5 Things You Won't Believe Aren't In the Bible
- Thread starter mrk
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 4,473
- Location
- South West
Some of the earlier scriptures were written down at a later date (obviously Genesis!!!) but if something that hasn’t changed from original scrolls found all over the place (Dead Sea Scrolls etc) between each other then surely that is proof in itself?
There are books that were left out from the Protestant Canon known as the Gnostic books which for various reasons were left out. Again, proof that not just anything was put into the Bible.
“Gnostic gospels are forgeries, fraudulently written in the names of the Apostles in order to give them a legitimacy in the early church. Thankfully, the early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic gospels as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There are countless contradictions between the Gnostic gospels and the true Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gnostic gospels can be a good source for the study of early Christian heresies, but they should be rejected outright as not belonging in the Bible and not representing the genuine Christian faith.”
Worth noting that the Bible does not contradict itself – pure fluke? I think not (and I’m not alone).
Excellent, so you can quite happily provide proof of the existence of Jesus from writings contemporary to the time? No? When on earth not?
JEWS – Consider Jesus a teacher and leader only, not the Messiah
CHRISTIANS – Believe Jesus was the promised Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament, the Son of God
CATHOLICS – Similar to Christians in that they believe Jesus is the Son of God
MUSLIMS – believe that Jesus was born of Mary by the power of Allah and regarded as a great prophet.
MORMONS – believe that Jesus is the Son of God
BUDDISHM – Some speak of Jesus as an enlightened man
Flavius Josephus is probably your best source for evidence supporting the historical aspect of the Bible and certainly notes Jesus’ existence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Flavius_Josephus
I won’t go into this any more as there is so much evidence people need to look with an open mind for themselves.
For English translations your best to go with the King James Version or New King James as these are widely seen as the best translation.... but it is a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek so there are words in those languages that are not 'available' in the English and as the saying goes, somethings have been ‘lost in translation’.
a lot of people dismiss the whole thing as it's a translation. At the end of the day most ancient literature is so best to stick to the most accurate possible.
Think you'll find Catholics are a subset of Christians, just as Eastern Orthodoxy is a subset and Protestants are a subset...
Similar to Christians, I mean, of course they're similar, they are Christians!!!
The Zombie ones are brilliant
http://www.cracked.com/article_1868...Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended
http://www.cracked.com/article_1868...Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=recommended
The old testament itself is a written account of old jewish oral histories. There is very little that can be confirmed as truth in it from other historical sources. The Dead Sea Scrolls are themselves much younger than the Old Testament and while important, do not verify the Old Testament.
But also proof that it has had selection applied to it. It may well have been required selection but without access to all the documents removed you have no idea if everything that should have made it in, did in fact make it in.
Would love to know the origin of that paragraph as it seems to be all over the net on various websites with no real attributation.
Doesn't it? In that case, in what year was Chirst born? Two of the Gospels give contradictory evidence which makes it somewhat hard to pin it down.
All pretty much after the fact and based on the Bible and Christianity. Don't get me wrong, I believe that it is quite possible for Jesus the man to have existed. However it is very hard to prove and several alternative hypothesis have been put forward. It would also be unwise to say that anyone that doesn't believe he existed is an idiot as you will have a very hard job of proving his actual existence.
Using your same source have a look at this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus which has some arguments against Josephus on Jesus being authentic. Also note that Josephus was born after Christ was crucified so he isn't actually a historian contempary with Christ.
As for an open mind, you are the one saying someone is an idiot if they do not believe Jesus exists, so surely it is your mind that is closed on this issue?
There are quite a few Christians that have quite serious issues with the KJV, of course they are balanced out by the nutters who think the KJV is the actual word of God. Swings and roundabouts eh? It also wasn't a translation from the "original" Greek and Hebrew, it was a translation from copies of copies of copies the originals. The oldest copy of the bible is still somewhere in the region of 350 years after the death of Christ. Oh and it misses a few bits out that are in later bibles too...
You're referring to the guy who was born after Jesus (assuming he existed) would have been dead? Only makes brief mention of Jesus twice; one which is considered corrupted and is only a couple of lines. And a the other referencing him as the brother of James who the piece is actually about.
That's the closet you'll get to a contemporary source and it's still not. Excluding the Bible as a source the fact of whether there ever existed a Jesus is very debatable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,227
- Location
- Surrey
Prove it then boxy. Yeah, thought not.
tiny bit underwhelmed 
read the title "5 things you wont believe arent in the Bible"
Had a quick gander at each..
5. Angels
4. Devil has pitchfork etc
3. Holy Grail (cup of christ)
2. Anti-christ
1. Hell
Every single one IS in the bible...perhaps not the description of the devil having pitchfork, goatee etc but dont get the point of the article at all.
In each subsection - the author chips in with a disclaimer where he adds a caveat yes they are BUT. So he lures folk in with dubious and extravagant headline grabbing but when it comes to it hes talking bs....
V poor article...really scraping the bottom of the barrel.....i wasted 5 minutes reading and replying about it
read the title "5 things you wont believe arent in the Bible"
Had a quick gander at each..
5. Angels
4. Devil has pitchfork etc
3. Holy Grail (cup of christ)
2. Anti-christ
1. Hell
Every single one IS in the bible...perhaps not the description of the devil having pitchfork, goatee etc but
dont get the point of the article at all.In each subsection - the author chips in with a disclaimer where he adds a caveat yes they are BUT. So he lures folk in with dubious and extravagant headline grabbing but when it comes to it hes talking bs....
V poor article...really scraping the bottom of the barrel.....i wasted 5 minutes reading and replying about it
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 206
Did Thor exist? He was central to the faith of the Vikings.
I find ESV is great for reading, and quite contemporary. Never really tried it for study. NRSV is great for study. NIV is a good middle ground.
Think outside the box
He did exist but probably not in a material world like ours. I know most people on OcUK are very scientific in their approaches to these matters but even if I don't believe in the concept of God described by many religions, I still believe God exists. God is a word after all and it does exist in our vocabulary. Whether he exists in the form of a human like you seem to be insinuating.Rip this apart but I don't see why something can't exist if there is absolutely NO proof as to it's existence. This is why we discover things after all even if they start as a theory.
But hey, I'm a kid still in college, what do I know about the world
P.S.: Not a dig at you personally martin, they're just my thoughts on the subject, although un-educated thoughts.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It's sort of interesting and yet at the same time not very interesting even excluding the somewhat misleading title, while a lot of the ideas in the piece are based on popular misconceptions it should be fairly obvious that a fair bit of artistic licence was taken with many of them and that what was actually described in the Bible would never entirely match it. Still if it gets people to think about it a bit more then maybe it's not such a bad thing.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,729
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I'll also add that there weren't 3 wise men and they certainly weren't named until around 600AD.
The Bible just says that Wise Men came from the East carrying 3 gifts - there could have been 2 or 20.
The Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in The Bible - another thing made up by man centuries later.
The Bible just says that Wise Men came from the East carrying 3 gifts - there could have been 2 or 20.
The Holy Trinity isn't mentioned in The Bible - another thing made up by man centuries later.
It wasn't exactly "made up" by man. The doctrine developed from frequent references to three beings, each supposedly God. You're right that the word trinity is not explicitly mentioned, however.
This interpretation is Christian approved.