Keep in mind there are isolated revivals of Sumerian followings, and the Hindu and Buhdist faiths have survived for a very long time. All of the wonderful diversity.

I originally did say that I doubted Christianity would become a myth within a mere thousand years, I qualified that the texts would probably exist as long as our race does because there are so many coppies in so many mediums. I simply think that it's face will change drastically.

I'm sorry but that seems a bit reversed. I've mostly asked questions here concerning your statements that I made no claim about other than stating that Authorities elude to more texts about the life of Jesus, the times he lived in (quite appropriate if one wishes to understand the context of the bible), his teachings (which I think we all seem to find interesting and valid) and the key figures in his life. I was even careful to specify documents created during his "times" as loosely defined within the end period of the new testament being created.

You already stated that only the bible contains the lessons Jesus taught, even by your own admissions this would be false. In addition to texts you mentioned, there are texts mentioned by anotherk, and many texts still being found with valid dates of creation. In addition to actual religious books there are historical texts that detail the information about the times including key information about people who had direct interactional influence on his personal life, the state of the Jewish people, the Roman empire occupying the Jewish territory, and other texts.

I'm simply trying to keep up with your statements. If I refuse to offer additional information to someone insulting me or my logic while demaning I look up information for them that I have already provided enough keywords in a private email for them to find themselves without disturbing the public that would rather not hear about it how is that me being wrong in some way? I did point out that the texts do not all support what is said in the Bible and consider it personal choice whether anyone wants to read or have knowledge of them.

This is a discussion, if I am expected to act as your secretary or private fact finder because you can not or do not wish to find information yourself I would ask that you cut me a check or offer fair compensation first.

I'm being as nice as I can about all of this but civil discussion requires all parties to be willing to discuss things reasonably.

Yes but I never have much of interest to say anyway it's ok :)

This thread was started in parrallel to Two questions for Christians in which he denounced all texts not contained in the bible as invalid. At first he seemed to think non existed because no historians outside of the bible existed and then recanted saying that some existed but were discounted as contradictory and thus inaccurate.

tried to email you to tell you to leave the G of J and the G of M out of this to avoid causing a heart attack. But alas I'm an old geezer I can't message you :).

Erm...the other thread two questions he brought some up after claiming non existed and then instantly denounced them while still claiming no others exist...Second time he did this I believe.

Ok per your opinion are THOSE the only existing texts of those times? And on what basis were they rejected as invalid? Why does this not support the theory that texts were desrtroyed or lost into obscurity such as suggested on the other thread?

There are no other valid texts concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ, his life, times, or any of the key figures in the bible during his life written during the very long stretch of time it took for the new testament to be written?

2. Unfortunately this is where I must step in and stop being obtuse long enough to point out the fact that much of the bible is in refute in many ways due to translation problems, missing original text, and ignored texts contradicting or explaining important details. This is all text that you of course denounced on the other thread but is regardless respected by the rest of the world including serious scholars. If you are able to denounce alternate texts as valid then everything you post as being valid about bible texts because of the supposed authenticity of the pages loses all meaning here. It could be simple fabrication, invalid, or meaningless like the rest of the text you have denounced. Either the text of the times did exist in it's entire nature, or not at all. You fail to prove you are god, from the times of the text as a personal witness, or have any way of validating the truth of texts. Asking someone to post the book of the dead, prophecies, ect from the Egyptian history would involve pictures since it was written in hyroglyphics and this is a simple fact everyone knows.

3. The Martyrs you speak of are those that speak AGAINST christianity. For every Christian killed they in turn killed hundreds and thousands out of spite, profit, revenge, or propogation of the religion which is more than just cause for it's roots to be erased much as some of the roots of the Single Egyptian queen was erased for opposing what was considered proper during her lifetime.

4. Unlike your bible much of the Egyptian texts were written in stone, metal, or other mediums so that they would last unchanging for all to see without being edited because they were old and fragile and must be replaced allowing for editing. Since you yourself admited the original coppies seem to not exist you made his point rather well on this.

Abra as usually you have chosen a hard line to take but I have to acknowledge the pure superior logic noting an evolving rather than stagnant religion. Who knows maybe it changed in other ways as well...

Well that's only about 34 years after his death supposedly for those times I would guess that was pretty immediate so I couldn't have been right about it being written long after the fact my apologies!

I knew what you meant...
Lie is a rather strong word.

What I know leads me to belief that someone is misinformed I would consider it very dishonest to be posting lies.

Christians don't lie!

Personally I have an unforunate problem I am honest some say to a fault...For this I apologize it just isn't right in a non-christian!

I'm not an authority but according to authorities there are a lot more books or "texts" covering his teachings, life in general, and the times he lived in including key figures in the whole biblical story.

Please cite sources on the new testament copies were available in 70 AD when the original books were Koine writen originally between 45 and 140 A.D..

Thank you for your very thoughtful and interesting reply :)

It's very simple Spidercmb stated "he Bible is the only source of the teachings of Jesus. There are the Apocrypha, but they are rejected by almost all scholars as not authentic. They were written largely by Gnostics who had adopted Jesus as a figure in their religion, which predated Jesus' birth. "

The bible is a lasting work be it fact or fiction. After selecting texts from those available they chose to include in the bible much of the opposing or alternate text was hidden, destroyed, or ignored.

Once this was implimented for hundreds of years the Christian armies destroyed a large portion of anything it could get it's hands on regarding any religion other than the one true religion to stomp out any other belief system. This is documented fact.

Will Christianity be a myth? Unlikely....but in it's present form it will be a myth. You can stand assured that the bible will likely exist in some form so long as human kind originating from earth does.

Glad you finally admited what you think we can now assume the rest of the world will always be invalid by your view. Thank you for saying it publicly this time.

Sure, if you are Christian or follow Christ, what is it you think? By simple I meant let's avoid going to completely different subjects.

Simple please this subject line has already been abused and I am trying to get to the bottom of this.

1. Do you worship your God as you understand him from reading the Bible and consider the book a tool for the message being passed on by man, or do you consider the bible to be a divine cornerstone of Christianity. If you think it's holy in some way that is fine, but the distinction is do you hold it as a holy symbol, or an idol to worship and follow?

2. Do you believe that the bible contains the only valid passages about the teachings of Jesus, the world he lived in, and the people he loved written during his times?

I'm glad you caught that, but I'm completely without surprise the guys missed it and you caught it. If you will note I originally stated I would use blanket terms as I have tried to do in most of these forums so that everyone can easily agree even if we disagree we are on the same page. One debate has been over the course of time the sentience and the possession of souls in animals. Most agree even if they can not talk animals are sentient, but because most can not talk or for religious reasons many consider them without souls. I was claryfying this point as unknown to prevent a wild speculation debate beyond anything any of us can answer even theoretically.

No, and yes in order. Let me explain but this is a matter for speculation or debate...
I can not speak in Authority whether animals have souls or we have souls. I believe we do, and i believe they do, but my belief is not shared by all so I find that a matter for speculation.

Yes I believe sentience requires will. The reason is that will is what creates the sentience per my view. The will to define oneself which has been the plight of all creatures on earth. A dog chooses it's behavior sets in spite of training based on it's temperment. Regardless of placement a Cat will often choose it's owner or "best friend" in human beings.

Cats of different species put together in the same house will form a pride with it's own pecking order sometimes observing gender order and sometimes ignoring gender based on the free will of each cat, their interactions, and their feelings about each other. I've seen a pride of cats set up a trap for a tom that outweighed all of them by having the male go out, and lure it in, only to have the male reach safety and the tom was surrounded and torn apart by the females in spite of this being against all cat behavior sets known. This constitutes will without actually proving anything has a soul.

I do believe the creation could assert and prove it's own sentience, but we would be unable to force this demonstration. Problems in proof lie among other things in being able to snapshot the current programming in the creation and examining the orignal code to verify that it was unable to lead to it's proof of sentience. In other words, the creation would have to form it's own behavior sets and write them into programming, and then assert itself as a being to be considered sentient per my humble opinion only theorizing.

Unplugging killing versus coma...depends on whether memory was static doesn't it?

This was observed and suggested in that movie prior to any knowledge of the Robot being sentient which is interesting within itself. I suppose a distinction was that the robots had a tendency to huddle together for unknown reasons. The Sentient robot asserted itself, and sought things for itself which constitutes free will because these desires theoretically were outside of it's original programming.