Did Jesus Really Sacrifice All That Much?

[Night Strike]

Which works that are considered to be true? I'm a little curious on that line.

I know the earliest manuscript we have of the Illiad is from a few hundred years after the original writing. I think there are others that fall in a similar vane, but it has been a while since I've read the articles.

[Symmetry]

Which works that are considered to be true? I'm a little curious on that line.

I know the earliest manuscript we have of the Illiad is from a few hundred years after the original writing. I think there are others that fall in a similar vane, but it has been a while since I've read the articles.

Pretty sure nobody considers that to be true. Next? You do have something, right?

[Night Strike]

Which works that are considered to be true? I'm a little curious on that line.

I know the earliest manuscript we have of the Illiad is from a few hundred years after the original writing. I think there are others that fall in a similar vane, but it has been a while since I've read the articles.

Pretty sure nobody considers that to be true. Next? You do have something, right?

Oh, you're defining "true" as historical. I was defining "true" as knowing that you have the correct text as it was originally written.

[Symmetry]

Which works that are considered to be true? I'm a little curious on that line.

I know the earliest manuscript we have of the Illiad is from a few hundred years after the original writing. I think there are others that fall in a similar vane, but it has been a while since I've read the articles.

Pretty sure nobody considers that to be true. Next? You do have something, right?

Oh, you're defining "true" as historical. I was defining "true" as knowing that you have the correct text as it was originally written.

Oh god no, the Iliad as written wasn't written by Homer, nobody thinks that. Homer was, if he did exist, an oral poet. Nobody thinks the received text is accurate to Homer or historical truth. What else do you have?

[Symmetry]

Just to be clear, here is the point you're defending with this line of argument.

There are more early manuscripts closer to the time of the actual events for most of the Bible than any of the old, major works that are assumed to be true and complete today. Yet people try to hold the Bible to a different and completely arbitrary standard in order to discredit it from challenging their own world views. The parts of the Bible were not written 400 years after they happened; they were only compiled into a form closer to the one we have today at the Council of Nicaea.

And you're going with an accepted work of fiction as your proof.

[army of nobunaga]

This is a mute argument though with fun side thoughts....


Christians will say OMGHESACRIFICEDALLWITHPAINBLOODFORTHEGLORYOFUSALL..YOUWILLBURN!!!! And the smaller percentage of us will chuckle and poke comments that a god surely didnt suffer... or gods son was given a few bones.. right?


This thread is bound for great things.

[Night Strike]

This is a mute argument though with fun side thoughts....


Christians will say OMGHESACRIFICEDALLWITHPAINBLOODFORTHEGLORYOFUSALL..YOUWILLBURN!!!! And the smaller percentage of us will chuckle and poke comments that a god surely didnt suffer... or gods son was given a few bones.. right?


This thread is bound for great things.

Jesus was fully human as well as fully God, so of course he suffered.

[Army of GOD]

100%+100%=?????

[army of nobunaga]

Which works that are considered to be true? I'm a little curious on that line.

I know the earliest manuscript we have of the Illiad is from a few hundred years after the original writing. I think there are others that fall in a similar vane, but it has been a while since I've read the articles.

well man I know you have had a hard hard life like a lot of people here... life is hard. That is why I hope you guys are right.. I hope your half god half man traveling preacher did descend unto heaven to sit at the right side of his father-- and all this faith will pay off. I have always hoped that for you and your like and always will. Good people belive, I have seen few bad eggs believe in my day though im sure they exist.


Ill toast a beer to your faith tonight. And wish all of you the best. A lot of us non-believers are jealous at some level, that I promise.

Unfortunately, until I get an explanation from your god for the things Ive seen and done, I have no use for your religion and hope and this thing you call faith. God was active in the old testament, jesus and god active in the new... but they have not shown me shit the last 2000 years. And personally, I could have used something.

I wish you all and your families a happy egg and easter day- posting here is like crack at times, must tear myself away and work..

[Night Strike]

Unfortunately, until I get an explanation from your god for the things Ive seen and done, I have no use for your religion and hope and this thing you call faith. God was active in the old testament, jesus and god active in the new... but they have not shown me shit the last 2000 years. And personally, I could have used something.

There already is an explanation for what you have seen and done: this world is dominated by sin. It is the sinful nature of people that has caused all the bad things we experience in this world. No, you can't tie every bad thing directly to a sin that was committed, but the effects are the sum-total of all the sin causes in the world. If God stopped it all from happening, we would no longer have the free will to decide whether we want to trust in Him or not.

[Symmetry]

NS, I ain't gonna dig into this, and this is the last time I'll ask, but do you have any evidence for what you and I discussed above?

[Night Strike]

NS, I ain't gonna dig into this, and this is the last time I'll ask, but do you have any evidence for what you and I discussed above?

The early manuscripts thing? Not that I have easy access to and can immediately cut and paste from. I do know all of the New Testament was written within about 50 years of Jesus' life, which means that it is extremely credible as to what was written was what happened.

[Symmetry]

NS, I ain't gonna dig into this, and this is the last time I'll ask, but do you have any evidence for what you and I discussed above?

The early manuscripts thing? Not that I have easy access to and can immediately cut and paste from. I do know all of the New Testament was written within about 50 years of Jesus' life, which means that it is extremely credible as to what was written was what happened.

Dude, here's the thing, I spend a lot of my life dealing with manuscripts and the kind of evidence that's sometimes difficult to deal with. I called BS on your post, but I also knew that it was BS I'd heard before. You'll never find the evidence you claimed originally, and I knew it. My issue is not with what you believe, but I get annoyed when stuff gets claimed uncritically. The Iliad is nowhere claimed as truth. Trust me on this, you don't have any evidence for your claim, and you shouldn't take claims like that on faith.

Take the Bible on faith, and not on some claim that it's provable by archaeology, or whatever. I respect you better when you do that. The Iliad is a work of fiction, you shouldn't be using it to prove that the Bible is true, or false.

[Night Strike]

NS, I ain't gonna dig into this, and this is the last time I'll ask, but do you have any evidence for what you and I discussed above?

The early manuscripts thing? Not that I have easy access to and can immediately cut and paste from. I do know all of the New Testament was written within about 50 years of Jesus' life, which means that it is extremely credible as to what was written was what happened.

Dude, here's the thing, I spend a lot of my life dealing with manuscripts and the kind of evidence that's sometimes difficult to deal with. I called BS on your post, but I also knew that it was BS I'd heard before. You'll never find the evidence you claimed originally, and I knew it. My issue is not with what you believe, but I get annoyed when stuff gets claimed uncritically. The Iliad is nowhere claimed as truth. Trust me on this, you don't have any evidence for your claim, and you shouldn't take claims like that on faith.

Take the Bible on faith, and not on some claim that it's provable by archaeology, or whatever. I respect you better when you do that. The Iliad is a work of fiction, you shouldn't be using it to prove that the Bible is true, or false.

No, people have claimed that the copy of the Illiad is an accurate transcript of the original work. Meanwhile, they claim the Bible is wrought with textual errors and mistakes even though it has thousands of more early manuscripts than the Illiad and other works.

And the times and places of the Bible have been confirmed through other works of the time and more archeological findings.

[Symmetry]

NS, I ain't gonna dig into this, and this is the last time I'll ask, but do you have any evidence for what you and I discussed above?

The early manuscripts thing? Not that I have easy access to and can immediately cut and paste from. I do know all of the New Testament was written within about 50 years of Jesus' life, which means that it is extremely credible as to what was written was what happened.

Dude, here's the thing, I spend a lot of my life dealing with manuscripts and the kind of evidence that's sometimes difficult to deal with. I called BS on your post, but I also knew that it was BS I'd heard before. You'll never find the evidence you claimed originally, and I knew it. My issue is not with what you believe, but I get annoyed when stuff gets claimed uncritically. The Iliad is nowhere claimed as truth. Trust me on this, you don't have any evidence for your claim, and you shouldn't take claims like that on faith.

Take the Bible on faith, and not on some claim that it's provable by archaeology, or whatever. I respect you better when you do that. The Iliad is a work of fiction, you shouldn't be using it to prove that the Bible is true, or false.

No, people have claimed that the copy of the Illiad is an accurate transcript of the original work. Meanwhile, they claim the Bible is wrought with textual errors and mistakes even though it has thousands of more early manuscripts than the Illiad and other works.

And the times and places of the Bible have been confirmed through other works of the time and more archeological findings.

Dude, the majority of scholars claim that the Iliad was a piece of oral poetry. I don't think there even can be an accurate transcript of the original work, most scholars agree that oral poets changed their performances depending on the occasion. Who claimed it was an accurate transcript of Homer?

[BigBallinStalin]

This is a mute argument though with fun side thoughts....


Christians will say OMGHESACRIFICEDALLWITHPAINBLOODFORTHEGLORYOFUSALL..YOUWILLBURN!!!! And the smaller percentage of us will chuckle and poke comments that a god surely didnt suffer... or gods son was given a few bones.. right?


This thread is bound for great things.

Jesus was fully human as well as fully God, so of course he suffered.

When people resort to contradictions as their defense, then you can't rationally debate them.


@anyone
Are faith and logic compatible?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is this a reasonable stance to live by one's life?

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/reason_is_the_greatest_enemy_that_faith_has-it/178640.html


Should we fight and destroy reason in order to live a more spiritual but irrational life?

Hopefully, some people wrote a book with rules for us to follow, and an organization to enforce these rules! Remember, do not criticize them with reason, for that is the greatest enemy that faith has.

[Army of GOD]

@anyone
Are faith and logic compatible?

Faith, as I define it, is the absence of logic.

Not that I think it's necessarily a bad thing, as a "leap of faith" is required for any belief, as nothing, in my belief (lol), can be proven in the natural world.

They can coexist, though.

[GreecePwns]

When people resort to contradictions as their defense, then you can't rationally debate them.
@anyone
Are faith and logic compatible?

Before I answer the question how do you define "faith?"

[army of nobunaga]

NS, I ain't gonna dig into this, and this is the last time I'll ask, but do you have any evidence for what you and I discussed above?

The early manuscripts thing? Not that I have easy access to and can immediately cut and paste from. I do know all of the New Testament was written within about 50 years of Jesus' life, which means that it is extremely credible as to what was written was what happened.

It is the edits... I watched a documentary on Harvard ancient text professors as they examined and proved all the edits in the bible.

It doesn't matter when it was written, but when "I am a son of god" is edited to "I am THE son of god" that is the problem and all of this is proven.

[john9blue]

similarly to AOG:

faith is drawing a conclusion despite the absence of evidence.

logic is drawing a conclusion using evidence.

they are inversely proportional; if someone provides more evidence in favor of a given conclusion, then the faith required to believe that conclusion decreases, and the faith required to believe opposing conclusions increases.

unfortunately, the word "faith" is also used to mean "religion", so people seem to think that their faithful belief in the lack of a god is "logical".

[GreecePwns]

Occam's razor cuts through those assumptions like butter.

[john9blue]

was that addressed at me? elaborate...

[GreecePwns]

Agreeing with you, actually.

Occam's razor, as I understand it: The theory that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the more logical one. A more modern definition for it is, after "cutting through all the bullshit," what does each theory have left?

[BigBallinStalin]

When people resort to contradictions as their defense, then you can't rationally debate them.
@anyone
Are faith and logic compatible?

Before I answer the question how do you define "faith?"

I'll hazard a guess: "Faith" is not rooted in sound logic--however valid a faith-based argument may be. It's used to avoid the falsifiable, so it defies the scientific method, or empirical testing.

Perhaps, faith is the means which people use in order to believe something with very little certainty or proof, (or if that something is unfalsifiable).


Wikipedia uses two great words to describe it: "Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity." [Regarding logic], "[faith] is a positive assumption."