The interminable God does/doesn't exist megathread - part 2

[Little Buzz 10]

No they were written, or dictated because not everyone could write, by the disciples who were of course eye witnesses. .

 

John certainly wasn't written by an eye witness, as even if John the Evangelist (not John one the apostles) who wrote it had been born at the same time as Jesus he would have be 130 when it was written.

[Grahame 10]

John certainly wasn't written by an eye witness, as even if John the Evangelist (not John one the apostles) who wrote it had been born at the same time as Jesus he would have be 130 when it was written.

 

It was written (dictated) by John the beloved disciple, the son of Zebedee.

 

.

[Grahame 10]

So where is the story then? we know every detail about Caesar, factual evidence to support his birth, the date of birth, the path of his career, the wars he fought etc...

 

If Jesus was so popular, as you claim, why can we not find any real evidence to support him even existing? i actually believe he did exist, but son of god? no, god? no, nice man? who knows, great man? who knows.

 

I am not making a dig at your beliefs, merely questioning them, as people have with people with views such as my own for centuries.

----------

And yes, i believe the gospels were written years after christ, 100's of years infact. Tuned perfectly to suit the author or the faith of which they represented.

 

We know about Jesus as well:

 

There are over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. This is by far more than any other historical documents...... There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).

 

http://www.christianadvice.net/the_bible_accuracy.htm

 

.

[Little Buzz 10]

I've misquoted Wikipedia in my previous post - I knew it wasn't written by John the Apostle and I skimmed to find a source to back me up - anyway...

 

Most modern experts conclude the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness.[14] Tradition ascribes the book the John the Evangelist, a disciple of Christ.

[Bozo 10]

Matthew - written c. 85AD

Mark - written c. 70AD

Luke - written c. 85AD

John - written c.95AD

 

Matthew, Mark and Luke have many parallel passages and similar wording.

 

Matthew and Luke seem to use Mark and source [i[Q[/i] as sources.

 

Matthew also seem to use another independent source (M) and Luke another (L) - both perhaps oral traditions - of 661 verses in Mark, all but 31 appear in Luke and/or Matthew.

 

John was not written by John the fisherman, one of the 12 apostles, but a different John.

 

All of which leaves First Thessalonians as the oldest surviving Christian document (written approximately 52 AD). Various of Paul's epistles were written before the gospels and almost certainly incorporate early Christian formulations/hymns. Of course not all those epistles attributed to Paul were definitely his work. There is some suggestion that Paul met Peter and at least one of the other 'apostles'.

[Lotusflower 10]

After reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins i struggle to see any point of religion that benefits society. It backed up some of my long held beliefs about god, or the concept of it, and added some more ammo to my many debates on religion.

 

One thing i used to believe [wrongly so], was religion offered some form of moral guidance and comfort to people. But after reading further into it and actually reading some of the stories, and i say stories, from the ancient fictional piece of literature called the bible, i now think the bible offers more sado masochist, perverted, homophobic, murderous, disfunctional and bullying guidance, and very little else.

 

It's interesting that, whenever questioned on the evils of the bible and in particular The Old Testament, most religious preachers claim the old testament is obviously not true, and we should follow The New Testament. The New Testament been the one where a lad is born to a virgin mother, with no biological father, that same man called a friend [Lazarus] back from the dead and it worked!!, the fatherless man himself [obviously gifted in resurrections by now] came back from the dead after 3 days, then disappeared into thin air at the top of a hill. That same man can now listen to private thoughts of your own, and perhaps more impressively hear, simultaneously, every thought of every human being in the world. It's MENTAL!! *mind you, clever and probably rich clergyman cunningly forget to preach any of the ludicrous obscenities the bible has to offer and instead cherry pick the ones to which suits them personally. Using the bible for personal gain is not a new concept, and there is an argument to suggest that it's existence is based purely on personal gain, but that's another thread.

 

The Vatican is filthy stinking rich, and i mean rich.

 

So i ask the question what can we really take from religion, other than some heavy going fictional entertainment?

 

I can't think of a single thing. It's a dangerous hobby, and that's it.

 

"They that deny a god destroy man's nobility; for certainly man is of kin to beasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to god by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature."

Francis Bacon.

 

You have every right to believe whatever you want. So does everybody else.

 

What do you believe is so special about YOU that makes you want everyone to see the world through your narrow perspective?

[devil6 10]

"You have every right to believe whatever you want. So does everybody else."

 

Until recently, and i use the phrase recently in evelutionary terms, i have not had the right to my opinion, and would have more than likely been persicuted, trialed and more than likely killed for my opinion. In fact in most muslim states, i would probably still face an army of stone throwing nut jobs to this day. So please don't question my right to open a debate with my opinion on the worlds greatest and oldest debate. Thanks.

 

As far as narrow persepctives go, i find the dig rather laughable considering the alternative to my belief in something so vast and interesting as evolution, is a narrow minded bigotry ridden story book that are the religious scriptures people choose to believe, unquestioned and with no eveidence to support their cases.

 

The Vatican now accept evolution, knowingly have denied it for centuries, because the evidence is not just overwhelming, but FACT. But guess what? they think god started the big bang! it's a joke, and as weak as the people who need it.

 

I don't want everyone to view life through my narrow perspective, quite the opposite in fact. I would like everyone to give evolution a chance, we are forced into religion no matter what our beliefs. Starting at school for instance, we have to sit in assambelies and pray etc... at 5 years old i don't view that as a choice, more a rule. Why should it be so?

 

Enjoy life, because there is nothing after our bodies cease to exisit. FACT.

[nick2 10]

John certainly wasn't written by an eye witness, as even if John the Evangelist (not John one the apostles) who wrote it had been born at the same time as Jesus he would have be 130 when it was written.

 

You're fighting a losing battle, facts don't count for anything where religion is concerned, infact if anything they are the opposite of religion.

[Bozo 10]

 

The Vatican now accept evolution, knowingly have denied it for centuries, because the evidence is not just overwhelming, but FACT.

 

Interesting, how many centuries have you got in mind?

[devil6 10]

As long as the sum of human ignorance is greater than the sum of human knowledge superstition will continue to govern most parts of the world.

----------------

Interesting, how many centuries have you got in mind?

Pardon?? i don't understand the question. The Vaican have only recently accpeted evolution, what's your point?

[evildrneil 14]

The Vatican now accept evolution, knowingly have denied it for centuries, because the evidence is not just overwhelming, but FACT.

 

Seeing as The Origin Of Species was first published in 1858 it would be pretty hard to deny the theory of evolution for centuries as it hasn't been around for centuries!

 

But guess what? they think god started the big bang!

 

The big bang theory (and it is just a theory not FACT) was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) and has long had detractors due it's apparent religious overtones still it does seem to be brandished frequently by the zealous athiest as a stick to hit the zealous creationist.

 

Enjoy life, because there is nothing after our bodies cease to exisit. FACT.

 

It's a fact is it - could you point me at the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence of this "FACT"? Some reputable journal reference would be a nice start...

[Bozo 10]

I see evildrneil got there first. The Vatican very reluctantly conceded the possibility of evolution in 1950 and more enthusiastically in 1996. So about a century and a half.

 

EDIT: I might just add that the 1950 document, written by Pius XII (clearly overcoming his renowned shyness), was largely meant as a refutation. All the more interesting as it is targeted at those Catholic theologians accepting evolution unreservedly.