Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The books vary. Read the book of John, then read the book of Hebrews.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If your holy book fails to match reality ...
- Thread starter Looncall
- Start date
Come on. Religious-based terrorism. You know that.
When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??.....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
Which is?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
It was common with oral teaching at the time of jesus. it was people who cultivated the teaching of Jesus after his resurection that chose to write it down, so more people could get access to the teaching
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
based on what? I (as a potential non believer and kafir) find a lot of redeeming features in both - and then there are the people who follow these faiths - happy to engage on that point if you would like
the oral tradition was still in use in 140ad..papias said he prefferred the oral over written...first why..was one wrong?..second..no gospels yet in 140ad..
well first there was no jesus....christians have been murdering jews for 1700 years...and they care even less about muslims..
there is nothing original to jesus..
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Oral teaching is the best. but today we are not used to this teaching form, so it is more common to write it down. When the oral teaching started to sound different when people listen to different disiple they understood they had to write all down. as far as i know, this was common in all religions at that time, except that Jesus did not call it a religion, he called it cultivation path.
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
:sigh: I guess we have to agree to disagree
There was most certainly, by all independent non biased accounts - a person called Jesus of Nazareth that existed - there are more accounts that agree on that than don't
Now as to whether he was everything he is claimed to have said - or done - the accounts start getting more biased
In my status window, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Prominent insofar as he was a popular whipping boy for "old school" YouTube atheists/skeptics back in the day. I did find myself liking him more than his counterparts, though. At least he has some humour to him.
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
Or the other absurd one that "Islam introduced slavery to those free-roaming, friendly Arab Pagans of Mecca in the 6th century"
I really can only laugh so much before my throat starts to hurt
Firemorphic
Activist Membrane
It's inspired me too, I feel like throwing a party with all my Christian friends to celebrate this truly glorious occasion!
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The book of joshua is 'historical', only wingnuts
Not really, however I noticed that they are different. So, a 'combination', according to a belief one already has, makes sense, to me.
Not really, however I noticed that they are different. So, a 'combination', according to a belief one already has, makes sense, to me.
Yeah, he seems like a nice guy. I find him harmless.
Exactly. Compared to some of the other ahem "enemies" of the skeptics, he seems downright adorable.
74x12
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't know. I don't have that problem. The holy book I believe is true.
As for your further comments. I'll just say you don't in fact know everything and leave it at that.
Proper translation by whose reckoning? That Rabbinical Judaism considers the Masoretic text as the authoritative version is meaningless unless you recognize rabbinical authority. To claim that the Christians who recognize the Septuagint are wrong, because the currently surviving sect of Judaism says so is textbook question begging. Personally, I don't have any real preference for either as the Church has used both in its history. But I would never question the Eastern Orthodox over their use of the Septuagint simply because modern Rabbinical Judaism has a differing view. If I cared for what the Rabbis think I'd convert to their religion.
Last edited: