@fokker

Strangely enough that piece of "fiction" as you call it, hasn't been surpassed by anything to this date. Tell you what, if you can prove to me that Jesus didn't raise from the dead 3 days after his crucifiction, i'll renounce my faith right then and there and apologise to you for being wrong. Baring in mind that the jews were the only people who would really benefit from finding his body so they could show everyone they were right and He was lying; the apostles were hiding, the roman guards could have cared less and all the eyewitnesses.

50 years to write 13000 copies by HAND. I dare you to do the same with a few of your friends and see if you even come close.

It's not the teachings of a parable. It's the teachings of Jesus who spoke in parables to the non believers and provided an explanation for them to his apostles who included those in their gospels.

Free will to make the choice of a) accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and getting eternal life or b) turning your back on him and die in your sins. God uses people just as much as Satan does, only difference is that Satan does it to destroy lives and keep people from getting saved.

No, the Bible is still His word, it was just written down by man.

Funny enough one of them is "Thou shalt not lie"...<

It is traditional to quote what you are replying to, and to reply to each point point by point, for the sake of clarity.
E.g.

"Jesus was a white man with blonde hair and blue eyes"

Even though he lived in the middle east? Please!

"And he loves guns and George Bush"

Even though they did not exist when the mad carpenter was alive?

See?

"If this forum had a decent way of quoting I would have done it that way, but theres hardly any difference between quoted text and what you say so i don't bother with it. I replied to every single point you made in the same chronological way."

Just do it the same way everyone else does it, Copyand Paste. And I already tried what you suggest but it seems to me you missed a point or two... If you can't be bothered to continue this discussion then just say so.

> Tell you what, if you can prove to me that Jesus didn't raise from the dead 3 days after his crucifiction, i'll renounce my faith right then and there and apologise to you for being wrong.

tell you what. stop with the "prove that [insert here] doesn't" -logic. it's idiotic and mostly used when religious folks feel cornered.

i'll prove to you that jesus didn't rise from the dead 3 days after his crucifixion if you prove that easter bunny doesn't exist.

There you go fokker, added quotes

deci: Because you base your points on nothing, and i base mine on the Bible (e.g. proof). I don't feel cornered, in fact I have never felt so sure about anything in my life. The fact you can't contradict what's being said in the Bible makes me believe even more so yeah. Easter bunnies don't exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible. Easter is about His resurection, not about chocolate bunnies and eggs.

> Winter-een-mas wrote:

> deci: Because you base your points on nothing, and i base mine on the Bible (e.g. proof). I don't feel cornered, in fact I have never felt so sure about anything in my life. The fact you can't contradict what's being said in the Bible makes me believe even more so yeah. Easter bunnies don't exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible. Easter is about His resurection, not about chocolate bunnies and eggs.

you mistyped, i assume. clearly you ment to say that you base your points on the bible, not proof.

"Easter bunnies don't exist because they aren't mentioned in the Bible." <-- that is just sodding awesome. in your view, atoms don't exist. that's just pure awesome.

are you going to prove soon that easter bunnies don't exist? i'm waiting until that, then i'll prove god doesn't exist.

well, he does believe in gods, fairies and jesuses. you decide.

@fokker:

"Surpassed inn what way? And how does that prove that the Bible cannot be a work of fiction?
"

Surpassed as in changed the world forever, change time notation etc. As I've said before (and WFS even agreed with me on that on), the Bible has the smallest timespan between original and copies + an insane amount of copies in that same small period especially in comparison to other historical documents from that time. I have also proven (well in that link it's proven anyway) that the originals were written while the apostles were still alive + most other eyewitnesses so there's no point in denying it's reliability, even almost 2000 years after the actual events.

"Firstly, the event in question happened 2000 years ago, and so I cannot prove it didn't happen any more than you can prove it did happen.
"
Bible tells us what happened. If people don't want to believe that's their choice.

"Secondly, why would anyone want to look for his body?"

Because He told everyone He would raise from the dead after 3 days and if the Jews (or other non believers) could prove He was not the living God, by presenting His body to the masses, they would have saved face and regained their power if not increased it even further. Jesus dealt a heavy blow to their teachings and customs.

"They watched him die, slowly, over a period of days before a Roman finally put him out of his misery and plunged a spear into his side. I think by that point they'd be very convinced that they were right.
"

Jesus gave up His Spirit willingly (to fulfill the prophecy) and because of that He was already dead before that centurion speared His body (John 19:32-36).

"Thirdly, what the hell does this have to do with my statement of "His point was quite clear: Just because it changed the world it doesn't mean it cannot be a work of fiction."?
"
The resurrection of Jesus is one of the most crucial events in the Bible, if he could prove to me that never happened it would indeed be "fiction"

"This ansewr does not address my point: 50 years is not a small window of error: Think of 50 years ago. Write it down. Now go research it.
Even with "modern" records anything that happened 50 years ago is almost legend, muddled by the mist of memory and time. Now imagine that there were no records, that all there was was memory, word of mouth... after 50 years? Back then that was two generations, two lifetimes... no room for twisting there? Of course there is, for even the "word of god" is at the mercy of the mouths of men.
"

Yes it does, it took them 50 years to write so many copies. They didn't start the copying process after those 50 years had finished Originals of the books were written between AD 30 - 70 and the earliest copies were finished around AD 130 (hmm maybe should have written it this way the first time, would have made it much clearer, my bad )

"Firstly, is it not entirely possible that the entire Bible is a parable in itself?"

How do you mean?

"Secondly, the heretical aramaic scripture dates to the year 30AD, was written in Aramaic i.e the language of Jesus, and spoke of things that are in direct contradiction with Christianity today, for example: If you wish to find God you will not find him in a church, but under a rock, beneath the ocean, above the clouds...
See my point now?"

Ah yes, "Cleave a piece of wood and I'm there, lift up the stone and you'll find Me" You are referring to the Catholic church and it's indeed in contradiction to their ways but then again, they also believe that priests can forgive your sins, when only Jesus Himself has that power. That aside it's not contradicting the Bible:
Jeremiah 23:14 - Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? Do I not fill heaven and earth? (God is everywhere)
Jer 29:13 - You shall seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. (no specific place given where you'll find Him, only when you look for Him with all your heart will you find Him)
There are some more but I doubt you'll read them all anyway.

"Now answer the question: How would he stop them?
"

Rev 22:18-19 - If any man should add unto these things, God shall add upon him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the Holy city... I don't know about you but I wouldn't want all that to happen to me, and people who lived in His days and even the generations soon after wouldn't want that either.

"Which Bible? Are they all his word, faithfully reproduced by men with no ulterior motives, no desire for power absolut?
"

All His words, and why would they want power?
Mark 8:36 - For what shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?
(and along with his soul, eternal life in paradise)

"Any all men follow all of Gods teaching all of the time? No.
Most of the time? No.
Some of the time? If we are lucky.
"

You're right: Men don't. Real Christians: yes! (and if we make a mistake sometime, let's face it we're still human, we ask Him to forgive us and continue with our lives and try to avoid those mistakes in the future). God loves everyone but only forgives people who return that love.

"Try to understand this: There is a massive amount of historical evidence to support that MEN put what they wanted into the Bible, edited it for their own ends, and this evidence is not even very hard to find.
"

Show me please

"Think about this: If Eve ate the Apple, as is clearly stated in any Bible written after a certain date, why do men have an Adam's Apple?"

My KJV Bible (the New American Standard Bible aswell) says they both ate of the apple, and both male and female have adams apples, they are just more noticable with men. Then again that's not the only difference in body structure between males and females right? The reason why it's more noticable with men is something I can't answer, supposedly it's because a part of the apple remained in his throat but no verses about that so I can't say for sure

@Noir: Yes Noir... I am retarted... How have you been anyway? been a while since that 3people fam sd round when me and Kpax were in the same fam and you were playing there aswell.

@Deci:

"you mistyped, i assume. clearly you ment to say that you base your points on the bible, not proof.
"

Aye, my bad. But the Bible is still the Truth, you just don't want to believe it.

"that is just sodding awesome. in your view, atoms don't exist. that's just pure awesome.
"

Hebrews 11:3 - Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (KJV) - By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (NASB)

Atoms aren't visible, not with the naked eye anyway. And obviously they couldn't use the word atom because they didn't know that word that long ago.

@KtC: I've been pretty good Enjoying my time in Ireland atm, in 7 weeks I'm going back to Belgium. How have you been?

I think you are being intentionally stupid in order to protect yourself, some part of you that needs an invisible crutch to make it through the day.
It is clear to me that you believe that every version of the Bible is the literal truth, not because they all say the same things (which they don't) but because they are Christian and therefore cannot ever be wrong, in any circumstances.
It is also clear to me that you have done no research whatsoever, and that in your opinion reading the Bible is research enough, because it is the literal word of God.

The Bibe has repeatedly been mistranslated, misinterpreted, and even intentionally edited for the sake of power, this is a matter of record that is easily researched.

Oh, and the reason I called you intentionally stupid is that noone in their right mind would try to back up their arguments by quoting from the Bible when their opponent has clearly stated on many occasions that they have about as much faith in its "purity", for want of a better word, than they do in their ability to fly.

I suggest you take a copy of this discussion to your R.E. teacher/lecturuer, priest or bishop (preferably a smart one that /has a high command of the English language) so that they can clarify my arguments for you in your native language, and maybe then you will get the point... maybe, but quite franky at this point I doubt you will even listen to them.

If you do do this, you know where to find me.
___________________________
___________________________

Sorry KTC, I got sidetracked: /me waves How are you? WHere have you been?

> Winter-een-mas wrote:

> Atoms aren't visible, not with the naked eye anyway. And obviously they couldn't use the word atom because they didn't know that word that long ago.

hey, you're the one who said that if it's not mentioned in the bible it's not true. i must say, i'm glad you notice the stupidity of your own statement.

anyway, where's the proof against easter bunny's existence? still waiting.

helloozzz ktc, same here, tired, but okies

"Here is the start of the research you cannot be bothered to do yourself.
I think you wiil see, as you do your research, that my points are based on true historical fact, something any good man of the cloth will tell you..."

It's courtesy if you make a claim to back it up yourself but anyway, thx for the links

Those mistakes don't change the doctrine of Christianity in any way.

Some of those "mistakes" aren't even valid, e.g. first mistake mentioned: Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Hayah means to exist (I am, I was, I will be). Gen 1:2 describes the state the world was in while Gen 19:26 describes an action/event (she became a pillar of salt). The world didn't become void, it was void. The woman wasn't a pillar of salt, she became one. Still the same world and used correctly in the KJV.

Even the conclusion at the bottom of p2 agrees that KJV is the most accurate version out there. Given there are some small mistakes in it but they don't harm the doctrine. If I would write my own gospel and it would be included in the KJV that would indeed make it unpure and really damage the credibility but not those translation mistakes.

@deci

"hey, you're the one who said that if it's not mentioned in the bible it's not true. i must say, i'm glad you notice the stupidity of your own statement. "

Hebrews 11:3 - Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (KJV) - By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (NASB)

He created everything, everything is made of atoms, atoms are not visible and it's in the Bible.

"anyway, where's the proof against easter bunny's existence? still waiting."

http://www.carm.org/atheism/santa.htm

Switch santa for easter bunny (comes down to the same thing) and you have your answer.

@Arfeh

Ah indeed, thanks for pointing that out But then again the apostles were just ordinary fisherman etc so they wouldn't have known anything about them.

> He created everything, everything is made of atoms, atoms are not visible and it's in the Bible.

show me the bible passage that mentions atoms. by word.

>http://www.carm.org/atheism/santa.htm Switch santa for easter bunny (comes down to the same thing) and you have your answer.

that site presented no proof whatsoever. so jesus this and jesus that, what does that have to do with santa claus or easter bunny? they could still exist, regardless of jesuses. they're not connected. prove easter bunny doesn't exist. prove he doesn't exist in some remote part of planet mars. or in andromeda. chop chop.

"Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist.  Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus and though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them that Santa is real."

i must admit, that bit on the site you gave is bloody hilarious. let's play the change-words:
"Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can be reasonably supported to exist.  Very few flies deny the historic reality of shit tasting excellent and though millions of religious people affirm the existence of god, we know well that the minds of religious people are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality -- particularly when the parents and priests they are trusting tell them that god is real."