How much of the Bible do you believe is true?

Post Reply New Topic

I doubt all scientists would say that, but that would not really matter anyway.



Me neither, and that is because of things in Scripture I can easily read and comprehend. The trinity stuff you are likely referencing is extrapolated dogma.

You're a funny guy. Not only would women have only one rib but they would be the ribs.

Can you please find the passage in Isaiah so that we can analyze it? I honestly do not know where to find it, and I can't find other sources that reference this.

I tried looking in Isaiah 53, as that is the passage that many people look to for the life of Jesus, but I found nothing about "nailed to a tree"


Umm..... no......

1) I actually can't imagine what kind of experiment or theory would be used to prove this.
2) The existence of Jesus is usually considered a historical issue, and Jesus is presumed to exist more on the basis of the reduced credibility of the opposite given accounts of Jesus.
3) I kind of think you made that up, or that you listened to some less than credible source, simply because that claim sounds ridiculous on the face of it.



Umm.... I don't think many people agree. One of the latest expeditions, the one with the Chinese folks, is now considered discredited given the leaked email from one of the sponsors who made it clear that he believed it was a hoax. I don't know what you are expecting for Noah's Ark though.

England never really fell, and is still considered one of the financial centers of the world. It just gave up colonialism, just like all of the Western powers, and even non-Western powers for that matter.

Germany fell, but it later became reborn and is now a major exporter and considered an economic power. I mean, the reason they fell was because they tried to launch a war against everybody. It seems to have nothing to do with the Jews.

As it stands, most European areas have done wrongs against the Jewish people, as anti-semitism wasn't invented by Hitler, but Europe is still one of the most properous areas of the world. Frankly, I tend to think that your account of history is basically an attempt to see whatever the heck you want to see, not a matter of any objectivity. Nothing that happened is really even a matter of strangeness, but rather these people got off light if this is supposed to be divine punishment, as they suffered less than normal earthly punishment for people who don't harm Jews, but get into bad geopolitical situations.


I'm guessing you are talking about Obama, who is the son of a Kenyan. Kenya being in Africa, rather than an Arabic nation. I am guessing that you are holding that he is somehow a Muslim, despite the fact that he claims to be a Christian, seems to be relatively liberal, and if anything is more likely a secularist than an Islamic extremist of any variety.

Wrong. Crucifixion was invented by the Persians about 500 years prior to the death of Christ.



How did they prove it, when did they prove it, and what was the proof?

Germany was a major military power for all of 50 years before it was practically destroyed in WWI, and then it had less than a decade of military power under the Nazis. Their fall was more related to trying to fight the Soviets than to the Holocaust. Unless you think God was protecting the commies, I don't think divine intervention had anything to do with Hitler's defeat.

Also, Germany is currently great and prosperous. Last I checked, they were the 4th largest economy in the world. They also have a higher per capita GDP than Israel does, so yeah... it's hard to say that Germany is being punished by God for harming the Jews. Curious method of punishment, giving them an extended period of peace and prosperity.


You mean Obama? He's not Arab. He's very clearly Irish, as we all know.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk[/youtube]

Wow, Orwell, I am really surprised that you didn't engage the claim that Jesus was scientifically proven to exist. You engaging the Germany issue... well, I could see that. I can really see you going after the Obama issue. It is just that absurd claims about science seems like something that would rankle you.

He didn't put forward any meaningful claim there. What am I supposed to rebut? I mean, everything else he said was stupid, but concrete enough that it could actually be addressed.

Well, how about this then: what kind of scientific process can you think of for justifying the claim that thechadmaster made with that? I honestly can't see how the question even becomes scientific, or even scientifically proven, and overstating what is science and what isn't is often what people who do not know what they are talking about do.

Using the term "science" somewhat loosely, I have heard there are believeable and trustworthy folks who say (or who have said) there is plenty of solid evidence for stating there once actually was a "'Jesus' of Nazareth" (or wherever).

Well, right. Basically, this is a historical thing. The notion that Jesus doesn't exist doesn't seem very credible given that a lot of people say he did. And.... well.... we don't have any compelling reason at all to say that any of the people who said that Jesus did exist are wrong. The only real reason to question this is just a skepticism to historical claims that have less integration to our web of historical belief.

Sure, and then there is also the matter of "attached dogma" to be avoided like "The Plague"! I have no trouble believing there was/is a man who was/is "the son of the living Elohim", but there is just no way I will talk about any "Jesus" without being sure people know I find it quite silly and foolish and even blasphemous to suggest he even *might* have somehow sired himself.

Well, that is true as well. However, this can be separated from the basic question of "was there a person who had the social role that was basically described in the Gospels". The issue of webs of belief is just that we are more committed to Caesar crossing the rubicon because the rest of what we know tends to rely on this more than the actual historical existence of a Jesus.

Thechadmaster is probably highly amused at being able to toss a piece of absolute nonsense at the crowd to watch people treat it as worthy of analysis and denial.

Probably not. He is probably sincere, just look at other writings. This is either an outright troll, or a sincere person with odd viewpoints. In any case, Poe's law applies.

Chad, giving the Gospels the benefit of the doubt that they document Jesus' life, we know he was a scholar of Judaism and even astounded the priests in the temple at a mere 12 years old--probably before his bar mitzvah. Now, don't you think he pretty well knew those predictions all over the pages of Isaiah? And if he didn't, don't you think Matthew, in particular--the book written by a Jew, for Jews to convince them that Jesus was indeed the Messiah--was familiar with the prophecies? Everything fitting so neatly really isn't that difficult to explain. Sure, Jesus may have been the Messiah, and I'm not going to spit in anyone's Cheerios arguing over whether he was or wasn't. BUT, can't you see that the story could also have been constructed to fit or emphasize the prophecies 600 years after they were made and therefore known by heart? I'm not saying it was, I'm just saying its not necessarily a mystery, and the fact that they align is certainly not positive proof of no other explanation.



Oh really? Do you have the pictures and the published measurements? Because last I knew this was still a matter of highly contentious debate--not at all made easier by the changes in the names of the geography. Again, last I heard, scholars cannot agree just which mountain Ararat might be. Some suspected Turkey, but I recently saw a documentary where the biblical scholar made a case that it was indeed this hill near the Egyptian trade route. So if there is a place, I'd really want to read about that.

The inability to falsify a hypothesis does not increase said hypothesis' probability. The fact of the matter is, religious denominations (at least those capable of some amount of reasoned thought) have had to discount much of what they believed to be true. So, far from the probability that the bible is the True Word of God actually increasing with advances in scientific knowledge, the opposite is occurring, with this probability diminishing to the point where people like Orwell will try and tell you that the bible is, and has always been, allegorical.
Such a pity no one thought to tell the inquisition.