... the mindlessness...

for the Bible says that "Thou shall not bear false witness" and if you do then you're going straight to Hell.

I love the supposition that having read the Bible you can't help but believe it. As for "The Big Book of Bible Difficulties" I find it impossible to rely on a defense that presupposes the inerrancy of the Bible. You can't use the Bible to prove itself, that's ridiculous. And the fact that you find it easy to present the argument you pose above tells me that you accept this ridiculousness and fall right in line with the lack of critical ability needed to be objective in this argument.

Yours is the worst kind of faith - Blind faith.

Actually, I don't work in the same department as Professor Ehrman, nor do I have the honor of knowing him, as you apparently do, Mike. I teach at a different university and am the ancient historian there, as well as part of the religious studies program. So I actually, have read the Bible. It would be foolish for me to teach classes such as the History of Christianity, the Historical Jesus, and the Early Church if I hadn't. I did ask once, out of curiosity, how many in my class of 180 students could name all four gospels, only fours students and only one had read them all. Yet, most professed to be believers. Interesting irony, there.

I was raised the son of a pastor and did my stint in the pulpit when I was many years younger. Now I am only interested in the academic side of the question of religion. I have no interest in it as a matter of personal practice. One cannot really be an ancient historian and hold on to the delusions of religion, in my experience. But one can still find the whole matter infinitely fascinating. And one can still work to be a good person.

Like you, I try to read on all sides of the matter. One can learn from everyone. But I also try to bear in mind the wisdom of Lao Tzu, who said the true mark of a moderate man is non-attachment to his own ideas. I hope that whatever anger I may have had toward others, if I did have such anger as you say you do,....I hope that I have left it behind. It consumes too much of one's self and taints the world around one's self. A calm conversation is ever so much more intellectually and emotionally satisfying.

Actually, I don't know what "my side is". My side, if I had to describe it, would be "to teach and to learn". This is why I am interested in everyone's ideas.

And I do agree with you wholeheartedly people who abuse animals are terrible people. It is actully one of the reasons that would make me hope that there really is a hell. My cat is doing somewhat better. Thanks to all of you who had her in your thoughts.

Take care, everyone and be well.

The Bible is first and foremost, an historical document.

In my opinion it is not historical. It is a book of parables; at least the Torah and the Gospels. They are written to teach and it is said in both the OT and by Jesus that only a few would understand. Isaiah and Jesus talk about "they can look, but do not see, they can listen but not hear." One of Jesus' teachings tells us that he didn't come to destroy the law or the prophets, he can to fulfill. He says that not one letter or stroke of a pen will disappear from the law until everything has happened and not everything has come to pass or happened yet. He came to fulfill the prophecies told by the profits. He did fulfill them. Furthermore, He accentuated this by teaching that the gate and road to hell is wide and many people will find it, but the road to true life has a small gate and a narrow road that only a few will find. He taught that the only people going to heaven are the one's that do what His Father in heaven want them to do. To accomplish this, Jesus say one has to ask, seek, and knock. Why? Because when you ask you will be answered, if you seek. you will find, and when you knock, the door will be opened to you. He also taught that Heaven is right here on earth and we'll get there by understanding and doing what his Father in Heaven want us to do. The bible is just one of the blueprints for living.

that's an interesting topic, "is the creator of the universe good and in charge" i heard a Jewish sage answer a question of, were was heaven during the Holocaust? the sage answered back, "were was the creator during the Flood?" what we perceive and see is not the full story, ie: Moses asked the same question, why do evil people get rich and good people poor? The sage continued that at the "golden calf" the creator told moses" separate yourself from these people, i will wipe them out and start anew with you" was that evil? we are told time and time again, to follow the commandments and things will be good, the bible is for your sake(us), but just in case the rest of the nations do not believe, Christianity came along and gave it to the nations, yet we find that a majority of the earth are still idol worshippers, and war is rampant, the list is to long, then we have a right to ask "who is good, or "the creator does not care, and give human attributes, like "wrestle with evil" maybe it's we who have to "wrestle" with us. How does it go, i have seen the enemy, he is us.

Sid - There is tremendous amounts of physical evidence that supports the life of Al the Great. None that supports Christ.

GT speaks a lie. A proven lie. A known lie. A lie that has been known for 2000 years to be a lie.

There is more evidence for the reality of the life of Jesus of Nazareth than there is for any of His contemporaries. Julius Caesar has never in any way been as real flesh-and-blood a human figure to the pages of history as has Jesus Christ. We know where he was born, his mother's name, his foster father's name, what kind of person he was when he was twelve years old, how he began his public life, what he taught, literally and explicitly what he said, who his friends were, who his enemies were, why he was condemned, where he died, how he died, and where he was buried. The only thing that HISTORY does not know about him is where his body is. The testimony of those who saw him after he rose from the dead is not the testimony of unstable and reckless men, but the longstanding testimony of men who gave their own lives over a period of many decades holding to the affirmation that he was seen to be alive after he had been killed.

The gospels are full of many details that are absolutely consistent with the customs and daily lives of the ordinary people of the time. Nowhere else in the record of history are there so many details of the daily life of a time and place that testify so convincingly to the reality of the life of a single human being.

The kangaroo trial, the reluctance of Pilate to give in the the screaming jealousies of religios leaders, the fact of Roman crucifixion, and on and on and on tell us that this life is a real life, a real person, this history a real history. We know things about life in the first century that have only increased in detail over the centuries precisely because every generation produces its confirmed deniers who keep bringing up the same debunked nonsense over and over and the Gospel is still the foundation of all stability in human society precisely because the Truth continues to withstand every assault against it.

The devil tried his worst at Calvary, thought he had won when Christ gave up the ghost and died. But his "empty" victory was an illusion, just as is all this faux-confident smug pretentious atheistic nonsense one reads here. The name of Jesus Christ is still, as it will ever be, powerful even in the naming of it--powerful enough to get everyone talking and taking the debate seriously. Yes, even the atheists take THIS debate seriously. Otherwise they wouldn't be here whistling so loudly in the darkness that envelops their minds.

Nobody spends hours online trying to convince himself and those around him that stuffed animals are not living creatures.

Contrast that bit of nonsense with the difference between any other name you care to mention and the power to stir emotions in ALL men that lives in the name JESUS CHRIST.

Even the nonbelievers swear by Him. And that is about as telling as any FACT known to mankind.

To say that there is no physical evidence to the reality of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is to speak a lie. Whether it is an ignorant lie or a malicious lie is immaterial. It is a lie.

Boy are you wound up tight tight there John! You need to lay off those no doze. As to the physical evidence of Jesus, I've heard of no physical references to him other than in the bible myself and I do look for such while reading all kinds of news and archaeological articles.

What is evident is that by your diatribe you've put yourself down as a believer who won't be swayed by ANY evidence to the contrary of what you believe to be true.

Nora--You have no evidence, only tired old statements from Rousseau et al up to and including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Your appeals to "evidence" are shallow and covered with some smelly substance that is too old to be washed away. The evidence is there. You have "Moses and the Prophets", so why would a man rising from the dead do anything to sway a true skeptical unbeliever like you? No reason.

It would seem plausible that Peter (one of the examples Alan raised) might have had his letters written by scribes who translated his Hebrew or Aramaic dictation. That would be a reasonable explanation for why the epistles of Peter would come across as reflecting a more Greek written tradition.

Of course, without other evidence, even that is just speculation.

@Nora-616050, the ancient Jewish historian, Josephus, recorded an entry about Jesus. It is short, but it provides proof that he was a figure in history, not a mere creation in literature.

In all likelihood there was once a man named Jesus who was a wise and compassionate teacher, but he was no more the "son of god" than I am.

Ugh. Oh, hiking stick. I dont undersrtand why people like you (and mikejohn) have to hang your hat on known forgeries like josephus to make your cult and cult-creatures seem more "real" to you. But, it does make me laugh...

http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd4.html

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

http://www.apologetics.org/cslewis/viewtopic.php?t=365&view=next&sid=b977b698d17c05bce74e5e822805ad2a

The "matter" has been looked into. Many times. The assertion about Josephus is fraud. If you ever read anything other than the bible, you might know this...

Not one single passage purporting to be written, as history, within the first hundred years of the "Christian era", can be produced to show the existence at or before that time of such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ, or of such a set of men as could be accounted his disciples or followers.

Those who would be likely to refer to Jesus or his disciples, but who have not done so:

A.D. 40 Philo1

40 Josephus

79 C. Plinius Second, the Elder2 Philosophers

69 L. Ann. Seneca

79 Diogenes Laertius

79 Pausanias Geographers

79 Pompon Mela

79 Q. Curtius Ruf Historians

79 Luc. Flor

110 Cornel Tacitus

123 Appianus

140 Justinus

141 Ælianus

Out of this number it has been claimed that one (Josephus) spoke of Jesus, and another (Tacitus) of the Christians. Of the former it is almost needless to speak, as that was given up as a forgery many years ago. However, for the sake of those who still cling to it, you haven't considered the following:

1. It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

Eusebius, then, is the first person who refers to these passages. Eusebius, "whose honesty is not so great as to allow of our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine." Eusebius, who says that it is lawful to lie and cheat for the cause of Christ. [sound familiar?] This Eusebius is the sheet-anchor of reliance for most we know of the first three centuries of the Christian history. What then must we think of the history of the first three centuries of the Christian era?

2. Josephus has nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James.

3. It interrupts the narrative.

4. The language is quite Christian (Josephus was a Jew and died a Jew).

5. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it, had it actually been there then, in the original text.

6. It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

7. Under the article Justus of Tiberius, this author (Photius) expressly states that this historian (Josephus) has not taken the least notice of Christ.

8. Neither Justin, in his dialogue with Typho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, have even mentioned this testimony.

9. But, on the contrary, Origen openly affirms (ch. xxiv., bk. i, against Celsus), that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ

The celebrated passage in Tacitus which Christian divines—and even some liberal writers—attempt to support, is to be found in his Annals. In this work he is made to speak of Christians, who "had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate."

So, consider the following:

1. This passage, which would have served the purpose of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or of any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. [oops!]

2. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus.

3 It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which Pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

4. It has been nowhere stumbled upon by the laborious and all-seeking Eusebius, who could by no possibility have overlooked it, and whom it would have saved from the labor of forging the passage in Josephus; of adducing the correspondence of Christ Jesus and Abgarus, and the Sibylline verses; of forging a divine revelation from the god Apollo, in attestation of Christ Jesus' ascension into heaven; and innumerable other of his pious and holy cheats.

5. Tacitus has in no other part of his writings made the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians."

6. There is no vestige nor trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century.

7. The worshipers of the Sun-god, Serapis, were also called "Christians," and his disciples "Bishops of Christ.

So much, then, for the celebrated passage in Tacitus.

Now, for a man who was able to perform so many miracles and inspired such large crowds, why did no historian take notice write anything about him (that wasn’t forged)? Josephus did write about John the Baptist, so…why not jesus? Why didn't jesus himself ever put pen to paper? Why didn't the apostles ever write anything else, other than just the NT scribblings??

In a panicked, pathetic attempt to give their cult mythology some value and relevance, xians frequently overlook the details and facts which show it to be quite false.

And, before anyone comes up with any of these others, here: Thallus, Pliny and Trajan all post date Christ and make the same sort of references to christ that I am making in this sentence. (hearsay). If "Lucian" is Lucian of Antioch, then his source was the Bible, so he is also out as a corroborative source.

BTW, my disbelief in the existence of the man (ignoring his nature for the moment), is that he does not appear in any records or writings of his contemporaries. The Roman empire was just too bureaucratic and chatty to not credit someone who caused such a hullabaloo…he would not have escaped multiple notations in various records…official, historic and personal. But, somehow, he managed to, even though he was such a controversial individual running around performing miracles and such...pretty ridiculous, really.

For Abe Lincoln, we have letters written in his own hand. Alexander the Great left a wake of cities, coins, and monuments during his day. Plato left his own writings and physically influenced numerous students. There is nothing similar for Jesus. All testimonials start up almost a generation after he was supposed to have died. There are no records, no likenesses. Nazareth doesn't even show up in non-biblical sources until much later.

Does this all mean that Jesus didn't exist? Well, not exactly. Does it mean that there's no evidence and all followers of Jesus are having to make a leap of faith to believe that the gospels are true? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Depends on who you ask. Their body count throughout history isn't much to brag about, though, when contrasted with the teachings of their mythical icon... and NONE of this makes the jesus-myth a fact of history.

As an historian of the period, and who teaches a senior -graduate level course on the Historical Jesus, let me say John that I would be happy to recommend some books to you. Peace to you.

Speaking of assumptions... your cult book is mythology. It isn't provable or factual. So, chill out.

What about the people that came before Adam, Others? Did they have anything to do with the state of the world?

The earthquakes in Japan, New Zealand, Chile, Haiti, and Indonesia were not products of man's free will. Neither was Katrina, or Malaria, childhood leukemia, or any number of other horrific things that affect human (and animal) life. The list goes on and on.

If God exists, then he allows these things to happen. This is not the mark of a loving God who watches over us and protects. To claim otherwise is beyond ridiculous.

God sounds like an awfully petty, vengeful and jealous little prick doesn't he?

Ooooh! You did something bad so i'm going to eternally punish you and all your progeny for no particularly compelling reason!

Except that sickness and death existed millions of years before man. Of what sin were the trilobites punished with exinction? Did an adam trilobite eat of the forbidden fruit? Note the forbidden fruit was Knowledge.

Haha Henry - if you think that is bad check out an assortment of high school textbooks, which theoretically all cover the same topic! They are written by the same publishers but don't try to use a California textbook in Texas. Or teach evolution in Appalachia.

Yes, I saw where Texas was changing the history in their text books to more suit their beliefs a few months ago. It won't be long till we're a theocracy.

@driftrat,

There are a lot of extant manuscripts (numbering in the thousands) that date to within 100 years of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The biblical cannon was not formally set for all churches until later years and then wrapping up around 400 AD.

That evidence does nothing to sway people on matters of faith. However, it does show that the preserved text does well match those original writings that have been recovered.

yea Hiking...I find it amazing how some these manuscripts actually match up while others are in left field to each other. Lota truth and lota garbage in those old writings.

Why can't I read more historical data about the childhood/adolesent life of Jesus? It's like he dropped out.

within 100 years... wow.

we see, in the Telephone Game, how one story can degrade and change into something completely different in a matter of one hour.

and yet, you hacks believe this nonsense -- some of which wasn't written down for decades or centuries later.

now THAT depth of idiocy requires even a whole new level of stupidity for "faith" to sink in!

Danny......are you stating that there is only nonsense in old writings/manuscripts or did you just totally miss the subject?

oh yes, as a note...lighten up kiddo

Somebody got a good deal on red ink back then and felt compelled to use it.

Actually, if you take just the "red ink" parts, i.e. the supposed words of Jeebus himself, the bible's not so bad. You leave out all the "don't eat shellfish" "women should be silent" and "homos are evil" crap that was put in for political reasons, and you're left with "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Love one another." Good advice for anyone. This is, of course, not a new idea. Look up "Jefferson Bible".

Which version?

All of them

Is that the one that Henry had written because he didn't like the Catholic one?

And, nothing's more telling than a BuyBull-thumper that knows less about his cult book than a non-believer who has actually studied it, and other cult texts, with objectivity and a normal, healthy curiosity for learning.

any subject studied in anger includes an inherent adverse distortion of the truth of that study.

Indeed snoop and they " show up" anywhere in the NET from chat rooms to this type of forums witht he same Hate and Venom, no scientific endeavour, no logic, no science just " Pure hate"

Because we all know how cutie it is for bears to plow through 42 children.

angry.

yeah, good thing BuyBull-god doesn't get angry.

good thing the BuyBull itself wasn't written by a bunch of angry, misogynist hash-heads...

there are over 28,000 copies of the new testament from antiquity spread all over the ancient world. The oldest of which date to the 3rd century or so. If you read Mark in armenian, latin, greek, it's always the same with minor variations, none of which change the meaning of any passage. Scholars who have a reason they don't want to agree with that message have spent century after century smashing like waves against the rock of the gospel, with less effect. A man died. And then He wasn't dead. Other men, religious zealots, Peter, Paul, John, Jude, men who believed telling a lie was as serious as any other sin, changed their lives completely. These men one day believed in animal sacrifice and keeping the sabbath (saturday) holy. The next day they forsook 1400 years of tradition, traditions they believed lead to paradise, and believed, espoused, and evangelized something else. That by the death and ressurrection of one man, all of mankind had a new path to relationship with his creator. They lived in a religiously tolerent society, Rome. But Rome did not tolerate them. Rome systematically butchered early followers of what was then called 'the way', and later christianity. It all goes to motive and credibility. Was there a motive to change your life and follow this Christ? To preach his message? Nowadays there is. You can attain wealth and power. In Paul and Peter's day it was the opposite. Paul never thought he'd become rich. Peter never thought he'd attain political power. They were both raised to believe that forsaking Jewish traditions (and Paul was a pharisee, a LAWyer, he knew these things better than any of us) was to forsake Jehova, and heaven. This is all just reason and logic. Relgious men, scrupulously honest and frankly terrified of telling a lie, witnessed something so remarkable it's ripples are felt even today. Look around you. Millions have peace because of Jesus. The documents aren't lies. there are too many of them from too many different places. Too many to change. No one's even tried. The men who wrote them were honest and told the truth. There was no motive to tell this if it were a lie. No wealth, no power. Only death and dishonor. Most of them dies horribly and none of them recanted. There is btw more seculare evidence for Jesus of Nazareth's life than any other found of a major world religion. Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud to name a few.

Torah, Koran, Sutras, Tao Te Ching... There are many religious books. Only 1/3 of the world believes in Christianity. Belief does not automatically equate to truth.

People risking / sacrificing their lives over belief also fails the proof test (how many people have killed themselves over cult beliefs even in Modern times?). David Koresh may have genuinely believed his teachings - does that genuine belief and willingness to sacriface equate to truth? Whether Jesus walked the Earth or not has no bearing on the "Truth" of his teachings.

Your arguments don't prove the validity of the teachings. One either has faith in them or one does not and faith is not a proveable fact.

Millions have peace because of Jesus.

Millions have been killed because of Jesus.

Rocky: No offense meant, but your reply is a serious historical mess and contains a number of logical fallacies or incorrect information.. May I recommend some books for you to help you formulate your discussions more accurately? Peace to you and your family.

You are kidding right?

"Christians" obviously don't pay attention to the teachings of the Bible. In fact, it seems most of them do exactly the opposite.

Actually if you strip away the "magic" and "god" stuff there are actually some really good lessons that are taught by religions. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. The whole ten commandments. However I view them as lessons along the line of Aesop's fables and not as a way to explain how the world was created.

You're right, John. Every single Christian who ever lived has failed to be a model christian. And thank God for Jesus, because that was really the whole point. "No one is righteous. No. Not one."

That includes christians too.

You see, and i don't know how this message fails to get out, christians don't deserve to be saved any more than anyone else. Not one single person has ever deserved to be saved (with one notable exception). If you can understand this, then the rest of the Bible makes a lot of sense. "The cross is foolishness to them that are perishing." I've found that the Bible doesnt make a whole lot of sense until after you believe it. but then again that's exactly what Jesus said. "Don't be afraid. Just believe." Is it so strange that a being of infinite mind's solution to the problem of man would seem unusual to our finite minds? "He used the weak things of the world to shame the strong. The foolish things of the world to shame the wise". "If any man thinks he is wise, he should make himself a fool so that he can learn true wisdom". Most importanly be humble. And be an experimenter. Try praying. He might surprise you by answering you. And you'll know why all us christians so happily sing "I've got a friend in Jesus." I can only imagine how much better your life will be when you 'realize' that the Creator of Time, Space, Matter and Energy is your ally.

Space, matter and energy exist. "The Creator" does not.

Nice!

Well, it's mythological nonsense, so it could be any or all of those things...

Yeah. Maybe he's living in a mansion in Pakistan. Send in the SEALS to find out.

Most of the myths surrounding jesus, his supposedly "virgin" birth, the three wise men, his death and resurrection after three days,and much of the rest, are all based on earlier Egyptian mythology and the religion of Mithras. Look up the "Zeitgeist Movie pt 1" on youtube. It shows an amazing series of parallels between the stories.

Of course, the standard Christian refutation of this factual evidence of forgery and plagiarism is always... "Oh, well Satan put those earlier stories there to test our faith." Yeah, right. Just like he put the dinosaur bones under the mud.

almost every story in the cult book, BuyBull, was plagiarized from earlier cults, myths, sumerian culture, gilgamesh, mithras, ancient egypt and paganism. none of this is news to any who has studied history.

the BuyBull is a cult book full of mythical stories and tales. nothing more. people need to grow up and stop sucking their thumbs!

@MikeyMike, Please don't quote to Zeitgeist! The religion part of that film had a lot of factual errors and premised conclusions based upon these factual errors. The maker clearly had an agenda without factual support for it. Sure, the movie theme looks flashy, but when you start dissecting the information in it, it doesn't hold water. My understanding is that most serious scholarship, even if the scholar is not a Christian or doesn't believe in God, will not seriously propose that the evidence suggests Jesus was completely made up, but instead at a minimum acknowledges that he was at least a real historic figure.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting a figurehead whom the stories of jesus are based upon, was not an actual person (or multiple people for that matter.)

The point is that the myths and superstitions behind such a man are actually chronicled quite well in earlier oral traditions and pre-christian stories of legend and mythology (across varying cultures). In reality, jesus' "story" is not all that unique and shared amongst multiple godheads.

Personally, I think the real figure of jesus is based on what we would consider a magician today. And, one who most likely was well ahead of his time regarding moral and ethical issues of the day. But never-the-less, simply a man.

doubtful. Every few years someone tries this. And it never sticks. That aught to tell you something in and of itself. Do any of you really believe there weren't scholars asking these very questions a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years ago? There were. And yet they and their arguments pass away and yet

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Mat
5:18)

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
pronunciation mark of the law to fail.” (Luk
16:17)

this is all meaningless in a sense. If this is God's word, He's promised to protect it (and it's still here), so nothing said here will change that. But i repeat, Jesus Seminar, this guy, whoever comes next. some guy will think he's got some great idea that is just nonsense from the pits of hell and it sux cause i could spend trillions of years with each and everyone of you in heaven, but for this man some of you might not be saved. Jesus really lived and died my friends. He is the light of the world and he's calling to you right now.

@rocky-3499413,

You're wrong about jh011235813's comment. It does make a difference. I was a teacher and worship leader, but I've since walked away while I sort through this whole sordid mess. If there is any truth to the Christian scriptures, it is very badly represented by the modern church (lowercase intended) after centuries of becoming institutional. If we could, somehow, get to and hold the basis for belief and faith and set aside all the other pretentious nonsense...

But, alas, I'm just another loudmouth babbling in the wind...

Congratulations to you HikingStick, for having the intellectual courage to think for yourself.

rocky: doubtful. Every few years someone tries this. And it never sticks

Yeah, but people will still try to educate you and bring your ignorance out of the dark ages. even if it never sticks with people like you.

The New Testament is about as reliable as "A Million Little Pieces", another "true story" that was written in our time. What the author of this article is suggesting is that the books mentioned were not written by the saints/apostles that they are attributed to. At all. There is evidence (mentioned above) that they were written by persons detached from Jesus and his close entourage, causing the works written (and to be studied thousands of years later) to be in truth little more than fanfiction of Jesus Christ and early Christian leaders!

As an aside, I've always been suspicious of Paul's/Saul's work (whether he wrote it or not). How can a man that never met Christ allege that he is an authority of His teachings? The other apostles never accepted him either (early Acts chapters), so just how legit was he?

So..... John is an historical account eh? I always thought it was the ramblings of an 8 year old trying to prove his point...

It reads like this: "I saw a true real robot and I touched his robot arm and he said hi and he made me grape juice with his own robot hands. This is really true! I have a true real special robot at home guys but you can't come see him..."

John was working with a limited greek vocabulary. It's one of the most remarkable books ever written. Brilliant men take the complex and try and make it simple. Men who want to seem brilliant take the simple and try and make it complex so people will admire them. Jesus spoke of the deepest things there as though to that Eight year old Eric97 mentions. And Melzipan, if you're going to use Acts as your reference for not trusting Paul, does that mean we should ignore it after chapter 9 when he becomes in essence the central character, beloved and trusted by all by his conversion on the road to damascus, embraced by Peter and all the early church followers? So which is it, is Acts trustworthy enough to show he was not trusted, or is it untrustworthy so should be ignored because it shows he was trusted?

If John didn't sound like my three year old daughter trying to prove that the Hendricks really have a live dinosaur in their backyard, I would be more inclined to believe it.....

Reminds me of how I heard that the Apostle's creed was just called that to connect the passage to something holy...

Reminds me of how I heard that the Apostle's creed was just called that to connect the passage to something holy.

If that's the case, they did a good job. Are they forgeries? We do not know, but the words attributed to Jesus can be found in the OT.

As an aside, I've always been suspicious of Paul's/Saul's work (whether he wrote it or not). How can a man that never met Christ allege that he is an authority of His teachings? The other apostles never accepted him either (early Acts chapters), so just how legit was he?

For me, reading Paul's word through fear and dread over me. I still can't read the beginning chapters of Romans without saying Huh? I also think it is very strange that the Book of Romans is written for the Hebrews and the Book of Hebrews is written for the Gentiles.

I accept your faith and will not dissuade you from it. I am not that type of person to deny you that safety net. I also accept your faith in biblical texts. It is your choice to find them beneficial.

However, I take exception with your last paragraph. It appears to me, and I may just be overly sensitive, but it appears that it is your belief that regardless of what comes after, you'd have lived the better life through your faith. I respectfully disagree. One doesn't need to be Christian, or even remotely religious to be a kind, humble, generous, gentle, loving human being that is living/has lived a purposeful life.

Sounds like a lot of self reassurance to me. Having doubts there? It's okay just go back to sleep the adults will build the world around you.

what purpose could you possibly serve without religion? You could feed the worms with your cadaver. You could do a bunch of "nice things" and "good things" for people who will also end up feeding worms with their cadavers. You can do a whole bunch of things that a large enough portion of the population feels is "good" that you feel good about it. But the end result is the same. Every person you've ever influenced will end up feeding worms somewhere.

Sure, someone can be "kind, humble, generous, gentle, and loving" without religion. But without Faith of some kind in an unalterable Absolute Truth, these terms are meaningless. What is Kindness if its simply a result of the chemical state of our bodies and their environments? What is Humility or Generosity or Gentleness or Love? They are simply the outputs of our molecules being in a certain arrangement at a certain time.

This is not a life of meaning. So I must ask you, what is your Absolute Truth? Without anything absolute, everything else becomes relative and arbitrary. So what is Absolute?

I'm alive. I'm aware others are alive. My actions impact them. Their actions impact me. I feel pain and I feel good at times. I'm aware others feel pain and feel good too. I like feeling good. I'm aware others like feeling good. I could be completely cluessless about death and still understand these things. Just do what you can to avoid death. Enjoy living and enjoy the other beings that you hang out with. Leave the world in such a shape so that others in the future can be just as lucky, if not more so, than you so that they can in turn do the same. You're right by the way. Outside of life itself life is meaningless. Our little grain of sand floating around could easily be whiped out and the rest of the universe would go on without looking back.

Y'know, Skepology pretty much took the words right outta my mouth (or fingers, whatever).

But to add my own opinion:...

If what you say is true, then we have no accountability but to that of the divine. We don't need to take the initiative and treat our fellow life forms with love and kindness, we just need to obey. We don't need to choose to be a good person that leaves a lasting beneficial impact, we just need to obey and be concerned with the beyond. Forgive me, but that sounds like an empty existence, simply "being good" because you are told to and are trying to get brownie points with a divine entity.

You ask what "meaning" is. In Anglo-Saxon times, "meaning" was obtained by being the best person you could possibly be, your immortality after death hinging on how much of an impact you left in your lifetime. For me, meaning is obtained through human interaction, the improvement of my life by improving others'. If people remember me as a person that made their day brighter, then I have meaning to my life. "Meaning" is a very personal concept, if you haven't noticed. In fact, I'm sure your closest comrade in faith has a different opinion on how "meaning" is obtained.

And you know what? If all I ever do is feed worms, then guess what? I HAVE MEANING. My molecules are returning to the soil and will eventually belong to another lifeform, and another after that, and another, etc. In this method, regardless of what happens "after", I AM ESSENTIALLY IMMORTAL. In fact, I have attached with my DNR order specific instructions that I am to be cremated and my ashes used in the soil of a new-planted tree (I have my eye on Magnolias, especially).

I intend to live my life to the best that I can, and gain meaning as I give to those around me. I'm sorry if you don't feel that is "good enough", but again, meaning is a personal thing.

Yes... It is all about peace and love. Except for all the violent sexist and racist passages.... Seriously, you guys give a pass to all that crap in the bible.

If you need an invisible sky daddy to have purpose in life, I feel sorry for you.

I do not require a Supreme Being in order to find meaning in life. User #23, in reading both of your comments in this thread, I can't help but feel pity for you, and I mean that in the most sincere, non-condescending way possible. You appear to be so focused on death that you fail to see that it is not the destination that matters (after all, we will all die one day), it's the journey, the path we take while we live that gives meaning to our lives. I get the sense that you are waiting for death in order for your life to finally have meaning. I can't think of a more bleak and hopeless existence that that.

I don't need a higher power assigning worth to my fellow beings in order for me to recognize their inherent value. I am fully capable of seeing it for myself. And if, in the end, my only value is in being food for worms, I do not feel diminished for that. I am part of the great Cycle of Life, with a deep, abiding sense of my place in it. Even worms need food. And so, with my death, I will help foster another generation of life on this planet. I also think that being "kind, humble, generous, gentle, and loving" are worthy pursuits independent of a Divine presence. Are you truly unable to find value in something just because it hasn't received a stamp-of-approval from your deity?

You ask about an "Absolute Truth," here is mine: absolutes are inherently dangerous and completely at odds with truth. An absolute is unable to acknowledge anything but itself and leaves no room for understanding.

Sky daddy? and what if that Sky Daddy came down and made himself known. Did some truly remarkable things. A being who's never told a lie said "If I do not perfomr miracles you will not believe." and "Jesus had no need to be testified to about man, for He knew man." He knew you'd never believe because you're human and your pride is cyclopean. So He performed miracles, healed and did all those things just so there'd be an outside chance someone might HEAR some of the things he said, be gentle, love one another for that is how people will know you are my disciples, forgive, loan money without expecting to be paid back, consider others more important than yourselves, it is better to give then receive. Then He did the most remarkable thing of all. He swore He had a better life for us than this then proved it by defeating death and making sure His words survived wars and disasters and calamities and made even more sure the men who wrote these words were unimpeachable. Honest men who'd stand up in any coartroom today, men who gave up their lives, and lively hood, freedom and security to make sure these words would be here today so you can argue about them and call them false. You can call him Sky Daddy. I just call him Dad. Thank you Jesus. Praise God.

You are SO right Melzipan! I have a wonderful life, family, and we have love. We really don't need the metaphysical support of the bible to enjoy life and love one another.

Rocky.... I never saw or heard him do any of these things. I spent ten years reading about someone who supposedly did those things and sung about him every Sunday at mass.... I then realized the absurdity of it all.

If the bible is truth, then so is the Illiad. There was a Troy after all. Agamemnon existed. All that supernatural crap MUST be true. Homer was just repeating the accurate historical oral tradition and Zeus must have divinely inspired his hand.

Hallowed be the Ori

Danny, NO! How did they reach you!? D:

those damm ships they built! heh heh....

you insist on looking at all religion as backwards and evil. Religion, like everything else in the world, has it's bright spots and it's dark spots. True, sometimes the tradition and culture surrounding a religion impedes progress. But think of all the good Christianity has done. Christianity feeds the poor and gives refuge to the hurt. Christianity heals the sick and gives wisdom to all who seek it.

Yes, there will always be crazy people among us and some of them are bound to cling to a major religion as their motivation for their terrible deeds. But you can't blame Christianity for Waco anymore than you can blame Islam for 9/11. Out of 2.1 billion Christians, a couple dozen got on the news for doing something violent. But when the average Christian does a good deed, nobody seems to care.

You call a world with less religion "growing up". But the truth behind Christianity is not bound in traditions such as animal sacrifice. It is in Love. And I hope that humanity never grows out of Love.

I don't think religion automatically = evil by any means. People can get inspiration from any literature that they can relate in event and action to. Harry Potter is a struggle of good and evil ways. People can get inspiration for being good by reading how Harry Potter refuses to give in to submission. If you want a very good religion of peace, I mean one that follows it to the core, go with Jainism. It puts all other religions to shame on the "peace" scale, but we would both agree that it is simple good people with good intentions but with unneeded cult practices. Just like every other religion out there.

In reality people as a majority are good people. We don't want to be harmed and therefore we stick with other like minded people. Get enough people you set laws and punishments. The down side is that we are alose very gullible. We can make a ton of good people do a very bad thing and make them believe that it was the good way. Religion can make good people do bad things. A tired saying, but a very true one. So much so that the bible itself reflects that. Seriously have not read that thing?

These issues aren't only for scholars. But just having an opinion doesn't make it reasonable, well thought out, or logical. Plenty of people self-educate themselves to the point where their opinions do qualify as worthy. The first step in this, however, is becoming familiar with the research and logical arguments of people who studied before you. That includes studying the works of people you disagree with. You can't counter their arguments unless you understand them.

So, yes, get educated. Educated people like to have their ideas challenged.

nobody has said this issue is only for scholars. but it appears that when you encounter someone who actually studies cult books OBJECTIVELY (like the BuyBull) and makes reasonable conclusions about them, you discover that they are well-educated and often, scholarly.

you speak of the common-sense man/woman. unfortunately, they always seem to be the brainwashed idiots who blindly follow this garbage.

God touched me... Personally... And I sued him. Now I own 1/4 of heaven.

Which version?

John Mack ...what do you mean which version? as in the translations like NIV, NKJ etc... well i use the NIV , amplified and the New King James version.

Skepology... i was once a skeptic like you, so i kinda get where skeptics are coming from... but you cant prove that God's word isnt true....

Heph, just like you can't prove its God's word...

I met Jesus a few times.

One time in a Taco Bell drive through....

He mowed my lawn a few times....

He said hola to me in a checkout line at Winco....

Jesus is everywhere in fact. I didn't know God's tongue was Spanish though.

It's faith. Believe or not believe. Individual choice. Christians have individual choice as to interpretation just have adherents of any other faith.

I am a Christian of the early Baptist persuasion (1600s). My belief is mine and I will not force it on you. I also will not accept your beliefs and you should not force them on me. I will listen until you try to use force. Sometimes I feel I have more in common with a non pushy atheist than fellow Christians. I have a hard time finding a church in which I feel comfortable. Some of the things 'preached' are just evil.

I know the bible has been messed ever since the first monotheist wrote anything down. All the laws and behaviors suggested are ignored by everyone so I just don't see the point of arguing about it.

I finally decided I wanted to believe what I interpreted as Jesus's message based on just how radical it was. Love. Read the definition in Corinthians Chapter 15. God is love. Morality comes from within, and ethics are forced from without. I prefer people with morality and that includes non christians.

Of course there have been changes. Some of them relatively recent (middle ages) when monks intentionality or not wrote parts of Mathew into Mark and other inconsistencies with earlier versions. This is not news ! Inerrant work of God ? Men held the writing utensils. People are not infallible.

Individual choice. Christians have individual choice as to interpretation just have adherents of any other faith.

Nonsense. So many are indoctrinated and brainwashed as children, through fear and immersion. Children, even infants who cannot talk yet, are brought to the weekly cult buildings with BuyBulls abound, and threatened repeatedly with the fear of being sent to a place of hellfire and brimstone, a place of eternal suffering and darkness, being separated from mommy and daddy forever and ever, UNLESS they give in to this jesus-creature and love him and beleive in him.

This is not personal choice. This is child abuse, brainwashing indoctrination. And it becomes a cycle that many cannot psychologically emerge from.

The greatest single factor which determines which cult you belong to is geography. If any of you BuyBull-thumping christians had been born in the middle east to a middle eastern family, you'd be thumping a Koran instead, and you'd be thumping with the same conviction that you thump your BuyBull now.

It has NOTHING to do with what is real or factual. And most "common sense" people dont ever take the time to realize any of this.

Great Post Danny, you might enjoy wingmakers.com. My latest information said that the enity of Jesus was to powerful to occupy one soul, so was split between John, Paul and Jesus. That Jesus didn't die on the cross. But another self proclamed prophet, was druged and took his place. He couldn't stand up to carry the cross. He was recognized by Peter and "denied" three times. Remember there was a lot of pressure on the Jews to fulfill scripture. That is why today they still don't accept the death of Jesus. Simply because he didn't die, but left with Mary M, his daughter Sarah for France where his family tree is still in place today.

Hey Bill. That's starting to sound more and more like an episode of Stargate SG-1.

:D

I'm sure that's exactly Ehrman was saying. It just some people see the headline and think that thier beliefs are being questioned. So they (as they have always done) misinterpret everything and go in attack mode.

or like mikejhn, go into shriek and screech mode...