Ridiculi : Noun: meaning ridiculous inaccurate information.

What are you talking about Jb? The canonization? The Council of Nicea? The Romans who arrested Jesus and asked the public who, between Barrabas and Jesus should die?

What are you talking about?

I'm confused again.

The Bible consists of sixty-six books which were written by forty different men from different walks of life over 1600 years. Four hundred silent years separated the 39 books of the Old Testament from the 27 of the New Testament. Yet, from Genesis to Revelation, the Scriptures tell one unfolding story. The Catholics did NOT "create" Christianity; as a matter of fact, Catholicism comes from the Egyptians, who worshiped Isis and Osiris, the precursors of their "Jesus" and "Mary". They also created the confessional, which was used to blackmail people for money.

Down through the ages, many have doubted the historical and geographical accuracy of the Bible. But modern archeologists have repeatedly unearthed evidence of the people, places, and cultures described in the Scriptures. Time after time, the descriptions in the biblical record have been shown to be more reliable than the speculations of scholars.

During 1947, in a cave of the northwest rim of the Dead Sea, a copy of Isaiah (among other writings) was discovered. It revealed a document that is essentially the same as the book of Isaiah that appears in our modern Bibles. The Dead Sea scrolls discredited the claims of those who believed that the original Bible had been lost to time and tampering.

The books of Moses were written 500 years before the earliest Hindu Scriptures. Moses wrote Genesis 2,000 years before Muhammad penned the Koran. No other book has been so consistently bought, studied, and quoted as the Bible, which is still the book by which all other books are measured.

The Holy Spirit teaches to every believer the Divine authority of the Bible. Christ says, "My sheep know my voice." I am one of His flock, and I am convicted that the voice that speaks to me from the Bible is the voice of G-d. I have had too many personal experiences that prove to me that His word is true and for me, there is no argument.

If you're not a believer, you can't possibly understand it. To put it plainly, you'd just be reading someone else's mail. I wish you all luck in your personal quests. Believe me, I sincerely hope that you DO find out the truth.

That's a can-o-worms if I've ever seen one.

Buckle up.

That seems a bit of an oxymoron. Why would you expect anyone to believe in something if they don't understand it. The only reason to believe the Bible is that it is old and that is no reason to believe it.



Well that's nice to know. Really? Blackmail?

Yes, and didn't they replace Isis with "Mary" and throw in a few pagan holidays and the plagiarized fictional drama of the Passion play, and call "Jesus" real, then call that "Christianity?"

So isn't the Catholic Church considered "Christian" now?



So then where is the archaeological evidence for King David, Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Mary, etc?



Stories of some copy of Isaiah being discovered in a cave by the "dead sea" sounds just a bit contrived to me.



Well I'm not a sheep, and I'm not convinced of anything.



I doubt that. Most people don't really want the truth. They won't even ask for credible evidence from their authorities. They prefer to profess that they have "faith" and nobody else can "understand."

P.S.


I have my own long list of "personal experiences" also that I call my "personal relationship with God."

But that does not prove anything to me concerning the Bible or any one of these religions that are all so different it is mind boggling.

More like the canonization and the Council of Nicea and a few other things.

Rome went from persecuting Christians to creating a religion that today is called "Christianity." There was a lot of arguments involved in the process, and back then they were settled with swords.
Lots of people got killed.

Great religion.

But first thing's first, then on to the rest of the story. I think credible evidence of King David, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mary, Joshua, and all those other alleged people is the first thing that needs to be dealt with. Until then, they will be called "fictional" in my book of the world.

I think that you have yer history mixed up a bit Jb. Romans did not create Christianity. To most Romans, Jesus was probably no more than a poor Jerusalem resident. Paul did most of the 'work', as he admittedly wrote most of the NT, in addition to preaching the gospel to the Romans in first and second Romans. So it is clear that the religion was around before The Roman Empire adopted it; quite clear, given the earlier Christian sacrifices. Constantine was the first documented emperor to convert to Christianity, and that was about 300 years after the reported death of Jesus. Now Constantine called for the Council in order to bring some sort of coherency to the religion, as it had expanded into different directions with different sorts of beliefs, from all the different groups of people.

Be all this as it may, it is wrong to say that the Romans created/invented the religion.

I'm just curious...

Do you feel like the same sort of 'evidence' is necessary to believe that say... Socrates? Genghis Khan? Confucious? Lao Tzu?

I mean, do you deny that these people existed based upon the same ground?

So you are claiming that you know what "most Romans" probably thought of Jesus?"

You think I have my history mixed up? Well I'm sure I do.

Because history is all mixed up. Everyone who thinks they have it right, doesn't. I'm certainly not a history expert, but I'm still convinced that history is all mixed up.




And where is your evidence that Paul wrote most of the NT? How do you know that information is true? Where is the evidence of that? Who is Paul anyway? Oh and didn't he change his name after he converted and stopped murdering people?



I don't disagree with that. Yes it was around before the Roman Empire "adopted it."

So were a lot of other religions. Dozens probably. But the Roman Catholic Church basically took it and redesigned it and made it their own. Christianity was nothing similar to what it was twisted it into by the Catholic Church. It became what it is today because of them.



Some people believe that the NT was written a few hundred, maybe three hundred, years after the supposed death of Jesus. In any case, that sounds like the same time they redesigned Christianity.



"The Religion" you are speaking of that they were attempting to bring "coherency" to was a bunch of different religions from all different groups of people. They were not exactly "Christianity."

And don't they now call it the "Roman Catholic Church?" Were they not Romans? Did they not redesign "the Religion" and call it Christianity and put it under Rome and a Pope?




I think the above people have probably got enough documentation from different sources to be considered to have existed. Are they not taught in regular history classes? I have not questioned whether they ever existed. It is not they who form the foundation of the Abrahamic religions of the world.

First things first.
Is there any credible archaeological evidence, outside of the Bible that King David, Abraham, Joshua, Mary, Jesus, etc. actually existed?

I am only asking, right now, about these particular people. I am not wanting to nit pick on everyone else's beliefs about what they think is true or not in history.

I'm sure there are many different beliefs about history that I don't know about. My question currently is simply concerning evidence documenting the house of King David... etc.

Everyone keeps going off on different tangents....

I would like to focus on King David and Abraham etc.

Um, the Matrix was a fictional place within the story designed by the computers ... of course we can't dodge bullets or fly. I think every other person here took from my post that I'm not talking about the events in these films because they are obviously works of fiction, I'm talking about the science behind the events. I'm talking about the EFFORT by the writers/filmmakers to get the science of power, travel and technology (and how it MAY WORK) correct (theoretically, obviously) when making their books or films. Should I footnote everything I say just for you in every discussion you're involved in?



I wasn't arguing "Sci-fi v. Religion" ... my argument (which was clarified in the next paragraph if you'd actually read the post) was that even non-believers, picturing or debating or writing conjecture about the future of society, include religion in the general form its in today.

Read.

You can read as many brochures about a country and a culture (or even religion) as you possibly can, but until you are immersed in it and become a part of it, you will only understand it at a shallow level; it's like reading a book about Italy and thinking you understand the culture, habits and mindset of Italians. How can you expect to deeply understand something that is the tenet of the Christian religion if you are not a part of it?

Yes, blackmail. Catholicism is a cult and too many people who are really seeking G-d are being deceived by its doctrines. It's a cheap copy of what Messiah intended his church to be and its holidays are cheap copies of the Eternal feasts mandated by G-d in the Scriptures.

I cannot tell you exactly if there is archaelogical evidence for King David or Moses, as I have not studied that. However, Flavius Josephus, a respected non-Christian historian, has attested to the existence of Joseph, Mary and Jesus.

Cornelius Tacitus, who lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120, was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. In his work "The Annals", Tacitus describes Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians and affirms that the founder of Christianity was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. He was also a non-christian.

Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.

Those are all real people who can be looked up and their writings are still available, who attest to the existence of Jesus Christ.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in eleven caves along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between the years 1947 and 1956. The first was discovered by a Bedouin shepherd boy who was searching for a stray goat. There were copies of the books of Isaiah, Deuteronomy and the Psalms, as well as fragments of every book of the Hebrew canon except Esther. They have been studied by a number of scholars and scientists dated the Isaiah Scroll, which was intact, to be 1000 years older than any previously known copy. The Scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found. Hardly contrived.

I'm not a "sheep" either. I've been studying, not just reading the Scriptures, ancient Hebrew history and their existence for over 30 years. I have been seeking the truth and I believe that I've found it. When you've done 30 years of research, I'd be happy to learn what you've discovered. Seriously.

I don't subscribe to modern religions either. Compared to the Bible and history, most doctrines are a combination of personal opinion, mixed with tradition and hold very little biblical truth.

Paul was a brilliant Hebrew scholar who was trained as a legalistic Pharisee; training to become a rabbi usually was not completed until a man was near or in his forties - Paul became a rabbi at the age of 27. His letters have been studied by scholars through history, referenced by other authors and historians of his time (which is one form of evidence) and studied for their content, style of writing, language and historical setting. Of the 14 letters in the New Testament, seven are undisputed; they all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style and a uniformity of doctrine concerning the Mosaic Law, Jesus, faith, etc. All of these letters easily fit into the chronology of Paul's journeys depicted in Acts of the Apostles. The others are still being researched.

As for Socrates, Genghis Khan, Confucius and Lao Tzu being taught in school history classes, don't schools also teach the theory of evolution as scientific fact, despite the fact that it is still unproved by science method and the author himself questions it's validity in his "Origin of The Species"? And yes, I've read that too.

I'll get back to you on David and Moses when I've studied more about them.

Cornelius Tacitus, never actually mentioned "Jesus." People were always being executed - especially for apposing the current religion in power. (I have also heard from many people that Jesus was not the "founder" of Christianity and never intended to start a religion.)

Flavius Josephus, is another name tossed around as "evidence" when I ask for valid archaeological evidence for Jesus. Yet there is not enough evidence that he (Josephus) even existed. That writings attributed to him are believed by some to have been written by another person using a pen name. (I'm not going to go into all of that because I have been all over that in past posts and it is a little off topic)

In any case this is not valid archaeological evidence. Its basically all anyone has. It is very flimsy.

Now of course if King David and Abraham and ancestors have no credible believable evidence, outside of the Bible, to have ever existed, it sort of puts a huge chink in the whole story concerning Jesus and all the rest.

That is why I find it hard to believe that more people don't ask for or insist on evidence outside of the Bible for the existence of these key characters. They simply take it all on faith.

I'm not willing to do that. I have to conclude that those stories are probably pure fiction.

There are some characters in history that no one doubts existed. Yet here are these characters that are held up as the most important of all time ~King David and Abraham ~ and where is the evidence for their existence?

If that book on Italy includes "culture, habits and mindset of Italians" I would expect to have a decent cursory understanding of just that after reading it ... if I did not, I would label the book as fiction. As far as your question, its not a great selling point for anything, especially "eternal life". "Well I don't understand this, but I'll do it anyway" doesn't seem like a good motto nor does it seem like God would approve.



Titus Flavius Josephus was a Jew whose accounts are very controversial among historians. The "respected" part of your statement is primarily a self-proclaimed adjective. Josephus also managed to talk himself out of being executed by the Romans (while apparently 39 of his companions were) and convinced them to allow him citizenship and pay him a pension ... I wonder how he did that? He never said.



And if he really is known for his integrity and moral uprightness, perhaps he is also correct in naming Christians as terrorists and evil?



Pliny the Younger was also a playwright and poet, known for writing fiction.



None of these accounts mention or allude to the existence of Jesus by name.



No doubt, the author(s) knew their controversial nature and hid copies so the text would not be lost. However, just because they were found doesn't mean they're 100% factually correct and/or unbiased accounts of anything. Nor does it mean God placed them there.



Keep in mind that Paul never meet Christ and did not write about him until many years after the crucifixion. When those letters were written, he was professedly a Christian convert ... thus, bias.



Schools teach the "Theory of Evolution", which is not scientific law mostly because any single human cannot live for millions of years to watch the process take place. There is much evidence to support this process, however and more being unearthed all the time. The author, Darwin, did not so much "question the validity" ... he was penning his thoughts on how nature might work, breaching new scientific territory and since it mostly went against what he was taught (as he was religious, by the way), of course there was a natural conflict.

2000 years, innumerable technological advances and gadgets later, still waiting for it to be 'disproven', or 'discredited'.....


be blessed,,,

People are, and always will be, story makers.

If I told you the Earth was the shape of a cube. You would always half believe me. That's just the way we are made, sadly.

We are a modern so-called civilized, technological and scientific society, who still believes in the myths of old and a 2000 year old book, who refuses to question its authority over them -- and they fight and kill each other's sons and daughters in the name of different Gods.

True to a degree. A true Christian would not do as such, we are not taught to do so. This does not coincide with the Christian belief to behave as such, actually goes completely against it. We have a loving God that does not wish for us to go around hurting others, even for disbelief. All judgement lays in the hands of Jesus. So no, not every "religion" does this nor does every "God" tell them to do so.

So the age of the "book" deciphers it's authenticity? So in 2000 years from now, today will mean nothing more then a fable, a myth, hearsay rumours, or anything of that manner? If that's the case, what does today matter tomorrow?

We should live for today the best we can and we should put away childish things.

Those childish things of past stories are what we cling to, as a child clings to and hopes that Santa is real and is going to come down the chimney bringing presents.

Santa is not coming.

Storys are good for children, really very good.

But I think the old santa story, is old, tryed, and wearing out very fast.

We do need to wake up alot as a society. But we will always need some form of culture.

But, we don't need it taking over our minds. We need to keep real, and unreal, apart to a certain extent.

There are countless examples of people who wanted to believe it and make it work but who could not justify the utter absurdities and contradictions within it. I doubt very seriously that there is any better example of this than Isaac Newton. He desperately wanted to make sense of the Bible and finally gave up on it concluding that it can't possibly be true. I reached the very same conclusion before I even discovered that Isaac Newton did.

In fact, if religious people claim to be so interested in TRUTH, then why don't they tell people of all these obviuosly intelligent historical figure that reject the bible as being total nonsense? Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and countless others.

Do you truly personally believe that all of those figures are EVIL people who are maliciously choosing to REJECT their creator?

With all due respect, from my perspective that would be utterly foolish. Besides, I came to the same conclusions and I KNOW for a fact that I'm not choosing to reject any God. I'm merely recognizing that these fables are utterly absurd and highly contradictory.



What? Some one else's mail?

That's a contradiction right there! If you want to claim that the Bible represents the word of the creator of all humanity, than it would be everyone's mail.

Obviously this religion has gone to your head and had given you some sort of superiority complex.

Clearly you're just using your choice of religion to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with it.



Why would that be important?

Do you FEAR that the God depicted in these fables would actually be MEAN to people who see these stories as being utterly absurd and stupid?

You must think that our creator is a hideous demon.

To begin with, I see the Bible as being stories of an utterly stupid and unrighteous God, and that's NOT what this God is like, then obviously I would not be rejecting the God anyway. I would just be rejecting a TOTAL MISCONCEPTION of what this God actually represents.

Therefore, an all-knowing God would fully understand this and come "judgment day" he would simply apologize to the disbelievers for having chosen such a lame culture to write about him.

Even Jesus himself renounced the ways of the God of the Old Testament according to the New Testament rumors.



I disagree. Many of the books in the Old Testament are totally disjoint and have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Moreover, just look at any fairytales. How many stories of Santa Claus have been told? It's human nature to expand on the myths of their culture. So it makes perfect sense that new authors would pick up on previous stories and add to them. This happens in all religious and mythologies, the Biblical stories are no exception in any way.

When it comes to the New Testament there are only about 2 or 3 authors who claim to have any direct knowledge of Jesus and even that is highly questionable. For example Paul never even met Jesus in the flesh, he merely claims to have had a vision of him.

Most theological scholars are in agreement that the three books, Mark, Matthew and Luke, are actually just re-tellings of the same rumors. Mark had the original rumor, then Matthew and Luke actually elaborated on it each adding their own exaggerations that actually conflict with each other.

Some of the books of the New Testament are actually nothing more than commentary being made by people who are giving their reasons why they believe the rumors.

It's actually a false claim to say that these biblical fables are on continual story. They are clearly fragmented rumors and superstitions.

Sure, the rumors and superstitions have a lot in common, but that's true of the mythologies created by all cultures.

You'd be really hard-pressed to try to find any culture whose religious fables and mythologies are totally disjoint without any common connections.

In fact, if that's the standard we go by then we should look long and hard at the Egyptian religions because their stories are all connected as well. And perhaps we should re-examine Greek Mythology as well! And don't for get about the American Indians, and the Aztecs and the Incas, etc.

The idea that the Hebrew fables have anymore merit than any of these other fables simply holds no water. That's just the Abrahamic Lie.

That reminds me too. If it's your claim that the ancient Abrahamic stories are consistent and believable then you're supporting Judaism and Islam.

The Jews gave really good reasons why the rumors of Jesus are not consistent with the Old Testament.

I agree. Based on the gospel rumors of Jesus there is no reason at all to think that Jesus could have been the son of the God of Abraham. Jesus totally disagreed with the teachings of the Torah and taught far better moral values.

So there is nothing consistent between Jesus and the God of Abraham.