Why Do You Believe The 'Holy Bible' Needs Splanin'...

[mibn2cweus]

...for those who believe there is any?

If 'God' sought communication with his 'creation', why a book? Why does this book require countless revision, reinterpretation, and translation? Why wouldn't you expect more from an alleged 'creator of the universe', a direct means of communication for those who seek to do so?
Anticipating (based on undeviating past experience) what will follow in this thread, God's apparent need for a middle man to facilitate, translate, interpret and explain His communications leaves much to be desired. But never mind all that, splain away.

[naomi24]

AH, //So do you completely discount ancient history, after it has been well researched?//

//And the So Rule enters the thread!!!//

Rather too eager to pounce, I fear. Theland’s was a very definite question. Take the ‘Do’ out of it and the final question mark and you might have a case.

[Theland]

Mine was a definite question comparing the acceptance of evidence for some historical figures and events, but not others.

[naomi24]

Theland, all depends upon documented evidence. Jesus has a distinct problem in that area.

[Atheist]

Theland, I thinkit's a question of the weight of evidence. There are statues of people, written records, references by historians. Jesus really only has the bible to rely on. No Roman documents about his teaching or his execution. One book which was written years after his alleged existence and which contains contradictory stories. There ightwell be some truch in the stories but nowhere near as much as the other examples you give. Have you ever read about Greek or Roman history?

[Theland]

Naomi, not so. Plenty of evidence.

Atheist, no, am not a scholar of ancient Greek or Roman history, but did read that the earliest history of Julius Caesar was written 900 years after his death.

Once again, Naomi makes unreferenced claims.
Oh! Hang on! She has the authority of her opinions based on her feelings. Forgot about that!

[naomi24]

Theland, no definitive evidence.

//Naomi makes unreferenced claims. //

Which claims would you like references to?

//Oh! Hang on! She has the authority of her opinions based on her feelings. Forgot about that! //

Based on my feelings? Where did you get that from?

[Atheist]

Theland, do you not believe that Jusius Caesar existed?

[Atheist]

I mean, he wrote his own history of his campaigns in Gaul.

[Mozz71]

//Hang on! She has the authority of her opinions based on her feelings.//

Isn't that the same for every argument you've ever made about the existence of God? It's all your opinions and feelings. No proof can be offered.

[Theland]

Naomi - your dismissal of the resurrection. Any references from renowned scholars?

[Mozz71]

//Any references from renowned scholars?//

Any to say he came back from the dead? His body may have gone missing, he had disciples who may have wanted to give him a proper burial, but zombie Jesus never happened.

[Theland]

This is a game. Anything I say is not really going to be taken seriously, but rather ridiculed.
But that's OK because what are good friends for if not to taunt and entertain each other?
Always challenging, and sometimes we touch on the truth.
But you all have the gospel, and that is the main thing.

[pixie374]

Theland, either Jesus was a God- or he came back from the dead (or neither, obviously). Which do you believe, was he human or immortal?

[Peter Pedant]

;
//No Roman documents about his teaching or his execution//
I think he means Latin

"Pliny the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus wrote a letter to Trajan c AD 112 and asked for counsel on dealing with the Christian community. The letter (Epistulae X.96) says how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him after anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]"

oops

but we really knew that didnt we? we just misplaced it

"Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26)."
first use of word Christian around AD 60

I really feel we are 'discussing' the first hundred years of the Bible with no knowledge t all of the early documents

ho hum - normal friday night on AB

[Peter Pedant]

// Which do you believe, was he human or immortal?//
usually put as Human or God?

there are only three possibilities - all human - Muslims ( he was a prophet but no more see Naomi somewhere ) and the Bishop of Durham - ter ddah!

all God - Coptic Christians - They believe the Infancy gospels (*) fr'instance. Jesus makes birds out of mud and taps them and they fly away. The impt thing is miracle by himself and not thro his Father

and half and half - standard Anglican or Roman - human until crucifxion and divine after resurrection

someone asked - honestly someone asked. amidst all the foo-ing whining and making stupid points, someone actually said " Jesus human or divine?"

(*) foo ! what dey den?

[Theland]

More credence needs to be given to the prevailing oral traditions in that area at that time, and their proven accuracy.

Also, so many people were prepared to face martyrdom, rather than deny the risen Lord.
Would so many do that for a lie?

[pixie374]

Half immortal... how very useful :-). Yes, theland, even now, people sacrifice themselves for religions. Maybe they didn't see it as a lie?

[Theland]

Pixie - Yes true. But the persecution was on such a scale, and for so long, that Christianity prevailed, and became the religious and cultural basis for western civilisation, which was then exported worldwide.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Also, so many people were prepared to face martyrdom, rather than deny the risen Lord.
Would so many do that for a lie? //

They believe it to be true, the same as you - and yet again - belief is belief and fact is fact and no matter how much you want to believe something, that does not make it true.

[Theland]

Andy forgive me, but you paint a very grey picture of our existence.