I want to believe in evolution

[snoopy369]

In Jesus' day, books didn't really exist in the form they do now. Only a very few people could read in general, basically entirely priests. So the concept of Jesus suggesting anybody read anything is, frankly, ludicrous.

[snoopy369]

All but one of the disciples were executed a cruel painful death for continuing the work and creating the church.

Well, Stephen King was nearly executed by a Buick, and for all I know it could've been intended to prevent him from finishing The Dark Tower...

[Kidlicious]

In Jesus' day, books didn't really exist in the form they do now. Only a very few people could read in general, basically entirely priests. So the concept of Jesus suggesting anybody read anything is, frankly, ludicrous.

Actually even common people read the scriptures in the synagogues. If you read the Bible you will see that Jesus, who was a common person, reads the scriptures in the synagogue.

[Kidlicious]

Well, Stephen King was nearly executed by a Buick, and for all I know it could've been intended to prevent him from finishing The Dark Tower...

[The Mad Monk]

In Jesus' day, books didn't really exist in the form they do now. Only a very few people could read in general, basically entirely priests. So the concept of Jesus suggesting anybody read anything is, frankly, ludicrous.

I don't think that's correct. The synagogues of the day gave instruction on reading, because every male jew was expected to be able to read the Torah.

[The Mad Monk]

The importance of education in ancient Judaism is clearly seen in the attitude passed down in the rabbinic dictum that the world is poised on the breath of school children.Rabbinic law still obligates the father toteach his sons Torah, as well as a trade. The duty to instruct the people has its roots in the Torah with such precepts as Deuteronomy 6:7 where the parents are required to diligently teach the children.According to Jewish writings literacy was widespread in ancient Israel (Judges 8:14). Toward the end of the First Temple Period there is evidence of formal religious instruction under the direction of the Levites (IIChronicles 7:7). The institution by Ezra of regular public readings of Torah, as well as the emergence of a non-priestly class of scribes and scholars, gave a new impetus to education. The liturgical reading of the Torah was accompanied by exposition and instruction. According to the Talmud, Simeon Ben Shetah (103-76 B.C.E.) established local schools for boys between the ages of 15 and 17, while High Priest Joshua Ben Gamala is said to have instituted elementary education for boys from the age of six. Later, higher rabbinic education was given in the Bet Ha-Midrash, which was usually close by the synagogue and tended tooverlap in some of its functions. In Babylonia, non-professional scholars left their farms or trade for thesemi-annual study/retreat known asKallah.This was a month during which study conventions were held inthe Babylonian academies at the time of the amoraim and geonim. (An attempt to revive the idea of the Kallahhas recently been made by leading yeshivot in Israel.) Elementary education was given in the bet ha-sepher school known later as the heder,which was normally maintained by the community.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2958111/jewish-education-in-ancient-times

[kentonio]

kentonio,

If you were to write a book, inventing God, I'm sorry but it would suck. The point is, the Bible is true because it is very good.

Actually you're wrong there dude, if I wrote a book about a giant unicorn with a rainbow mane who shat out universes it would kick more ass than anything you've ever read.

[Proteus_MST]

kentonio,

If you were to write a book, inventing God, I'm sorry but it would suck. The point is, the Bible is true because it is very good.

Hm ... the Cthulhu Mythos by H.P. Lovecraft is extremly good ...
and AFAIK H.P. has never claimed that the stories weren´t true,
or that the old ones or the Necronomicon don´t exist.

Therefore I claim Azathoth to be the creator of the Universe

[Kidlicious]

Hm ... the Cthulhu Mythos by H.P. Lovecraft is extremly good ...
and AFAIK H.P. has never claimed that the stories weren´t true,
or that the old ones or the Necronomicon don´t exist.

Therefore I claim Azathoth to be the creator of the Universe

Not a good choice. "The Cthulhu Mythos is a shared fictional universe, based on the work of American horror writer H. P. Lovecraft." - wiki

[kentonio]

A shared fictional universe? So like the bible then?

[Kidlicious]

A shared fictional universe? So like the bible then?

I think you know the difference kentonio. The gospels, for example, are witness accounts (11 witnesses, although not all of them put the account in writing) of actual events. Call them liars, if you want to believe that 11 people would lie about something like that and would pay the cost for it, but not fiction. Stop acting so daft.

[kentonio]

I think you know the difference kentonio. The gospels, for example, are witness accounts (11 witnesses, although not all of them put the account in writing) of actual events.

How is that any different from any of the other holy and unholy books from biblical and pre-biblical times that also contain 'eye-witness' testimonies and 'actual events', all of which defy logic, reason and rationality?

Call them liars, if you want to believe that 11 people would lie about something like that and would pay the cost for it, but not fiction.

Some might have been liars, I'd guess that most of them were just gullible though, as people taken in by cults tend to be. Interesting story btw, an excavation a few decades back in the middle east found an example of an old pottery jug with a second concealed compartment. A device in the handle let you pour from either of the compartments. Interesting how miracles work, isn't it.

Stop acting so daft.

I'm daft for not believing that people can walk on water, part seas and rise from the dead?

[Jon Miller]

You aren't being very honest Kentonio.

If you don't believe in Christ or the Bible, that is your business. But as far as 'historicity', the NT has a lot of support for it. More than many stories which are understood to be fact.

Most holy/secular books from ancient times that we have, the stories were first written down long long after the events were suppose to have happened. Not only that, but the stories we have are copies from long after they were first written down. Think of even the conservative view of the OT (not to mention the mainline or liberal or atheist).

They were not generally written down by eye-witnesses or those who interviewed eye-witnesses. Where we have references to the written stories from people 1 generation removed (as well as physical copies from that time) giving support to the NT.

At least keep your criticisms reasonable.

And I would prefer it if you didn't try to present yourself as someone who considered religion with an open mind.

JM

[MikeH]

If you don't believe in Christ or the Bible, that is your business. But as far as 'historicity', the NT has a lot of support for it. More than many stories which are understood to be fact.

IMO this is an argument for being more critical in our acceptance of any historical 'fact' not an argument in support of the accuracy of the Bible.

The more extraordinary the claims being made by a source, the more supporting evidence we require.

Some things in the bible being supported by other sources, therefore the other things must be true doesn't follow. And we always view historical text with a view as to why something was being written and who was writing it, not just the words themselves.

Especially when we are talking about a book which is a collection of writings by different authors at different times.

[Jon Miller]

My point isn't to say you have to believe the claims made about Christ in the Bible.

Actually, different writers in different generations (they are all pretty much the same period as a historian would see it) all telling the same story is exactly how events are reconstructed and are a key 'historicity' argument for the events described in the NT being true. But I am not interested in discussing that right now.

My point is to say that there is strong support for the gospel story as the real belief and a real story that people in the time when it was claimed to happen believed happened. More so then most other historical events. To attack it as just a made up myth written long after the fact, or some legend made over the course of a 1000 years like King Arther or Robin Hood is to be against the evidence. Just as much as a 7-day creationist who claims that the fossil record supports a flood and human-dinosaur co-existence would be against the evidence.

Now people can always be mistaken, people can always misunderstand, and so on. Maybe the body was stolen. Maybe in the stress of the situation someone hallucinated. Maybe there were lies, maybe there was some incredible chance.

If you want to attack Christianity using the argument that it is all just a made up legend/myth like others (arthur/robin hood/etc), and being consistent and non-hypocritical makes you want to throw out most of history, then that is your choice. Of course, it isn't what scholars or experts would consider rational. Might it instead be that you just don't attack Christianity in this way? If you don't want to believe, there are plenty of reasons to not believe, why not choose one of the ones that doesn't place you against historians and scholars?

JM