Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[sinceredagreat]

Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

except for none of those accounts were written until at least 70 years after Jesus' death, and the original people who supposedly witnessed it had long since passed away. Also the fact that those accounts were rewritten numerous times to fit what the re-writer believed, not what was necessarily accurate. So there goes THAT argument out the window.

NEXT!

[hellbilly]

*Intermission*

[youtube=425,350]3khTntOxX-k[/youtube]

[ChristianAnarchist]

Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

except for none of those accounts were written until at least 70 years after Jesus' death, and the original people who supposedly witnessed it had long since passed away. Also the fact that those accounts were rewritten numerous times to fit what the re-writer believed, not what was necessarily accurate. So there goes THAT argument out the window.

NEXT!

Your presentation of the facts is not accurate.  It is true that the "copies" of the writings we have date to that period but that is not to say that they are inaccurate.  Keep in mind there were no printing presses back then and everything had to be copied by "scribes".  The scribes were careful to copy with much more care than we could today (with our 10 second average attention span).  So these 70 year old documents were most likely accurate copies of the originals which were written by the "eyewitnesses".  Now if you claim that this is still not as accurate as you like, most documents that we rely on for our understanding of "history" were written hundreds of years after the events they tell us of.  For us to have an "original" document from history is very rare.  So if you are claiming that the bible documents are unreliable, you have to pretty much throw out ALL of our known "history"...

[sinceredagreat]

Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...

except for none of those accounts were written until at least 70 years after Jesus' death, and the original people who supposedly witnessed it had long since passed away. Also the fact that those accounts were rewritten numerous times to fit what the re-writer believed, not what was necessarily accurate. So there goes THAT argument out the window.

NEXT!

Your presentation of the facts is not accurate.  It is true that the "copies" of the writings we have date to that period but that is not to say that they are inaccurate.  Keep in mind there were no printing presses back then and everything had to be copied by "scribes".  The scribes were careful to copy with much more care than we could today (with our 10 second average attention span).  So these 70 year old documents were most likely accurate copies of the originals which were written by the "eyewitnesses".  Now if you claim that this is still not as accurate as you like, most documents that we rely on for our understanding of "history" were written hundreds of years after the events they tell us of.  For us to have an "original" document from history is very rare.  So if you are claiming that the bible documents are unreliable, you have to pretty much throw out ALL of our know "history"...

You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.

Ever heard of the telephone game? Not everyone can remember a story exactly for what is accurate. And the King James version, was NOT meant to be accurate. It was meant to preserve to poetic flow of the Bible more than anything else. I'm sorry, I can't believe in a book of blatant ripoffs that contradicts itself, and the fact that you refuse to do any research about anything that speaks contrary to the Bible, speaks volumes about the fact that this is like talking to a brick wall. It's like trying to explain gravity to a donkey. Just because the donkey can't get the theory, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

[ChristianAnarchist]

You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.

Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

[sinceredagreat]

You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.

Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE STORY IS A BLATANT RIPOFF OF HORUS FROM 3000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

Get it?

[Jetfire]

Now let this thread die.

I forgot who said this....

[sinceredagreat]

Now let this thread die.

I forgot who said this....

Me.

Geez.

[John Shaw]

Now let this thread die.

I forgot who said this....

Me.

Geez.

This we can agree on wholeheartedly.

[sinceredagreat]

Now let this thread die.

I forgot who said this....

Me.

Geez.

This we can agree on wholeheartedly.

Agreed. You can't teach someone that already thinks they know everything, that's for sure.

[vonu]

If anarchy is the absence of government, then what is the point in a particular kind of nothing?

[ChristianAnarchist]

You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.

Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE STORY IS A BLATANT RIPOFF OF HORUS FROM 3000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

Get it?

Since I'm not well versed in "horus" I found this link http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html.

After reading what was there, it seems like quite a stretch to say that this is similar to the Christ story.  Of course life itself has some underlying truths between all cultures and to simply refer to them as "proof" of anything is absurd.  I did note that there was a reference to how the Jews worshiped the golden calf in the desert being similar to the way the Egyptians worshiped which makes sense sing the whole golden calf thing was "Egyptian" in nature and against what God wanted from them...

[sinceredagreat]

You really aren't making any sense now. It is known that the 4 gospels were NOT written by who they are named after. Period. Someone wrote down an oral tradition of had been passed down ORALLY.

Where do you get your information?  Bible historians agree that both Mathew and John were written by two apostles of the same names.  Mark was a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Paul and Luke was a physician who also was one of Paul's disciples.  These were men of education who knew about recording the events of the time and putting pen to paper.  Paul was educated to the highest degree during that period of history and would also have made great pains to record the events of the time.  Indeed, most of the New Testament was written under his supervision. 

Now if you have information that the gospels were written by someone else, let's hear it...

NONE OF THAT MATTERS BECAUSE THE STORY IS A BLATANT RIPOFF OF HORUS FROM 3000 YEARS BEFORE JESUS.

Get it?

Since I'm not well versed in "horus" I found this link http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/egypt-bible-similarities.html.

After reading what was there, it seems like quite a stretch to say that this is similar to the Christ story.  Of course life itself has some underlying truths between all cultures and to simply refer to them as "proof" of anything is absurd.  I did note that there was a reference to how the Jews worshiped the golden calf in the desert being similar to the way the Egyptians worshiped which makes sense sing the whole golden calf thing was "Egyptian" in nature and against what God wanted from them...

try this.

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

[ChristianAnarchist]

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

That link has nothing more than a bunch of claims as to what Horus said and did.  There are NO references as to where this stuff came from and certainly no "official" translations from the original.  Not to mention how hard it is to understand all those little pictures anyway...

[sinceredagreat]

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm

That link has nothing more than a bunch of claims as to what Horus said and did.  There are NO references as to where this stuff came from and certainly no "official" translations from the original.  Not to mention how hard it is to understand all those little pictures anyway...

Pyramids. Duh. How else did they keep track of stuff. Everyone knows about hieroglyphics. Don't play stupid.