When you deny 2 000 years of 'EVOLUTIONARY DNA' AND inherited 'knowledge',

... and obsessively hang on to a context of knowledge: 'written word wizardry', dating back more than 2 000+ years ago,

... YOU ARE UNQUESTIONABLY COMMITTING THE SIN OF SPREADING IGNORANCE FOR EGO-CENTRIC, SELF-SERVING PURPOSES!!!

By denying REALITY, CONTEXT, and PROPER PERSPECTIVE, (basic critical thinking components), strictly for self-serving STROKING, FUNDAMENTALISM dedicates itself exclusively to spreading IGNORANCE, PERIOD!!! Not love, not Jesus, not god, not peace, not 'good', not truth, JUST IGNORANCE LIKE A DRUG!!!

2 000+ years ago people didn't even realize that they lived in ignorance!!!
It wasn't distinguished as such. People weren't expected to 'know' anything about reading or writing, or any form of other 'greater knowledge'. THUS THE INCREDIBLE POWER THAT COULD BE EXERCISED, and the powers that be of the time (governance in bed with religious orders) exploited it for all it was worth.

2 000+ years ago, given the context of the time, it was understandable that people could confuse the mascarade for 'REALITY'!!!

But given that the 'charlatans' haven't changed one iota of their deceiving practices in 'preaching' to people's ignorance in 2009,

... to find people obsessively insisting in maintaining that kind of heresy, is an insult to the most basic of human intelligence, it is a serious delusionary illness, it is pathetically narcissistic at best, and it is a DANGER TO HUMANITY at worst.

Most of all, it is a profound insult and absolute denial of the concepts of faith, beliefs, spirituality and the 'notion' of
god(s) as a UNIVERSAL UNIFYING FORCE (as far from the 'divisive' notion of fundamentalists as can be)!!!

Hey 'Feral'!!! I too, am inspired by god, and ...

... THIS IS NOW WRITTEN!!!

personal attacks are a no no you have now been reported. Once is ok twice I can hang...But you have done throughout......

And WHO wrote the Bible?

Did Jesus write the Bible?

NO.

The Bible does not contain one jot nor one tittle from Jesus.

Who wrote the Bible then?

Well the New Testament was mostly written by Paul. A blatant male chaunvinst with an opinion of his interpretations of what he'd like God to be like.

Why should anyone place their faith in Paul?

I have nothing against unmarried sex Feral and I did not mean to make it out to be 'ugly,' I just call it like it is. If you think sex is ugly that is your interpretation, not mine, it's just sex.

(And whatever a God and a human had to do to come together to accomplish procreation I would imagine it would be classified as some kind of 'sexual intercourse.')

But if an all powerful God could just 'poof' and make someone or something (Like a book) "disappear," then why would intercourse with a human female be required to incarnate or to bring his son to the earth. Why couldn't he just 'poof' that into existence or why couldn't he just make him out of dirt like he did Adam and Eve?

So it appears that God has to impregnate a woman in order to have a son on the earth. Perhaps he is not as all powerful as he is said to be.

Wars are necessary for God's plan? What would that plan be? Do you believe you know what God's plan is and why "wars are necessary?"

More and more this does not seem like an all powerful God.

Exactly!!

Science is always rewriting itself.
Thats what science is.
Your cartoon just shows the insaine dogma that is christianity.
You have proven the atheist agnostic point of view.

GOOD JOB!!!!!!!

HAHAHAH I love this picture!

Why - if you don't mind my asking.



Had you said the bible has been transcribed many times, and translated into many languages - I could see your point. But rewritten. Where - do tell - are all of these modified copies so that we can investigate the innacuracies? As far as I understand - the 5,000+ copies they have from the time of their original writing have an accuracy of close to 99%. Are you refering to the 1% as "plenty of times"?

And if I'm not mistaken - those who have painstakenly investigated these documents from antiquity are themselves - scientists.

Dear me. Now what?

Because they are in general, sincere in their search for information and truth as it relates to reality, logic and the laws of physics. I am not saying that they have all the answers or that I believe all of what they have declared, in fact I think they are wrong on many points. But at least they continue to seek answers through knowledge and evidence rather than putting all their faith in myth and ancient scripture. That is precisely why science is rewritten. There is a constant learning and readjustment to the knowledge base.

We grow and learn. If we do not, we remain in the dark ages steeped in fear, ignorance and superstition.



It has been rewritten as far as I am concerned. Words have been changed that have completely different meanings. Whether this was done in transcribing or translating makes no difference. I trust not the editing of men with agendas.

It is also clear that a lot of the Bible has been either plagiarized or simply the retelling of older myths that previously had been passed down by word of mouth.

Also in the time of the writing of the New Testament, it was the elite of Rome who had the power of the pen. Governments were as corrupt back then as they are today. I don't trust them then and I don't trust them now. Very few men could read and write and scribes had to be paid hence the wealthy and influential were in control of the creation of scripture rather than men inspired by God. The common man did not have an education nor could he read or write. This was probably true of any cults and their followers.

Oh please What is said throughout the Bible is what Jesus said....So again slamming Jesus because if those are his teachings and your saying he didn't say.....hmmmmmmmm for shame.




And WHO wrote the Bible?

Did Jesus write the Bible?

NO.

The Bible does not contain one jot nor one tittle from Jesus.

Who wrote the Bible then?

Well the New Testament was mostly written by Paul. A blatant male chaunvinst with an opinion of his interpretations of what he'd like God to be like.

Why should anyone place their faith in Paul?

JB

Again unmarried sex is a choice.....If you put the virgin birth and war in the same paragraph it seems to me that it makes it ugly it was not.

It was not sexual intercourse but the Holy Spirit that impregnated both Mary and Elizabeth. The reason God couldn't just poof Christ into being was because he needed (Christ) to come to earth as a man...that means that Christ had to come the same way that all humans do and live as all humans did at that time.

If you looked throughout the Bible there are wars....in which for example with King David that through the power of God they won the wars they needed to in the name of God.


Now as far as the Bible being rewritten I guess you missed this.The question often arises when discussing the biblical records, "How can a document that has been copied over and over possibly be reliable? Everyone knows there are tons of errors in it." While it is true that the documents have been copied many times, we often have misconceptions about how they were transmitted. All ancient documents were copied by hand before the advent of the printing press in the 16th century. Great care was exercised in reproducing these manuscripts. We often assume that one copy was made and then another from that and another from that and so on, each replacing the copy it was reproduced from. This is not how manuscripts copying worked. Copyists were usually working from one or two very old documents. They would make many copies of their source copy, all the while preserving their source and comparing the copies they have made.

Josephus tells how the Jews copied the Old Testament. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable; and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and, if need be, cheerfully to die for them"

Josephus made no exaggeration. The Jewish copyists knew exactly how many letters were in every line of every book and how many times each word occurred in each book. This enabled them to check for errors. The Jews believed that adding any mistake to the Scriptures would be punishable by Hell - unlike the modern secretary who has many letters to type and must work hard to keep his job, and consequently feels that mistakes are inevitable. Great care is exercised with scriptures when someone holds a conviction such as this. But even with the great amount of care exercised in copying, errors have crept into the manuscripts. No one questions that spelling errors, misplaced letters, and word omissions have occurred. What is not true is that these errors have gradually built up over time so that our copies look nothing like the originals. This view was commonly held until recently.

In 1947 the accuracy of these documents was confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found in caves in the desert near the Dead Sea by a shepherd boy. Before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we had were from about 980 A.D. The manuscripts discovered in the caves dated from 250 B.C. to shortly after the time of Christ. In careful comparison of the manuscripts it was confirmed that the copies we had were almost precisely the same as those which date over 1000 years earlier.

No other historical literature has been so carefully preserved and historically confirmed.

When we come to the New Testament we see a similar phenomenon. There are over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. This is by far more than any other historical documents, which usually have maybe a dozen copies from very late dates. The New Testament manuscripts are many and old and they are spread over a wide geographical area. What this enables the New Testament historian to do is collect manuscripts from Jerusalem and Egypt and Syria and other places and compare them for variations. And variations do exist, but as with the Old Testament they are relatively few and rarely important to the meaning of the text. What these manuscripts demonstrate is that different families of texts existed very early that were copied from the original or good copies of the original. This allows us to trace the manuscripts back to the source as one would follow the branches of a tree to get to the trunk. Aside from the manuscripts themselves, "virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea. 99.8%

And the 2% was little things....like thous and thys not the context of the Bible...It has never changed.

There is a difference between man rewriting the Bible for his Agenda and saying that "The Bible" has been rewritten...It ha not.

Also again check out the authors of the Bible.....These were influential and smart men. They were educated men. You can't say well the men that wrote the Bible were uneducated and not really know who the men were that wrote the Bible. And when for example you read Acts. The Holy Spirit gave Peter and others the power of wisdom and words when they preached to the people.

What are you talking about? Slamming Jesus?

All I spoke was the TRUTH and even the BIBLE AGREES WITH!

There is neither a jot nor a tittle of Jesus in the Bible!

That's a FACT that even the Bible itself confesses too!

If that's "Slamming Jesus" then the Bible itself slams Jesus!

There is not one word in the Bible that actually came from Jesus directly, it's all HEARSAY!

It's also well known that this hearsay wasn't even written about until a half a century after Jesus supposed died.

Clearly the men who wrote these stories didn't think it was important enough to act on right away.

In fact two of them either didn't know about the Vigin birth or didn't think it was significant enough to mention.

Clearly if they had been divinly inspired to write these things they wouldn't have left such important details out. That would have made for POOR divine inspiration.

Again, it's just another example of how we must truly beleive that God is seriously lame to have had anything to do with this process.

In fact, the gospels actually disagree with each other on major points and events. In fact, they often contradict things they just said in a previous verse.

If the gospels came from God we can only assume that God is suffering from Alzheimer's disease or some other form of dementia.

Perhaps we should pray to God's God and ask that She help heal God and work with him to help him get over his jealousy and misogynic issues. Not to mention his egotistical lust to become the King of King and the Lord of Lords.

Poor God is suffering from psychological issues that most of us get over by the time we reach puberty.

So let us all pray to God's God and ask that She heal Him and teach him some moral values whilst She's at it.

He shouldn't be going around having sex with humans like his fallen angels did anyway, and to do this for the sole purpose of being mean to his son is even more disgusting.

I think the Mediterraneans should have stuck with Zeus he seemed to have higher moral values in many ways. Why they traded him in for an self-confessed jealous God is beyond me.

Well if you follow his teachings....Where are they?


You are wrong from OT all the way through it's gives Jesus' teachings and his words.

Understand Abra......those men that wrote Jesus' words were THERE...hello

Well again bring on the contradictions abra....because I for one would never believe this coming from you without showing....Another thing your great at.....Spew contradictions and show no facts.


You spew blah blah

I thought this was about healthy debate, not trying to change anyone's mind. If you truly believe what you say then this will be an exercise to strengthen what you already believe. I think people want you to strengthen your arguments and make the debate more interesting.

Let me help his argument here:

This is the fact he is referring to:

"Estimates for the dates when the gospels were written vary significantly, and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

* Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Mark: c. 68–73
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition."
from http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Gospel.htm.

Well Adam was a man and he was apparently not born of a human woman, as he was created from the earth. I guess that the all powerful God does have some limitations if he can not 'poof' his son into existence or make him out of earth like he did Adam.

If the "holy spirit" impregnated Mary and Elizabeth I call that procreation and a coming together of two beings, so I consider that to be 'sex' no matter how you envision how it actually took place.

In the days of pagan rituals there was one where the gods would supposedly possess human bodies and have sex with each other. The ritual was a spiritual one and the humans would offer their bodies to the gods so they could enjoy each other physically. Personally I think it was just an excuse to get drunk and get laid, but this did happen back then.

I rather imagine a scene like the one in star treck when Troy was impregnated by a small ball of light.

These contradicions are well-known and well documented. They've alreayd been pointed out to you repeatedly and you continually deny them.

Moreover, it matters not. Between you and me which one of us has more repsect for Jesus?

From my point of view Jesus was a mortal man who tried to bring love and peace to his homeland. My claim is that he denounced the horrible and violent ways of the ficticious God of Abraham.

But what do you claim that Jesus is like?

You claim that he's like? You claim that's he's going to cast me into an eternal hell fire for not believing that he's a jealous God with an insatiable ego and lust to be worshiped.

Personally I like my Jesus better.

You can keep your Jesus all to yourself. I don't even like your Jesus. Your presentation of him makes him out to be nothing more than a spoiled brat with a big ego.

If you are some sort of an 'evangelist' all I can say is that from my point of view you make Jesus appear to be a REALLY UGLY egotist who has no concept of love whatsoever.

That's all I know for sure.

Absolutely.

The story makes no sense at all. If God wanted to put Jesus on earth he could have just waved his magic wand and made it so. He wouldn't have needed to find a SINLESS human (which Christians claim is impossible anyway!)

That's a contradiction right there!

If Mary was sinnless that that just PROOVES that there are indeed sinless humans on earth.

Clearly the story fails miserably and shoots itself in its own foot here.

An all powerful God who can do anything could have just had Jesus pop into existence already being 30 years old. After all, why make Jesus live through human childhood when that wouldn't even be necessary.

The story demands that God be limited.

The story demands that sinless humans DO INEED EXIST!

So in both cases it flies in the face of what God and Humans are supposed to be.

It's a self-contradicting story.

You do realize that at the time that Jesus supposedly lives, Life Expectancy was no where near what is is today.

Going by the the most popular belief of when Jesus was believed to have lived, it is at least 30+ years between his death, and the writing of the bible. That is at least one generation passing between to the two events.

Going by the earliest time that Jesus is believed to have lived, there is a 130+ year gap. That is Many, Many, generations between when this man supposedly lived, and people writing about his life.

Through actual historic events that have been mentioned in the bible, we know that the gospels of the NT were written after 70AD.

How can they be eyewitness accounts, when you can't even place Jesus in history accurately?

I don't believe any of the stories about Jesus were "eye witness" accounts. I think even the eye witnesses were fiction. I suspect the entire NT was a work of fiction, (but then everyone knows what I think. LOL.)

Last night I watched a comedian say this about the NT. He said, "The New Testament is pretty old. They shouldn't call it the "Old Testament and the New Testament" they should call it the "Old testament and the most recent Testament."