Jesus never existed?

[jammindude]

It's essentially implying that a) It is beyond God's ability to protect his word from human error.

What about the possibility that God simply doesn't inhibit people from writing wrong stuff? When you make all these statements here about scripture, do you feel yourself guided by God with every letter you type?
Is it so utterly inconceivable to you that you are essentially the same type of normal Joe Schmoe as the guy 2,000 years ago who wanted to preserve the stories that had been passed down for generations?
Or, how do you explain Galatians 2:11-21? If even the apostles can't agree on theology, how can their words be inerrant?

rumborak

Regarding Galatians 2:11-21....I see no "disagreement in theology".   I see that Peter was human and made an error in judgement, and Paul called him out on it in public.   There is no reason to believe that Peter did not accept this counsel and correct the matter.   

As to your other point...  There are no modern day prophets because we have everything we need from Christ's example, and the writings of those who walked with him.   (and Paul, who had a personal revelation from Jesus directly)   The opening of Hebrews makes clear that God had spoken by means of prophets in the past...but *now*, he had sent his Son.   So we don't need anything else.   We had had scores of imperfect prophets in the past who had made mistakes (and those mistakes are recorded with *full accuracy*) but then we were finally given the *perfect* example in Jesus...so nothing else is needed.   Those who walked with and were fully trained by Jesus himself then set up organizational procedures and related personal experiences that proved God was blessing their work.  Finally, John was given a revelation as to what was still to come.   Nothing more is needed.  And God's Word states implicitly that if *anyone* teaches *anything* different (even if it was an "angel from heaven") they were to be cursed.    So there is really nothing more to add.   

I once heard someone refer to the Bible as "frozen Holy Spirit"...   That's a personal conclusion, but I like it and I agree with it.  My personal experience has taught me that it's an accurate analogy.  So we have Holy Spirit if we are guided by God's Word...but human error kicks in when we deviate from it.

[rumborak]

Regarding Galatians 2:11-21....I see no "disagreement in theology".   I see that Peter was human and made an error in judgement, and Paul called him out on it in public.   There is no reason to believe that Peter did not accept this counsel and correct the matter.   

Are you implying God is not even able to guide his own apostles? How can Peter have been possibly wrong beforehand?
Or is your point now that, while the apostles were human and may have been wrong in all kinds of matters, those unknown people who wrote the gospels decades later, were on other hand inerrant?

rumborak

[jammindude]

I can only make the comment that seemingly, your "deep study" of all sides of the subject has caused you to accept even the most far-fetched explanations. I fail to see how that is a reasonable or balanced judgment.
Sorry, mustard bushes may grow high, but they are not trees. Unless you're saying Jesus was too stupid to distinguish a tall bush from a tree.
Check out this fellow who was on a similar errant: https://dqhall59.com/images/tall_mustard.jpg
Is that a tree to you?

And no, eating your own poop isn't "chewing cud" either. That's what hares do. Chewing cud is when you regurgitate preprocessed food.

rumborak

I'm just saying...what would Jesus' *AUDIENCE* thought...

Let me illustrate it this way.   If a three year old asks me why it rains, I'm going to say that the cloud fills up with water until it's full...when it's full the water falls.

This is a *GROSS* oversimplification.  But it's not a falsehood.   When the child gets older, I'll sort out the details. 

Did you really expect Jesus to spend three hours bringing his listeners up to speed before a 20 minute discourse??   No.  He would have worked with what his audience understood at that time....and he was not wrong to do so.

[rumborak]

Are you seriously telling me now that Jesus' audience was too stupid to tell a bush from a tree? Dude, those guys tilled farms all day long. Bushes and trees were their living.

rumborak

[jammindude]

Regarding Galatians 2:11-21....I see no "disagreement in theology".   I see that Peter was human and made an error in judgement, and Paul called him out on it in public.   There is no reason to believe that Peter did not accept this counsel and correct the matter.   

Are you implying God is not even able to guide his own apostles? How can Peter have been possibly wrong beforehand?
Or is your point now that, while the apostles were human and may have been wrong in all kinds of matters, those unknown people who wrote the gospels decades later, were on other hand inerrant?

rumborak

Oh the apostles were absolutely imperfect men that made mistakes the same as you and I do.   They were no better than any of us.   But when God needed something recorded, he used them to cause certain writings to take place...and then further caused those writings to be protected.

But that is *exactly* why the Bible is GOD'S Word...not Paul's word or Peter's word.

[rumborak]

Oh the apostles were absolutely imperfect men that made mistakes the same as you and I do.   They were no better than any of us.   But when God needed something recorded, he used them to cause certain writings to take place...and then further caused those writings to be protected.

This crucial fact, that apostles who spent years with Jesus can not be trusted but random people with quills who never met Him can, you established .... how?
Also, why aren't translations divinely protected?

rumborak

[jammindude]

Are you seriously telling me now that Jesus' audience was too stupid to tell a bush from a tree? Dude, those guys tilled farms all day long. Bushes and trees were their living.

rumborak

Are you seriously telling me that Jesus' audience had the exact same definition of the term that we do today?   Are you seriously telling me that the word that Jesus used (which is translated "tree" in English) is not a term that would have encompassed a mustard plant to his listeners?  Do you seriously think that these people who, as you say "tilled farms all day long" wouldn't have called him out on it on the spot? 

I seriously don't see how this is so difficult to conceive.   It's a pretty basic concept.   It's like you're not acknowledging that definitions change over time at all.   I can think of no less than three terms off the top of my head that have changed definitions *IN MY LIFETIME*...

[rumborak]

Do you seriously think that these people who, as you say "tilled farms all day long" wouldn't have called him out on it on the spot? 

Why should they? Jesus was a man too, and made errors. The message counted.

rumborak

[Adami]

Of all the things to argue about, you're focusing on mustard?

[hefdaddy42]

The best illustration I can come up with is this.

To me...proof of the Bible's inspiration is a lot like the OJ trial. 

It's pretty sad if that is the best illustration you can come up with.

To me, the cloud of evidence that it *IS* inspired of God and inerrant is simply too great to ignore.   

I don't see it.  Please give some of this evidence.  No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Oh, and rumby, the mustard plant was a huge nuisance in the Middle East in those times.  In fact, that is part of the point of the parable.  You are losing on that one, just back up and punt.

[rumborak]

Of all the things to argue about, you're focusing on mustard?

Was the first thing that came up on a search. There's hundreds of pages of course. I think the Peter vs. Paul thing illustrates the matter much better though.

rumborak

[jammindude]

Oh the apostles were absolutely imperfect men that made mistakes the same as you and I do.   They were no better than any of us.   But when God needed something recorded, he used them to cause certain writings to take place...and then further caused those writings to be protected.

This crucial fact, that apostles who spent years with Jesus can not be trusted but random people with quills who never met Him can, you established .... how?
Also, why aren't translations divinely protected?

rumborak

Your first point is lost on me.  Who ever said that they "cannot be trusted"?  You're focused a lot on the individuals...the individuals are flawed, so I don't focus on the individuals.   I don't follow or worship the apostles.  They were imperfect men.  You're taking issue with who God chose to record his word...I don't.   The whole "why person A and not person B" is just a line of thought that makes no sense to me at all.   It doesn't really matter.   Jesus even told Peter (paraphrasing here) .."if I've decided that John is going to be the last one to die...what's it to you?"    God used different people for different things...he chose who he chose.  Period.

As to your second point.  Knowledge of key points in the original writings is not hard to find.   I was just reading an interesting book called "Truth in Translation" by the Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University.   He pointed out that really, in the whole of scripture, there's only debate over a relatively few *key* points.   It doesn't take much digging to find the facts about these key texts.   It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.   There are accurate translations out there in abundance. 

[hefdaddy42]

It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.

Tell that to the KJV translation of Revelation.  400 years and still going strong.

[rumborak]

Your first point is lost on me.  Who ever said that they "cannot be trusted"?  You're focused a lot on the individuals...the individuals are flawed, so I don't focus on the individuals.   I don't follow or worship the apostles.  They were imperfect men.  You're taking issue with who God chose to record his word...I don't.   The whole "why person A and not person B" is just a line of thought that makes no sense to me at all.   It doesn't really matter.   Jesus even told Peter (paraphrasing here) .."if I've decided that John is going to be the last one to die...what's it to you?"    God used different people for different things...he chose who he chose.  Period.

How do you know the writers of the gospels were "chosen"? It needed a council centuries later to decide which gospels were canon and which were not.
The point I'm making here is, there is no glorious yellow road leading to the inexorable conclusion that whatever has been passed down as scripture is inerrant and written by God. You chose to declare the scriptures as such, simple as that. That is fine, but don't pretend it was a rational decision. It was a decision of your personal faith as a Christian.

It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.

Tell that to the KJV translation of Revelation.  400 years and still going strong.

As dual speaker myself, I can only shake my head at people thinking whatever local version of the Bible they read, it's a good translation. The two languages I speak are both Germanic languages, and even there I am routinely met with the situation where I have to say "oh, German doesn't have a term for that." (or the other way around)
And now think how that works trying to translate ancient Greek to modern English. Booya.

rumborak

[jammindude]

I don't see it.  Please give some of this evidence.  No, I'm not being sarcastic.

*sigh*...

I'm not going to lie.  On some levels...this is an emotionally overwhelming request.   Ya...I know I'm going to get picked apart for this.  It's just like someone asked me to sum up one of the busiest years of my life in a paragraph.   

Havn't you *ever* had a request that seemed overwhelming?

Try asking an evolutionist to sum up the evolution theory in two or three short paragraphs....   I guarantee you that even if he succeeds, his response will soon be picked to shreds by those who take issue with "point A" or "Point B"...

But I'm not saying no...it's just such an overwhelming request.  It requires hitting the books to refresh my memory on some of the finer points...regathering all this information...just to know in the back of my mind that I'm bringing it before a proverbial firing squad. 

I suppose off the top of my head...one of the more fascinating and convincing points of evidence *to me*...was the prophecies of Daniel.   Yes, I've seen the arguments that Daniel was supposedly not even written by Daniel, and supposedly written later.   And to me, those arguments do not hold water. 

Daniel prophesied years in advance about the rise and fall of Alexander the Great in great detail.   I believe that this was history written in advance.  (obviously, I'm going to stick with the main category of why I believe the Bible is inspired...and trying not to getting bogged down in the *subcategory* of why I believe the arguments for vs. against on each individual point...because I'd still be writing this *next week*..)

I also believe that Isaiah's prophecy of Babylon's fall was also history written in advance. 

I also believe the scores of prophecies in Isaiah involving Jesus all came true and are accurate.

Daniel's prophecy of the succession of world powers have all come true.

The prophecy of Jerusalem's fall...the cutting off of the kings until Messiah came...check, check..

This is just off the top of my head.   I could go on and on and on and on.   I could spend days in research to find more.   I'm just afraid of having alot of hard work turning into target practice. 

Surely you must understand what that feels like.

[jammindude]

It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.

Tell that to the KJV translation of Revelation.  400 years and still going strong.

Actually...that's a GREAT point.   But I don't think the KJV is *that* bad...  Yes, there are a couple of fairly important mistakes...but again, it's not hard to find the truth about those points if you really want to know.

Lots of false religious teachings can be exposed even with the relatively flawed KJV.   

[hefdaddy42]

Try asking an evolutionist to sum up the evolution theory in two or three short paragraphs....   I guarantee you that even if he succeeds, his response will soon be picked to shreds by those who take issue with "point A" or "Point B"...

Actually, I think that would be a lot easier, since the evidence for evolution is well documented and widespread.
 

I suppose off the top of my head...one of the more fascinating and convincing points of evidence *to me*...was the prophecies of Daniel.   Yes, I've seen the arguments that Daniel was supposedly not even written by Daniel, and supposedly written later.   And to me, those arguments do not hold water. 

Daniel prophesied years in advance about the rise and fall of Alexander the Great in great detail.   I believe that this was history written in advance.  (obviously, I'm going to stick with the main category of why I believe the Bible is inspired...and trying not to getting bogged down in the *subcategory* of why I believe the arguments for vs. against on each individual point...because I'd still be writing this *next week*..)

I also believe that Isaiah's prophecy of Babylon's fall was also history written in advance. 

I also believe the scores of prophecies in Isaiah involving Jesus all came true and are accurate.

Daniel's prophecy of the succession of world powers have all come true.

The prophecy of Jerusalem's fall...the cutting off of the kings until Messiah came...check, check..

Without picking this apart piece by piece, I will just say that I don't believe any of that stuff about those passages that you do.  Do you have any evidence that doesn't depend on "believing" something about a different passage?  Again, I'm not being sarcastic.  To me, believing that the text of the Bible is inerrant and inspired is nothing more than circular reasoning.  It is because it says it is.  I want to see if there is anything more. 

[jammindude]

Try asking an evolutionist to sum up the evolution theory in two or three short paragraphs....   I guarantee you that even if he succeeds, his response will soon be picked to shreds by those who take issue with "point A" or "Point B"...

Actually, I think that would be a lot easier, since the evidence for evolution is well documented and widespread.
 

I suppose off the top of my head...one of the more fascinating and convincing points of evidence *to me*...was the prophecies of Daniel.   Yes, I've seen the arguments that Daniel was supposedly not even written by Daniel, and supposedly written later.   And to me, those arguments do not hold water. 

Daniel prophesied years in advance about the rise and fall of Alexander the Great in great detail.   I believe that this was history written in advance.  (obviously, I'm going to stick with the main category of why I believe the Bible is inspired...and trying not to getting bogged down in the *subcategory* of why I believe the arguments for vs. against on each individual point...because I'd still be writing this *next week*..)

I also believe that Isaiah's prophecy of Babylon's fall was also history written in advance. 

I also believe the scores of prophecies in Isaiah involving Jesus all came true and are accurate.

Daniel's prophecy of the succession of world powers have all come true.

The prophecy of Jerusalem's fall...the cutting off of the kings until Messiah came...check, check..

Without picking this apart piece by piece, I will just say that I don't believe any of that stuff about those passages that you do.  Do you have any evidence that doesn't depend on "believing" something about a different passage?  Again, I'm not being sarcastic.  To me, believing that the text of the Bible is inerrant and inspired is nothing more than circular reasoning.  It is because it says it is.  I want to see if there is anything more.

I'm guessing you and I have both seen the "for and against" arguments.  We just have different opinions about which side is the more plausible.   

I don't think the "fors" rely strictly on belief...just on evidence that is generally dismissed.   

Track record is often a big one for me.   Bible critics once said there was no such city as Nineveh...until they found it in the mid-18hundreds.   Certain kings (that slip my mind at the moment) that the Bible mentions and critics long held that the Bible was wrong...until they found the dude's palace.   

Things of that nature.   In the end, the Bible has always proven itself to be reliable...

Also, the difference it makes in people's lives *when it's followed accurately* (underscore, underline, boldtype that caveat).   When it is followed accurately...it brings peace, puts and end to war over land, race, tribe, etc etc etc.   It brings peace, harmony, love, and unity when it is followed accurately.   Which is exactly what I would expect from a letter from God.   I also believe that man is not capable of writing a book that accomplishes this. 

But there's still more....I'm just spitballing.   I could go on and on.   

I trust God because he has never lied to

[rumborak]

I also don't understand why belief has to deteriorate into this arms race of "who is the biggest believer?"
In all of that, Jesua' actual message gets relegated to a footnote. Point in case, when conservatives decry public healthcare as socialist, I must wonder what version of the Bible they read. Or at least, what passages they focussed on.

[Adami]

I also don't understand why belief has to deteriorate into this arms race of "who is the biggest believer?"
In all of that, Jesua' actual message gets relegated to a footnote. Point in case, when conservatives decry public healthcare as socialist, I must wonder what version of the Bible they read. Or at least, what passages they focussed on.

Next thing you know they'll want to redefine the word "Tree" to include the mustard bush.

[rumborak]

Blasphemy!!

Is that blasphemy for the Judean Liberation Front, or the Liberation Front of Judea? I can never remember.

rumborak

[Adami]

Blasphemy!!

Is that blasphemy for the Judean Liberation Front, or the Liberation Front of Judea? I can never remember.

rumborak

People's front! Don't even mention the damn liberation front, splitters.

[jammindude]

I also don't understand why belief has to deteriorate into this arms race of "who is the biggest believer?"
In all of that, Jesua' actual message gets relegated to a footnote. Point in case, when conservatives decry public healthcare as socialist, I must wonder what version of the Bible they read. Or at least, what passages they focussed on.

I actually applaud this thought.   Which is also why I generally don't like getting into these debates.     I don't think I've ever been in a single one that didn't deteriorate in some way, shape or form. 

The Bible even warns about getting caught up in arguments and "debates over words"...but for some reason, I always feel compelled to clarify when people ask me why I believe what I believe. 

I know religious zealots who simply "believe"...and to me that's frustrating...because not only is it wrong and dangerous, but it's not even what the Bible even teaches we should do.    One should *always* know what they believe and why they believe it.   Maybe that's why I feel it is important to separate myself from those types by clarifying that I *do not* believe in "blind faith".    Faith without evidence is completely void of any meaning, IMHO. 

[jammindude]

We HATE the Judean People's Front!!!   We're the People's Front of Judea!!!   

Life of Brian is the greatest movie ever made about this subject.   Maybe I'll watch that tonight.

[hefdaddy42]

One should *always* know what they believe and why they believe it.   

We agree!

[William Wallace]

It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.

Tell that to the KJV translation of Revelation.  400 years and still going strong.

Nah. Except for a handful of cranky baptists, he's right. The amount of manuscript evidence in support of the modern translations that's been uncovered since the 17th century has made the KJV all but irrelevant.

[rumborak]

Consider however that whatever version you read, it's on that "island of English". I can say that Luther's Bible is distinctly different in many ways, a lot due to the target language. I think people get fooled by growing up with a certain language's Bible that that's all there is and thus it's close enough to the original. For some of the Bible texts the original language's texts don't even exist.

rumborak

[jammindude]

This is also why it is important to choose a "Translation" over a "version".   

I liked your earlier comment:

As dual speaker myself, I can only shake my head at people thinking whatever local version of the Bible they read, it's a good translation. The two languages I speak are both Germanic languages, and even there I am routinely met with the situation where I have to say "oh, German doesn't have a term for that." (or the other way around)
And now think how that works trying to translate ancient Greek to modern English. Booya.

I really feel like this is close to the very heart of the idea I was trying to convey with the mustard plant conversation.    Honestly don't want to re-open that can of worms...just felt that it was relevant.   

[GuineaPig]

Track record is often a big one for me.   Bible critics once said there was no such city as Nineveh...until they found it in the mid-18hundreds.   Certain kings (that slip my mind at the moment) that the Bible mentions and critics long held that the Bible was wrong...until they found the dude's palace.   

Things of that nature.   In the end, the Bible has always proven itself to be reliable...

This is not close to being true.  Much of the "historical events" of the Old Testament are considered to be fabrications.

Once again, you're applying a complete double standard, based on what confirms your viewpoint and what conflicts with it.  You're perfectly willing to cite the work of archaeologists if they ostensibly confirm something mentioned in the Bible, but when they conclude that the Israelites originated from Canaan, that the Exodus never happened, that the conquest of Israel was more myth than fact, that Jericho was uninhabited when Joshua purportedly conquered it, etc. they're wrong, or there's an explanation that flies in the face of all available evidence, but nevertheless must've happened.

[William Wallace]

Consider however that whatever version you read, it's on that "island of English". I can say that Luther's Bible is distinctly different in many ways, a lot due to the target language. I think people get fooled by growing up with a certain language's Bible that that's all there is and thus it's close enough to the original.

Yes, that about sums up the King James only crowd.


 

For some of the Bible texts the original language's texts don't even exist.

rumborak

I'm not sure what you mean. There are some manuscripts that contain passages that aren't found in the earliest witnesses, like the Comma Johanneum. Maybe you can clarify.

[hefdaddy42]

It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.

Tell that to the KJV translation of Revelation.  400 years and still going strong.

Nah. Except for a handful of cranky baptists, he's right. The amount of manuscript evidence in support of the modern translations that's been uncovered since the 17th century has made the KJV all but irrelevant.

That handful of cranky baptists isn't really a handful.  It's more than you may realize, and they are very loud and influential.

[William Wallace]

It takes relatively little effort to find the information on the oldest manuscripts.   So inaccurate translations, generally don't hold up...or last long.

Tell that to the KJV translation of Revelation.  400 years and still going strong.

Nah. Except for a handful of cranky baptists, he's right. The amount of manuscript evidence in support of the modern translations that's been uncovered since the 17th century has made the KJV all but irrelevant.

That handful of cranky baptists isn't really a handful.  It's more than you may realize, and they are very loud and influential.

How so? No scholar takes them seriously, and most Christians wouldn't know what to make of their arguments.

[hefdaddy42]

Mostly to others of their ilk.  But that is a large number of people.  I mean, I don't know about the left coast, but on this side, there are a TON of KJV-only churches.

[William Wallace]

Mostly to others of their ilk.  But that is a large number of people.  I mean, I don't know about the left coast, but on this side, there are a TON of KJV-only churches.

That's true. The south is a haven for that particular brand of suck. But in a general sense KJV onlyism doesn't seem like a major threat.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

This is not close to being true.  Much of the "historical events" of the Old Testament are considered to be fabrications.


Once again, you're applying a complete double standard, based on what confirms your viewpoint and what conflicts with it.  You're perfectly willing to cite the work of archaeologists if they ostensibly confirm something mentioned in the Bible, but when they conclude that the Israelites originated from Canaan, that the Exodus never happened, that the conquest of Israel was more myth than fact, that Jericho was uninhabited when Joshua purportedly conquered it, etc. they're wrong, or there's an explanation that flies in the face of all available evidence, but nevertheless must've happened.

I've noticed you talk a lot about sources and being able to use such sources to substantiate whatever claim one sees fit.  It is just as easy for me to make the same claims about the sources you use that are "proven".  Am I missing something?