Determining a book's truth.

Pythagoras. Then why do I know nothing about him? Do people still believe in his teachings?By the by, could I get a couple of the misquotations in Matthew? However, are we also certain that he is quoting from what we know? As I pointed out earlier, he quotes from something that is not in the recorded Bible. So is it possible then that what he says is referencing something we don't have?Descriptions of Hell. Give them to me. The Greek word is Gehenna. Which was a place outside of Jerusalem for burning trash, dung, dead criminals, and probably other things as well. So this is what is referenced each time Jesus or someone else (generally, someone says Hades eleven times) is referring to.However, Elijah didn't stay there, he is referenced again later in that he sent a message to a king. Plus, heaven has three meanings:
Sky, place of celestial (planets) dwelling, and the place God lives.
Elijah went up into the sky.No, I am neither, but I doubt I rank higher than David on any given list of faithful people. David is also named among some pretty big names in Heb.11 as faithful people, so to say any of us here on this forum are better than David, you would be directly comparing yourself to the other men in there as well. Ideas changed because of tradition, which Jews are quite big on. Jesus corrected many things when he was on his ministry. The writings in the Bible always have been consistent. Humans have not.Luk 4:43 but he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose."Explain to me what you think Jesus meant when he said "the good news of the Kingdom of God". The true key to Jesus message lies in there.If there is a Resurrection and their is a heaven, one has to be better than the other. Do only the really good get into heaven? Is heaven purgatory until the Resurrection? One of the biggest hope of first century believers is in the Resurrection. Note when it is said "some have fallen asleep"1Co 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.Why does he say "fallen asleep"? Why not say "those who wait in heaven"? Or "those who have gone to our Lord"? We can't just say, "the Bible is not clear", thats like saying, "its a mystery". Because it isn't. The overall message of the Bible is very clear and is on the surface. Read without preconceived notions, and think about what you read, and the true message of it should come to you.

After a quick search, you can credit anything said about as much as Equinox would credit the Bible (no offense meant, I was lacking an analogy).In short, there is little known about him from his actual time. Most of the things about him (even the Pythagorean theorem), were possibly fabricated by his followers after his death.Because of how he taught, with those knowing the most, those in his inner circle, they didn't reveal much, and thus as time went by, it is undoubtedly that most of his thoughts have been skewed.I sincerely doubt it has received wider credence than Christianity.

Yes. A2+B2=C2. His Theorem. We don't actually know that he even did that. Personally, I give him the credit, but there is no proof that he did. We have none of his writings, and it is entirely possible that members of his sect invented that he came up with that idea.

[qs]However that was but a byline, a throw away of the response. The important things were in the parts above that throw away, and that Pythagoras name has lasted even longer than Jesus'./[qs] Ummm, that is only because he has physically been around longer than Jesus. That is therefore an irrelevant point. And his name isn't larger, because, and I think this is the true way to test this, as far as 'big names' go, it only matters so much if common people everywhere know of them.
How many do you know of that still follow Pythagorean ideals? And then compare that with how many follow Christ's. There is no comparison.As for what is said earlier in the post though, I agree with just about everything you said. Need to think a little on the other parts.

No cursing please. It is inappropriate, and that aside, it shows a lack of creativity on the part of the swearer that they have to used cliched lines to get their point across. At the very least show some thought behind what you say.Jesus, however, spoke openly to almost all. There were some occasions in which he spoke privately with his disciples, but these things said were revealed after his death.You might say we come close to talking about Jesus in the same way I referred to Pythagoras, but the thing is, if that is what you claim, you can say that about anyone in the past.I will say though, that from a surface glance, I would definitely give more credence that Jesus said what he said, than things claimed by Pythagoras.

Let me be blunt about something:
I think (as has been said before) that mainstream Christianity have screwed a lot of things up. I reject the notion of the immortal soul, and from that heaven as being the place of reward, the idea of hell being a place of fiery torment, the devil as being a supernatural being, the doctrine of the trinity, and the idea of the current presence of the holy spirit.I believe that Jesus came in physical form, preached a gospel message of a Kingdom that he would rule in. That said Kingdom would be coming at a later time in which a resurrection would take place and those faithful to Christ, and those living in the world at that time would be able to live in that kingdom.I'll look into the Jeremiah/Zechariah ordeal, it brings up a good point.I see what your saying as far as an incomplete Bible goes, but I know we are missing things:
The book of Jasher/Jashar (depending on which translation you use), is referenced at least twice, and to my knowledge, we do not have this book.
I think if this book was necessary for our ultimate salvation, we would have it.lake of fire: only present four times in the book of Revelation, which as a prophecy, contains a lot of symbolism.
hell fire: 3-8 verses depending on translation: If read with the mind of death as death, then, to me at least, Gehenna fire would be being burned in death outside the city. Plus, and this is a question often raised by skeptics, why would a loving God subject people to eternal torment? And the answer is he doesn't.
Unquenchable fire: Destruction. That's what fire does best, destroys. So if chaff is burned with unquenchable fire, then it is burned to be obliterated. Oblivion (as mentioned before).Contradiction that solves another contradiction, but only if you view it from your perspective, from my view point, it doesn't contradict.Gen 15:5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."Heaven could mean God's dwelling there, up, or the sky.
Gen 22:17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,Stars of heaven, place of celestial bodies.Let me mention something, and then I'll post this: There was a man by the name of Abraham, and God promised him something, now if Abraham is in heaven right now, then he never received his promise. And never will receive it. However, if Abraham is dead, and will live again, then it is possible for the land to be given to him, and to his seed (Christ) forever. And that is the ultimate hope as given in the Bible. That is why the Hebrews didn't lose faith in God after Abraham failed to receive the promise. Imagine yourself in their shoes, would you still trust this God that promised land, but then didn't give it? They believed something, and that is that he would receive it later.

Explain please? are you saying Acts claims Peter wrote it?On the topic of Psalms, there is something about the Hebrew language, and that is that certain words can have different meanings (compare bow and bow), and while context can help, there are some words that you can't really do it for. These include: for/to, and of. So a Psalm of David, could actually be a psalm to David.Temple reference could mean several things: since it says Holy Temple, it could be referring to the heavens, or it could also mean the tabernacle.As for Jude, you are correct. Now the question is, why is that so? What was different about Jude? My thought is that God wanted Jude in there, and the others he didn't.
I could be wrong, but I think the KJV and others in its style are the most widely used Canon, so it would make sense for it to be the one God chose because he wants all to come to him, and for them to do that, they need something to go by.

No, but I think it is pathetic on the person's part if they must use such words, because face it, with all the movies out there, and then if someone has been to a high school lately, pretty much anything you say along those lines has already been exhaustively used.However, on my personal note, I don't "damn you to hell" for eternity. I believe what you think is going to happen to you is going to happen. read one of my earlier posts for my thoughts on hell.Apologies. I hadn't realized you wanted me to identify him. Here's what we've got: Historically there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth. Somehow, people got it in mind that he was this Messiah. This could have happened in several ways:He was a Liar
He was Crazy
He never existed and despite what I said above he was all a myth and a creation of Roman gov't to control its citizens.
He was who some say he is, the Messiah and Son of God.If he was a liar, what did he benefit. Lets look at it from his disciples point of view, what did they gain from following a liar? More importantly, what did Jesus gain? Not followers, that didn't happen until later (At least not many, for a history of the 1st Century Church, read Acts ). Plus he is depicted as being very selfless, why would a liar be that way? And if he never really did any of the things the Bible claims he did, why did he get so many followers, and why were the apostles and, the disciples in particular, willingly to die for a lie?If he was a Crazy person, then he may have gotten it into his head to call himself messiah. This doesn't work out because generally crazy people are self-centered, Jesus was about the most not self-centered person to have lived.If he was the myth, once again why did people feel strongly enough to die for it.If he was who he claimed in the Gospels, the holy one of God, then the history of what happened then makes sense.Prophecies of Christ, were made in the Old Testament and then fulfilled in the New. Christ was an important figure from the beginning, he was in promises to Abraham and David, and as said earlier, prophesied about.Regardless of other claims, the Bible fits together very tightly. something that wouldn't have happened if written by so many people over a really long period of time if they hadn't had guidance from the holy spirit.To summarize it all for you, I believe Jesus was who the Bible claims because of history, and how the Bible fits together, and from logic and common sense.

My thoughts on what the Bible says are that it was God given, and thus things of great importance would not be left out. Such as if it was an essential for Salvation to wear a turnip on your head, we would have that information. However, that would be saved by works wouldn't it...: )I did receive the translation of 'woman' from another person, but it makes sense. Jesus doesn't contradict himself, at least to my knowledge, and if it is in fact a term of respect, it fits the context.Well, I ask that you continue discussing with me even after reading this, but I am 16, am a rising HS Junior, and the only foreign languages I know are German and Spanish. The sources I have for translated Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic words come either from a Concordance (such as Strongs or Youngs), or from someone else.I'll come back to the cock, but I will consider what you've said. I think it can be reconciled, I just need to think on it.But I think the Holy Spirit guided them. Not controlled. If it had controlled, there would be one perfect Gospel, because it would have depicted everything exactly as needed. But that isn't how God had planned to work it out.As for the Holy Spirit, I would say yes as to significant matters. Sorry, that I can't be entirely straight up, but I'll try and come back to this.Men are human. They are naturally selfish, and will take advantage of others. Its a fact of life, left to ourselves, the rule is look out for number one. Because of this, everything is twisted. Faith, politics, friendship, politics, law, etc. People use anything to benefit themselves. Their thoughts are no different on God. Look at most popes in the past. All about the dollar bill.I agree. And that is the problem with most of Christianity. I think otherwise. The Kingdom of God is what was preached, and so that is what I believe in.How would they determine one person didn't write it? You can't base it off of language or the 'handwriting', because those would be altered slightly as it was copied. Even today people modernize things like books when they make movies and such. They eliminate things that would confuse others and put it into a more modern language style. That is exactly my point. The closest we have to what was taught was the 1st Century Church. Not the Constantine one, not the Medieval one, the First Century is the closest we can get to what Jesus really taught.
It should be the focus now. And it is sad that it isn't. For the most part it is likely as you said, truth isn't an efficient money extractor.2. I agree that some were no doubt children. Keep in mind Biblical language though, David is called a youth before he fights the Giant, but it is likely he was well over twenty.
Note also how they are told to put the strongest and most able on the throne. Ahab had been ruling a while before this happened and his sons were no doubt aged. Although as it references their guardians.
As for the baskets being God's will:
2Ki 9:7 And you shall strike down the house of Ahab your master, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the LORD.
2Ki 9:8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish, and I will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel.
2Ki 9:9 And I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah.
2Ki 9:10 And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the territory of Jezreel, and none shall bury her." Then he opened the door and fled.There is what God had intended to happen, the brutality used, with the exception of the dogs, was Jehu's doing.On the mice part, how many times in books and movies is a character seeking revenge for his parent's, or someone he knew's death?
Flood didn't target children.
Death of Firstborn, yes, killed children technically, however, wasn't just targeting them. From the oldest first born to the youngest they were killed. I'm sure they had a heads up as well. It's not as though they were ignorant.
The difference between targeted and included is:
Imagine WWII, and you can do several things, bomb everywhere (included), bomb military targets (targeted). While children are included, the way you paint the picture is: God kills innocent children. However, while children are in that list, the better phrase is God ordered the killing of the Moabites.Your insert there has no grounds. It paints the picture of the Israelites as being thickskulled ignorant pigs. i think something more along these lines happened.Fighting, men run inside a house, see people. Kill them quickly. (On a side, do you think the people relished killing? Do you think they took pleasure in tormenting people? Do you think they raped and violated women on the spot? No. People were killed, and that doesn't mean it happened by being thrown against rocks. A quick clean cut.
As for the women, the people were not to engage in sexual relations unless the foreigner had undergone a purification, which included them being shaven, and then undergoing a length of time.God wrote them the first time, Moses broke them, then God told him to rewrite them.
Failed prophecies. I'd say incomplete.
They didn't fly, Elijah was caught up in a whirlwind, he didn't fly of his own power. Jesus ascended as well. As for flying, I think he possessed the ability, but didn't use it.Snake. Agreed.
Zombies: I disagree with your word choice, but good point. Dead people raised and walked.Hell. Compare a parable Jesus told about the Rich Man and Lazarus. This touched on two things, it used what people thought about hell, and dismissed a Jewish myth known as Abraham's bosom. In the story, the rich man can see Lazarus from where he is, and so theoretically, Lazarus can see him as well. Also compare the good things in one life bad in the other. But in short, how glorious could Lazarus' reward be, if he had to see people down in Hades suffering for all eternity?What does fire do? It destroys. Eternal fire: Eternal destruction. Eternal death, that is about the most destruction you can get. Complete. You are gone.The idea of hell is a church device to scare people into filling the coffer, compare with indulgences, and its concept doesn't fit with the character of God. Hell only exists if man has an immortal soul, which he doesn't, thus eternal torment doesn't fit, because if something is mortal and it dies, just that happens, it dies.
Also, the OT and NT are intertwined, show hell in the OT as being fiery torment, I see a cold dark grave.People change under pressure, which is why the Kingdom is gone from Church teaching. The whole thing is rather sad. When people are fearful, and stressed, and something happens (close family member who was a nonbeliever dies), they search their mind, and will come to irrational conclusions because they do not want to accept the lose. now imagine this happening to someone with decent scripture knowledge, they then search for support for this, and because they look with a preconceived notion, they find minimal evidence and base new ideas off it. Others join, and those that used to be Hellenistic join in and look for ways to integrate their ideas (former gods in temples become "saints"), and you have a pretty good idea of how things got so screwed up. While openmindedness it important, it is also important to make sure you know what something is actually saying.I've enjoyed talking with you. I hope I've given you some things to consider, and rest assured you given me some : ). Please consider what I said with said open mind, and I hope to do the same. I'll be leaving for the Summer (travel stuff) and may not post again.Have a fun summer! ; )

I refer to the disciples and apostles who, although it is tradition; but there are probably historical records as well to account for them, died for something they knew to be false. People today never knew Muhammad, only can read what he wrote.
People then saw Christ's miracles, or saw the lack of miracles, and yet continued to die for something that was false. That would be silly.

This really needs to be my last significant post, because it takes a while to write, and I need to get prepared. So First, I have something to say in general, and then I'll respond to the last of the posts.First off, I apologize to those non active members that may be reading all of this, because I suppose it deviated from the topic often.
Second, I feel this is a topic that cannot be well discussed with all of you at once, because it seems what you say keeps changing. ie, I have no idea what your take is on it at all. I'm guessing Equinox holds that it was a fabrication done over time, but as for Iceage and Jar, I'm not sure of your views. I also don't think you really paid attention to all the things I posted. One thing I said was I doubt the existence of the Devil, and yet Eq says the snake speaking cannot be explained as the devil speaking. While I don't know if he may just have not read the post because it was like 15 posts since the one he posted in reply, all the same, at least consider what I say. Perhaps not, but it seems like instead of considering what I say/write, you take great delight in just finding 'what ifs' little things to poke in.Let me address other current monotheistic religions: Upon their creation, the founder received benefits. Be it women, or recognition. However, with Christianity, i neither provided the immediate fun the practices of the time provided, and it didn't benefit those preaching it. The Early Christians faced a lot of persecution because of their beliefs. We know that one Jesus of Nazareth lived. Apparently he died as well. Now there are a number of options for what happened after his death (by the way, the Jewish explanation is that his disciples stole his body and thus claimed him raised):
He wasn't dead despite being crucified, rolled a giant stone out of the way and then overpowered two Roman soldiers. Preposterous, no?
The disciples actually did steal his body somehow from Roman guards who would have been killed if they failed in their duty. I doubt this happened, as anyone with common sense should.
The people went to the wrong tomb, and then found it empty. Not likely, but even if this was the case, the Jewish authorities of the time would not have hesitated to actually find his tomb and disprove their claims.
The way to crumble Christianity is if Christ never died and rose. As the Resurrection was the hope of believers, if the Jesus had never died, then their faith was in vain:
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.So do you think the authorities of the time didn't know this? So all they had to do to disprove it was go to Jesus tomb and show people his body. Then anything the apostles would have said would all flat. But they didn't do this. Why? They couldn't.As for: "No proof these people existed" Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? I propose Archimedes never existed just because I haven't seem him, and I don't know for sure he wrote what people claims. That is utter foolishness. And modern people dying for their beliefs, they never heard from the source. Muhammad invents this book, and then people believe it, and Muhammad benefits greatly from their belief.
Now flip it around, Jesus preaches, and dies from it. So now his disciples are like "Dang, what do we do now?" So let's pretend he wasn't raised. The gospels record them going back to their daily lives and living in fear. Then suddenly they change.
Let's pretend I'm a disciple. Jesus dies, and I found out it was all a fake, and then the Jewish authorities are rounding up people that believed on what Jesus said. So I go out and proclaim that he was the Messiah, and for what? Nothing. The recordings we have of what the disciples and apostles received for their work isn't much.
Modern day examples of people giving their lives: Let me give another to chew on: Kamikaze pilots in WWII, their families were provided for for them giving their lives. Isn't something similar done with suicide bombers? Plus the whole point of the earlier writing (^) is that if someone saw that something was false, and then are willing to die for it for no apparent reason is totally ridiculous. One, I read about it a little, and the majority of the people that followed him were desperate. And I doubt they all knew of his faults. People that stayed stayed for money involved. Many actually left because of his faults.
Josh McDowell. Never heard of him before now.Something that is different between my and the rest of your all's line of thinking is that I do not doubt God's power. Eq, is understandable, as I'm pretty sure he's atheist (although why you defended hell I have no idea, don't you also believe death is just that? Death? ), but for the rest of you, I don't get why you would even consider yourselves believers if you don't think God has the power to do anything (and I mean that not even in the ways omnipotence, I mean it sounds like you all think that he cannot do anything at all).What some of you also seem to miss in what I say isn't that the only thing is the KJV, because it's not. I'm saying the book called the Bible is the inspired word of God. Stop posting nonsense about bibles before it. The Gutenberg Bible was legit as well I think. And the Greek texts before that are accurate as well.The book of acts is what I have to go on to base things on the apostles' deaths. It claims the disciples preached about Jesus, and it contains some details about their persecution as well. If this is what happened (and it is what should have happened had Christ not actually been raised), nobody would pick up Christianity, because it was new, and had no immediate benefits. They would prefer to worship Apollo where they at least got free drinks. Far better than getting a free passage to prison.We have no direct writings of Jesus apostles because we don't have originals. Matt, John, Peter, all were his disciples, Mark knew him, and Paul supposedly saw him in a vision.The difference between what I know about Jesus and Muhammad (I have to admit, I'm not versed in what the qu'ran says) is that Jesus told people to do what was hard for them, and what they couldn't do. Not my idea of a fun religion. Muhammad created this religion and then reaped benefits. Jesus introduced new religion if you will, and died for it.
Don't Muslims refer to the Qu'ran as the Third Testament?Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.Oh yes, doesn't Muhammad also claim an angel appeared to him?
In short what Paul says above is that if someone tries to teach something other than what we've already said (contrary to it) he's wrong and you are not to believe him.What I'm saying is that people don't benefit from rumors of Resurrection. Do you think the disciples really stole his body? Say this Jesus never died (on the cross and such), do you think he appreciated all of this going on because of him. The fact is he died. I'm pretty sure we all agree on that. Then what, rumors float around and people take them for fact. Do you think anyone would take that on the surface? I can say I'm 7'4 and can play the guitar with my tongue better than Eric Clapton can with his hands, but that doesn't make it true. And the thing is, it would be easier for me to play a guitar with my tongue better, and for me to really be that tall than for someone to rise from the dead. But the thing is, if you people don't believe in what is there otherwise, you won't believe even if someone did rise:
Luk 16:30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
Luk 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"But the fact is that no doubt one would be skeptical about claims that I just made about my skilled tongue and pituitary gland. Do you think someone would take it on the surface that someone was raised from the dead? No! They would at least want to see an empty tomb, ask around for the soldiers who guarded it.
Jesus died. you admit that. There's no way you can actually be convinced that Christianity came up from rumors that floated around.I've wasted a lot of all of our times. Apologies. None of us are really being open minded I suppose. Please consider what I write. I admit I originally came looking for arguments, but having spoken with you all, I do hope I've given you something to think about. I may be back in August or something. ta ta!