ZeitGeist

No, not at all. The Bible wasn't canonized until around 400 AD, when individual churches started releasing their own canons, and then the "official" canonization was the Council of Trent in 1546.The earliest gospels weren't written until around 100 AD, nearly 70 years after Jesus's supposed crucifixion in or around 33 AD. Well, for one thing, we have stories of the martyrdoms of the disciples recorded in the Bible; it's usually a little suspicious when the putative author of a work records his own death.But secondly it's just simply unreasonable to suggest that a human being living in the conditions of the First century could live to 100 or 120 or so, much less that 4 of them did it, and were still in a condition to write parts of one of the world's most important books. Even Shakespeare's prolific window of creativity was only about ten years wide. He never wrote any part of the Bible. Simon Peter is not the author of any part of the Bible. The two letters ascribed to him cannot be his, they're dated too late and they're not even written by the same person. Paul had a vision of Jesus, he never met Jesus nor was he a part of his ministry. They're free to write about whatever they like. Their recollections shouldn't be taken at face value, or (for instance) used to smear a Democratic presidential candidate on the basis of absolutely no corroborating physical evidence. What evidence? When you trace down anything supposedly known about Jesus, it all come back to the gospels, which weren't written until 70 years and later after his death.That's not a lot of evidence. It's not nearly as much evidence as we have for any of the Roman leaders during the exact same time period, for whom thousands of independent sources corroborate existence. Every Roman coin with a Ceasar's face stamped on it is independent proof that there was such a Caesar.But there's absolutely nothing about Jesus that you can't trace back to one of the four gospels - all of which were written nearly a century after the events that they detail. That's your great evidence? Some of the things he's claimed to have done are physical impossibilities, but again, you've failed to understand that the onus is on Christians to prove that those events happened, not on us to prove that they didn't. It's amazing how often you resort to the "prove us wrong" defense, but I suppose it's all that you ever have. You certainly have no evidence for your position. What multiple people?Did they all say the same thing because they had all read the same gospels? That's what I'm driving at. I could probably ask a dozen people to summarize some of the things that happen in Lord of the Rings, and because that's a popular work they could probably all tell me more or less the same thing. A Hobbit takes a magic ring to a volcano.Does that prove the existence of Hobbits? Does that prove that Lord of the Rings is a true story? Of course not. The fact that everybody's knowledge about those events can be traced back to a single source - Tolkein's novels - proves that it's all Tolkein's invention. Similarly, since all accounts of Jesus can be traced back to the Gospels, it's obvious that the life of Jesus in the Gospels is a work of fiction, too. Why do people start religions, NJ? Why don't you ask L. Ron Hubbard? If you don't believe that someone can make up a religion for crass or cynical purposes - something that they know is false because they're the ones who made it up - and then have people believe it in all earnestness, just look at Scientology. It's a whole religion about spacemen being killed by a volcano, and now they're one of the largest religions in the US. It's absurd. He didn't say he was anything. That's the problem. It's irrelevant to tell me what Jesus says in the Bible until you can prove those are actually Jesus's words, and you haven't even come close.It's irrelevant to show me Bible prophecy fulfilled in the Bible unless you can prove that the Bible records actual events ​

I'm not at all kidding, NJ. I literally can't see any relationship between your paraphrase and the article, and it makes me think that mathematical terminology like "natural" and "real" mislead you, because you really did not understand what that article was trying to tell you."Natural" and "real" are sets of numbers defined with certain mathematical qualities, NJ. They don't appear in that article to tell you that "actual infinities" are something physical that doesn't exist, or whatever. As the article clearly explains, "actual infinites" are things like real numbers and natural numbers, which are really and actually infinite.You completely misunderstood a complicated mathematical concept that used terminology that you misunderstood. There's nothing really shameful in that. Regardless, though, you're wrong - there are such things as actual infinities, and the Wiki article gave you two examples - real and natural numbers.Dr. Adequate, a PhD mathematician, all but told you the exact same thing. Are you saying you know more about mathematics than an expert does?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.