France Invaded

[Marie]

HollowScar

In today's world, this bond is not as evident. I think the original manuscript had Jesus as married, but it did not make it to Gospel. He was a man of 30, and not married, which was a bit unusual back then.

You are talking about the gnostic gospels and they are not original manuscripts. In fact they were written a couple of hundred years after Jesus's death.

You didn't compare men to pigs, but men are in a way hornier. They swear, they lust, they cheat. So if there are muslim men, who "jump on their wives", then are they doing anything wrong? Aren't they married? Are they supposed to go Monk like for one month?

Obviously there is no point in continuing to have a discussion about this.

No, I haven't. Care to enlighten me?

Basically they are the holier than thou hypocrites.

Here's a question, if God does not do anything, because humans are entitles to their own consequences, then why does God bother to have limitations, or restrictions, on the holy scriptures?

If God did not do anything than would be no holy scriptures, because if God did not do anything than what is the point of giving us scriptures? It wouldn't make sense to give us scriptures if God decided to not do anything.

Hollowscar I believe in a God who is active in our salvation and the purpose of scriptures is to help spread the word of God's salvation. The thing is we cannot force people to accept the scriptures or we would be no better than Muhammed.

[HollowScar]

You are talking about the gnostic gospels and they are not original manuscripts. In fact they were written a couple of hundred years after Jesus's death.

There was difference in perspectives though.

Obviously there is no point in continuing to have a discussion about this.

True.

Basically they are the holier than thou hypocrites.

So the religious fat cats, are holier, than us hypocrites? Is that supposed to mean anything?

If God did not do anything than would be no holy scriptures, because if God did not do anything than what is the point of giving us scriptures? It wouldn't make sense to give us scriptures if God decided to not do anything.

Did we actually get scriptures from God, or did people author them?

Hollowscar I believe in a God who is active in our salvation and the purpose of scriptures is to help spread the word of God's salvation. The thing is we cannot force people to accept the scriptures or we would be no better than Muhammed.

Wouldn't you agree that it is better to force people in this life, than to let them rot in hell for eternity? Isn't that what parents want, when they ground their children, so that the children can study hard, and do the right thing, for the better future.

[Marie]

HollowScar

So the religious fat cats, are holier, than us hypocrites? Is that supposed to mean anything?

The religious fat-cats who state they are holier than thou are in reality hypocrites.

Did we actually get scriptures from God, or did people author them?

Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God and the Muslims believe the Quran was written by God

Wouldn't you agree that it is better to force people in this life, than to let them rot in hell for eternity? Isn't that what parents want, when they ground their children, so that the children can study hard, and do the right thing, for the better future.

How would you feel if God came to you and stated I am God you must worship me?

[HollowScar]

The religious fat-cats who state they are holier than thou are in reality hypocrites.

Understood.

Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God and the Muslims believe the Quran was written by God

Christians believe that the Bible was not only inspired by God, but also a detailed descriptions of many of the occurring that happened, and were witnessed by people, who went to write about them. Hence, if you were a witness, you could have written part of the Bible too. Muslims on the other hand, have the Qu'ran, which is the word of God, but not written by God. It was written by several authors who had memorized the verses, and compiled them together as time went by. The hadith is then a recollection of all the witnesses, direct or indirect, who told about Muhammad as much as they knew. hence if you were a muslim witness, you could have gave your record to be written on the hadith too.

How would you feel if God came to you and stated I am God you must worship me?

I would feel good, because I will then have a more personal connection with him, and I would know that he is the only truth out there, and the rest failed miserably. I have a brain to inquire, and yet am I supposed to have blind faith? There is only one truth, and that truth should not have any variations of it.

[Marie]

HollowScar

Christians believe that the Bible was not only inspired by God, but also a detailed descriptions of many of the occurring that happened, and were witnessed by people, who went to write about them. Hence, if you were a witness, you could have written part of the Bible too. Muslims on the other hand, have the Qu'ran, which is the word of God, but not written by God. It was written by several authors who had memorized the verses, and compiled them together as time went by. The hadith is then a recollection of all the witnesses, direct or indirect, who told about Muhammad as much as they knew. hence if you were a muslim witness, you could have gave your record to be written on the hadith too.

Agree.

I would feel good, because I will then have a more personal connection with him, and I would know that he is the only truth out there, and the rest failed miserably. I have a brain to inquire, and yet am I supposed to have blind faith? There is only one truth, and that truth should not have any variations of it.

Hollowscar God commanded you to worship him like a dictator and dictators demand obedience. There is no personal relationship involved.

[HollowScar]

Hollowscar God commanded you to worship him like a dictator and dictators demand obedience. There is no personal relationship involved.

Dictators are visible, and have proof, and power to back themselves up. They appear physically in many scenarios, and take action. They don't leave their kingdom, until the end times, and let other distort their scriptures of inspiration, and neither do dictators let others to have any opinions, and various beliefs.

[Marie]

Hollowscar God commanded you to worship him like a dictator and dictators demand obedience. There is no personal relationship involved.

Dictators are visible, and have proof, and power to back themselves up. They appear physically in many scenarios, and take action. They don't leave their kingdom, until the end times, and let other distort their scriptures of inspiration, and neither do dictators let others to have any opinions, and various beliefs.

Dictators take away your personal freedom, treat you like sh*t, and kill you if you try to distort their scriptures.

[HollowScar]

Hollowscar God commanded you to worship him like a dictator and dictators demand obedience. There is no personal relationship involved.

Dictators are visible, and have proof, and power to back themselves up. They appear physically in many scenarios, and take action. They don't leave their kingdom, until the end times, and let other distort their scriptures of inspiration, and neither do dictators let others to have any opinions, and various beliefs.

Dictators take away your personal freedom, treat you like sh*t, and kill you if you try to distort their scriptures.

Isn't that what will happen to us if we do the same things? Aren't we going to go through much worse treatment in Hell, than imaginable?

[Marie]

HollowScar

Isn't that what will happen to us if we do the same things? Aren't we going to go through much worse treatment in Hell, than imaginable?

I give up.

[HollowScar]

HollowScar

Isn't that what will happen to us if we do the same things? Aren't we going to go through much worse treatment in Hell, than imaginable?

I give up.

I am sorry if I was too rude, or arrogant at times, but in the end, it is all about perspective. you may look at the bible differently than someone else.

[Sten]

Christians believe that the Bible was not only inspired by God, but also a detailed descriptions of many of the occurring that happened, and were witnessed by people, who went to write about them.

They are incorrect. There is nothing in the bible that is written by the people who supposedly witnessed the events that are described. The earliest was recorded by Saul of Tarsus, who wrote it roughly 80 years after the death of Jesus. The Gospels were not written by the people they depict. There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible whatsoever.

[KufirbintKufr]

Christians believe that the Bible was not only inspired by God, but also a detailed descriptions of many of the occurring that happened, and were witnessed by people, who went to write about them.

They are incorrect. There is nothing in the bible that is written by the people who supposedly witnessed the events that are described. The earliest was recorded by Saul of Tarsus, who wrote it roughly 80 years after the death of Jesus. The Gospels were not written by the people they depict. There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible whatsoever.

Could you show us a proof ?

[Sten]

Christians believe that the Bible was not only inspired by God, but also a detailed descriptions of many of the occurring that happened, and were witnessed by people, who went to write about them.

They are incorrect. There is nothing in the bible that is written by the people who supposedly witnessed the events that are described. The earliest was recorded by Saul of Tarsus, who wrote it roughly 80 years after the death of Jesus. The Gospels were not written by the people they depict. There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible whatsoever.

Could you show us a proof ?

Wow, it's actually difficult finding a secular site that's honest about the origins of the bible and leaves out all the beatific pandering to god's ego.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible

http://www.winternet.com/~swezeyt/bible/swezauth.htm

Apparently I was wrong about the Gospel of Paul being the first to be written, as the Gospel of Mark was thought to have been written somewhere between 65AD and 75AD while Paul's writings are dated at about 80AD. Still, since Mark would have been roughly around the same age as Jesus, it's highly unlikely that he lived into his mid 90's before deciding to write the first Gospel. The average life expectancy for someone 2000 years ago was between 20 and 40 years old, there being no hygiene standards or medicine. Paul never met Jesus and never even describes meeting him as an actual person, only as a vision he has experienced. At best, the "eyewitness accounts" in the New Testament were passed by word of mouth for up to two generations before they were recorded in writing. As we all know, word of mouth is NOT a reliable source of information.

[Brendalee]

Hi Sten. I think some caution is called for. Certainly length of life is difficult to determine when "life expectancy" is assigned to an era 2000 years ago. If we go by written accounts, many people then enjoyed life spans into their 60s and 70s (or even longer), even before the time of Jesus. As long as one did not get ill with TB or cancer or such (or get CRUCIFIED! Joke...sorry Christian believers ), one could have a good innings.

As to dating the books of the New Testament, archaeology can only date a writing to "at least" such and such a date. This is because it is impossible to say that a discovered scroll is the first and original. It might be a later copy of an earlier scroll which is yet undiscovered - or has been lost to destruction through time. It is not impossible that more scrolls could turn up. We cannot know.

Also, the AD (Anno domini) abbreviation is to connotate year 1 AD as the birth year of Jesus, I believe. So if Mark was approximately the same age as Jesus and wrote in 65AD, he would have been a believable 65ish and not in his mid nineties.

[KufirbintKufr]

Still, since Mark would have been roughly around the same age as Jesus,

Why do you think so ? Mark was not one of the Apostles. He might have been Peter's disciple.

[Marie]

Still, since Mark would have been roughly around the same age as Jesus,

Why do you think so ? Mark was not one of the Apostles. He might have been Peter's disciple.

It is believed the author of Mark, John Mark was a follower of Jesus.

[KufirbintKufr]

Still, since Mark would have been roughly around the same age as Jesus,

Why do you think so ? Mark was not one of the Apostles. He might have been Peter's disciple.

It is believed the author of Mark, John Mark was a follower of Jesus.

Funny cause my Bible says that he could have been Peter's disciple - obviously we are all followers of Jesus- but Mark could have never actually met Jesus.

[ThereIs1Adonai]

Hi Sten. I think some caution is called for. Certainly length of life is difficult to determine when "life expectancy" is assigned to an era 2000 years ago. If we go by written accounts, many people then enjoyed life spans into their 60s and 70s (or even longer), even before the time of Jesus. As long as one did not get ill with TB or cancer or such (or get CRUCIFIED! Joke...sorry Christian believers ), one could have a good innings.

As to dating the books of the New Testament, archaeology can only date a writing to "at least" such and such a date. This is because it is impossible to say that a discovered scroll is the first and original. It might be a later copy of an earlier scroll which is yet undiscovered - or has been lost to destruction through time. It is not impossible that more scrolls could turn up. We cannot know.

Also, the AD (Anno domini) abbreviation is to connotate year 1 AD as the birth year of Jesus, I believe. So if Mark was approximately the same age as Jesus and wrote in 65AD, he would have been a believable 65ish and not in his mid nineties.

Thanks Brendalee. Good thoughts, and quite correct about anno domini. I would add that the early transcripts being dated may not necessarily be originals. Copies were carefully made to send around to the early churches. However, if dated 65 AD it would put the writing very close to (and possibly is) the original. Also, Mark was young when Jesus was crucified. He was not the same age as Jesus. So he could very well have been maybe around 50, if he was say about 20 when Jesus was crucified. Same with the other followers, such as Peter and John. We cannot assume they were all the same age as Jesus was. John was the younger of two brothers (James and John) who followed Jesus. He lived to a ripe old age before he died of natural causes. The rest of the 12 all died as martyrs. Is it any wonder their words would be carefully copied to be shared?

Peace, Shalom

[ThereIs1Adonai]

Back to the topic of France being invaded.

CNN News reported today that a man was denied French citizenship because he made his wife wear a veil. France is getting very serious about this issue. They are not against any religion, but that everyone have freedom to dress as they wish, and that in state run schools and public buildings religious garb is not allowed. Not only Muslim attire, but Jewish skullcaps, turbans, crucifixes, etc. are banned. So it is not discrimination. No one can show their religious values in these public places. Then again... that seems discriminatory to me too. <sigh>

Peace, Shalom

[Marie]

KufirbintKufr
Funny cause my Bible says that he could have been Peter's disciple - obviously we are all followers of Jesus- but Mark could have never actually met Jesus.

There is one passage in the new testament where John Mark is mentioned. I can't remember which verse, but it is the one where Jesus is arrested, a young man who was wondering what is going on is grabbed by one of the Roman soldiers. The soldier grabs his robe and the young runs away naked with the soldier still holding the robe.