Why bother stu. I do not think my belief on what might cause destruction in the middle east is relevant. The point is you speculate incorrectly about what I belive very frequently. Now your quote about hell is wrong. STU you are just so prejudice against someone who professes belief it is stupid. A good person might help a blind lady pick up after her dog in the middle of the street as my athiest friend once did. Whether being good like that has an effect on his afterlife to me is a very interesting question. Many Christians would tell you the only way into heaven is by believing in Christ before you die. However, I think the jews had a way in (perhaps before the temple was destroyed) and I am not sure others will not get a second chance to belive in Christ (perhaps after his second coming) I also know that even the Catholic Church says that a person may get into heaven if they did not know Christ through no fault of there own and God wishes to let them in because of their life. So when uniformed people say christ says believe in me or burn in hell I ask them to prove it. Your quotes are wrong STU because they are about a future time that has not yet occurred. You choose to call Christ a torturer. do you mean future torturer after his second coming after he gave you a chance to disabuse yourself of incorrect notions and hatreds or do you just like to make shit up about jesus record.
i am sure you could. theists have a nasty habit of wanting to use the bible literally when it agrees with their belief and figuratively if it disagrees with them. it doesn't really matter though because the bible is flawed. we have no originals or even any original copies. all we have is a collection of myths and fables doctored to "fit" the story. if you are interested in actually learning what modern scholars know about the bible here is a great book. read it or at least read the reviews. explore information that isn't filtered by your church. a little knowledge cant hurt you: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...te&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=31
I just read your link you may wish to read this powerful critique of the book. Here is a sample. And the idea that the very first scribes "changed" anything significant in the very earliest copies which we no longer have is also total speculation - Mr. Ehrman's views are unsupported by any tangible evidence and this is probably the weakest part of his book. In any case, we do have a fragment of the Gospel of John that has been dated to within 40 years of the original document and P46 (which has most of the NT) is dated rather early as well, so what else does he want? We see no meaningful changes among the thousands of manuscripts we have today that date back to these two second century sources, so why does Mr. Ehrman think there were significant changes in the very first copies no longer available from the first century? Using just common sense, why would there be significant changes in the first century copies, but none to be found in the second century and later copies??? On top of that, the first century is when many eyewitnesses would have still been alive to dispute and object to any drastic changes to the written record!!! Mr. Ehrman's conjecture here is neither logical nor reasonable - just pure speculation... it doesn't even pass the common sense test, let alone a scholarly and unbiased review. But, this is why people buy the book - they want to find a conspiracy or flaw in the Bible, regardless of how hack-eyed the theories are. Seriously, you need to read some books other than this one to get a balanced viewpoint. --------------- By the way I have done plenty of research on this subject on my own. My wife grew up in a Dutch born again protestant house, I grew up Catholic. As you know Luther took a few books out of the bible. Because her mom is a born again and her dad claims to be from a famous dutch family that has persecuted and been persecuted by Catholics ( he pretty much hates Catholics and has many of the other prejudices old line dutch people have. ) I have had to do a lot of research to determine if Protestant or Catholic claims are accurate. I have done plenty of research as how the canon was created. I have also done plenty of research on why the jewish bible now differs from the Septuagint. (sp?). I agree over the years specific groups interpretation of the bible has been disperate. However, some groups have been very consistent in their views. I think you may know who I mean.
i will counter with this: of 13 people found the following review helpful: Origins of the New Testament revealed, June 26, 2006 Reviewer: T. O. Whitehead (El Campo, Texas) - See all my reviews This excellent book by Bart Ehrman details how early Christian documents evolved into the New Testament we know today. If you are committed to the idea that every word in the Bible is the unadulterated Word of God, you had best cover your eyes. Using a variety of evidence, the author makes it clear -- in a respectful way -- that the Bible is a very human production. Some parts are apparently close to original texts. Others are obvious add-ons that were written to serve a contemporary purpose. These add-ons do not mesh well with -- and in some cases violate -- the more authentic message. The author's analysis really helps those wishing to gain understanding of the true message contained in the New Testament. This is one of the best books I have ever read about the origins of the Bible. It is scholarly, concise, and true to the spirit of the written Word. A delight. of 10 people found the following review helpful: Eyeopening, and Credible, June 26, 2006 Reviewer: Pragmatist (Phoenix, AZ.) - See all my reviews We don't have the original writings of the New Testament, but rather copies made years (mostly centuries) later, with both accidental and deliberate changes over the first almost 1,500 years. The copies differ from each other in innumerable (over 30,000, according to a 1707 source) places - mostly minor, but not all. Variations between copies are not the only problem. The New Testament is largely made up of letters written by Paul and other early Christian leaders to Christian communities (eg. the Corinthians) and individuals. The letters that survive are only a fraction of those written. In addition, scholars have long suspected that some of the New Testament letters under Paul's name were written by his later followers. There were also Gospels written by disciple Philip, his brother Judas, and his female companion Mary Magdalene that have not been included; others have been lost. The Acts of the Apostles is in the New Testament, while the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Thomas are not. Finally, teachings about how to structure and operate churches, apologies (logic to diffuse fear of Christianity by those running the empire) have also been left out. How did we end up with four Gospels? Ehrman tells us it was an early decision based on the fact that just as we have four winds and four zones of the world, there should be four Gospels. Settling on the 27 books of the New Testament did not occur until 367 A.D., though the arguments continued well past then. One of the problems with ancient Greek texts (includes the New Testament) is that when they were copied, no punctuation, distinction between upper- and lower-case letters, nor spaces between words were used. Spelling errors, and line skips by non-professional scribes were other problems. Another issue is that letter-writers in antiquity both dictated word for word, and (like today) set out general points, leaving the scribe to fill in the details. The story of Jesus and the adulteress ("Let whomever is without sin be the first to cast a stone." - John) is one of the best known in the Bible - however, most experts agree it was added on later (doesn't fit the context of the rest of the Gospel). Ehrman also tells us that deliberate changes in the text were made by scribes from different sects of Christianity (eg. those believing Jesus was adopted by God, vs. those believing he was literally his son). Very eye-opening and credible; clearly doesn't support those holding for literal interpretations of the Bible. Was this review helpful to you? (Report this) 1 of 8 people found the following review helpful: Misquoteing Jesus, June 25, 2006 Reviewer: Frederick Martello "Fred Martello" (Mahwah, New Jersey) - See all my reviews I have waited 20 years to hear this. How can one be a "People of the book, when they have very little knowledge of what Bible translattion, they are studyng. After all.... the first "New Testament" was not written down for 160 years! They they thought he was coming any day now too, no need to write... it's the end time!
Not worth the bother and irrelevant begs the question, why did you mention the middle east in the first place? "When you will have a chance to see him arrive for yourself, after the destruction of the middle east.".. Are you now saying, half what you think of your sentence is irrelevant, or all of it is? Anyone holding a different opinion to yours must be wrong and stupid? Is that your argument? You say many a speculation I may make on what you believe because of what you say, will frequently be incorrect. It now appears you feel the same way about anyone's speculations, including your own. It's all speculation and Pot luck then. You have the proof. It's in your own bible. Matthew. Will you deny this three times before the cock crow? They are not my quotes JEM. They are bible quotes. Is the bible wrong about the future? Let's be clear, I choose to call the thing depicted as christ in the bible as a megalomaniac mass genocidal killer , torturer and terrorist. jem, just think about what it is you are so willing to defend. The character Christ in the Bible story has declared its intention to torture. It is a self-declared torturer and terrorist. Unless you do not take the christ character's own word for stuff. Right, If you don't do as you are told you get tortured. There it is, in the bible, in Matthew. But you want to try and say a torturer is not a torturer, just so long as a torturer gives you a future chance to believe in the torturer ? Finding yourself in this fantasy could well require the abandonment of things your atheist friend knows to be good and true, unless they will say, well jc I can't agree to believe in someone who will comit torture. But in that case the threat is, christ sends you to hell. Its what terrorists threaten. Death pain and torture. It is plain bullshit for someone or something trying to present itself as loving on one hand to be threatening torture on the other, let alone carry it through. Your defense of that is not only pathetic in content but reprehensible as a measure of human moral value.
Stu you read without context and comprehension -- you choose to distort agruments and meanings in order to avoid challenges to your weltenschung. I have no time to play your juvenile games. When you wish to engage in a real discussion let me know. You cant even admit you speculate about my beliefs in the middle east. And yes your speculation sucks and belief was irrelevant to sentence I wrote. You seem to love to engage people in juvenile discussions. You are clearly an imposter STU. I believe your are axeman. (my speculation, but before you can deny you must first admit you took over the orginal STU's handle or remain quite.)
Bullshit. You made two statements contained in one sentence. 1. " When you will have a chance to see him arrive for yourself,.." 2. ".. after the destruction of the middle east.". I asked you, because of that sentence you wrote and the inference of statement 2 , ... "presumably you consider to be God's or Jesus's intention".., the destruction of the middle east. In answer, you make another statement "I do not think my belief on what might cause destruction in the middle east is relevant". So then I ask again, if what you believe about your second statement is irrelevant, is what you believe about your first statement also irrelevant? If so why f*ng write any of it anyway? Under those circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable so to ask. But all you can do now, as usual, is huff and puff about context and comprehension and set up your own false claims of speculation in my name to argue against. Obviously because you find yourself once again cornered by your own nonsensical unsupportable arguments. Face up jem. It's one more item in a long litany of religious realities you just can't deal with. To avoid the clear evidence brought to you, which you asked for in the first place and which clearly illustrates the thing depicted as Christ in the Bible acting as a megalomaniac mass genocidal killer , torturer and terrorist, you decide to blame the messenger. You just can't handle it. Always looking for excuses whilst you cannot cope with these responses, you think waffling on about STU Axeman and comprehension and (don't you mean) weltanschauung is going to fool anyone? Pathetic. btw I will speculate in return, you wouldn't recognize a 'real discussion' if it slapped you up the a$$.
"asked you, because of that sentence you wrote and the inference of statement 2 , ... "presumably you consider to be God's or Jesus's intention".., the destruction of the middle east." You just did it again you are using the word presumably. Stop presuming because you do not know anything. Do you not understand the implications of my statement earlier in the predestination free will argument I had on this thread. Now replacement STU why do you insist that jesus is a mass murderer or whatever else you call him. Is that argument based on anything but emotion. Try getting quotes in the bible, reading them in context and proving your argument. I am not sure you will be able to, but for once in your life try to support just one of your arguments in a scholarly manner.
This is gonna offend a lot of people but here's another non religous view on things... How does a historical recount prove the bible is a legit religous document? So I could just make some story about a turtle god based on past historical events and proclaim my religion and god is real? The only reason a story is legit is because of the people following it believe, that's all. It's a bunch of stories mish mashed together to serve the purpose of the people who put it together. The only reason you belong to your religion is because that is what your environment dictated to you or offered you. You'd otherwise be a Muslim if you were born in the middle east. People will believe lies if they are told it enough times. Many people just grow up with religion, they don't know anything else, brainwashed. Others just have an emotional hole that needs filling. People with multiple personality disorders are a prime example of how strong our minds are. They can actually alter their physical characteristics even making birthmarks appear that are not there with their other personalities. People can kill themselves if they think they are doomed to die. This is why placebos work so well, the mind is very strong. So your special feels and connectedness with god and the universe is actually common. It is felt by both religious people and non religous people. Look at all those hippies that have very spiritual experiences. Or Astronauts that look down at the world and have intense spiritual feelings. Do you think that your special spiritual feelings are exclusive to you and not to someone of a different religion? When you can not see beyond your beliefs you are incapable of ever understanding it could be wrong. Therefore you will never see the possibility that it is wrong, just like the catholic church has panfully experienced over it's long history. Belief always seeks confirmation, always. It's exactly like a virus, always seeking other like believers and trying to convert non-believers. It will never seek disconfirmation unless it's is forced. How can you believe a source of information, the church, that has repeated lied, killed, and brought misery over and over again and has shown it can never look beyond it's selfish existence of control and power. How many times has the church had to back track the "truth"? Oh yeah the earth isn't flat, sorry to all the scientists we tortured. Oh, and let us admit we're wrong and apologize to Galileo a few hundred year later. Yeah. Oh and the inquisition was wrong, yeah, now that we think about it, that's not how god works, yeah.. right. We know now and we don't do that stuff anymore. But we do have the "truth" to the universe and god and all the stuff we can't explain just yet, yep we know the truth, really! Of course the changing times, laws and civility have nothing to do with it, right? They weren't forced were they? Nah, the church is always seeking the truth right to better themselves and their followers? Yeah, only when they have no choice, funny how that works. Also, tell me why the Bible with all it's answers and the "in" with god can't even get something basic as how the world started. The theory of evolution says something completely different then genesis. And there is evidence all over the friggin place supporting evolution. Why o why does gensis start with animals that existed, ummm exactly right around the time people probably made it up? Hmmm. So why is something so basic so wrong? I'll tell you why religion is so powerful, it's all emotions. They tapped the key to our existence. Nothing can sway emotions, not rational thought or even facts. How many times have you done something through desire or fear when you know the facts say not to do it? Why do we do anything actually? It's becase we want to. It's because we fear. It's because we have emotions driving us. Everything is done through our emotions. Religions have tapped into our very existence and is exploiting for it's own purposes, virus like. Belief is vampiric, yes vampires DO exist.
jem, I must presume you are trying to be straightforward when you respond, right? There see? I made a presumption as a question hanging, as an invite for you to answer. Now watch.... " You make TWO statements in ONE sentence... " (1)When you will have a chance to see him arrive for yourself, (2)after the destruction of the middle east.".... Are you following??... So I make a presumption, as a question hanging, as an invite for you to answer... .."The destruction of the middle east, which presumably you consider to be God's or Jesus's intention," Now though it's downhill all the way. Your next response... "STU you are the absolute worst at guessing what I believe. I believe nothing of the sort about the middle east. Why are you making such a big deal out of the presumption. Is it because you can't answer the question. Oh dear look, another presumption. Shit jem, can you really not hold a discussion past a presumption?? ok!! I try to clarify the presumption with ... " JEM you do not consider the destruction of the middle east to be God's or Jesus's intention? . Could you explain yourself any better then? ....." To which you now respond "Why bother stu. ...blah bla... STU Axeman comprehension weltanschauung. Brilliant . So is that what you class as scholarly ? Explain it then . But you need to do so in a way better than you managed above . For christ sakes how many times. It is based on the BIBLE. It says so in THE BIBLE. The character Christ in the Bible story has declared its intention to torture. It is a self-declared torturer and terrorist. You have denied the word of God well past 3 times and the cock has crowed, but you still persist. Will there be any pit big enough for you. sheesh. Scholarly??!!. Don't be a complete pillock jem. Instead of spouting your usual self-righteous pretentiousness, why don't you try explaining yourself a little more 'scholarly'. The quote has been given to you. It is in context. The Bible in Matthew depicts jesus as a torturer.