When I was a Christian I was taught that the bible contains a valid description of the history of Jesus.

I realize now that they have no basis for their claim.

You ask if the bible contains the only valid passages about the teachings of Jesus.

I ask, "Who can give any evidence that these teachings are historically valid?"

The answer is clear that there is no such evidence. So the church is lying to people when they claim that they are valid descriptions of history because no one can know this.

Even the church should own up to the fact that no one can know if what they are worshiping has any truth or accuracy behind it. In fact, reason dictates that it is more likely to be false than true.

The entire doctrine taken as a whole basically denies its very own proclamations. It contradicts itself radically.

Here is a crystal clear contradiction in the overall doctrine. And we must look at the overall doctrine because the New Testament stands firmly on the shoulders of the Old Testament and is totally meaningless without it. The story of Jesus cannot stand along. Jesus cannot stand on his own two feet by the Bible's own proclamation. It demands that Jesus stand on the shoulder of the God of Abraham. The virgin birth demands it (not to mention a myriad of other things)

But here's the contradiction,...

The bible says that God is unchanging. This is a must because a God who changes is undependable and therefore cannot be relied upon to be the same tomorrow as he was today. So God must be unchanging.

Yet, the Old Testament has God hating the world so much that he drowns out all human civilization save for a hand full of people.

But then the New Testament has God loving the world so much that he gives his only begotten son to be crucified on a cross to save it.

So which is it? Does God love the world or hate it?

The doctrine is self-inconsistent. And therefore it must be discarded as untrue. The church should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting this truth to the people. But then again, does anyone really expect the clergy of such an organized and profitable institution to give up their pointy hats and expensive jewelry?

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.

The apocrypha are not accepted for many reasons.

First, they were rejected by early Christians.
Second, they contradict accepted scripture.
Third, they are fragmentary.
Fourth, very few copies are existing...for most of the apocrypha, we only know the book from fragments.

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?

Blackbird, I am afraid I can't discuss with you anymore. You are constantly posting strawman fallacies and I don't feel that I should have to wade through that with every response. Case in point: "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?" I have corrected you several times on this. The Bible is the only documentation of Jesus' life and teachings. Why do you insist on adding "times" to the list? Of course other documents were produced at that time. But only the Bible offers the lessons Jesus taught. I asked you several times to state which other books you feel have Jesus' teachings in them. You have flat out refused. I cannot waste any more of my time on this pointless discussion.

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?

There are many other gospels written at the time of jesus life, for example the gospel according to Thomas and the gospel according to Nicodemous just to name two of the hundreds not in the bible. An interesting story in the book of Thomas. When Jesus was 7, being creator, he was also Lord of the sabbath and therefore not subject to it, as is evidenced by his plucking corn on the Sabbath. Anyways, at 7, he wanted to honour the 12 tribes of Israel and spent the sabbath day making 12 doves out of mud. Some children who were jealous at his sculpting abilities, and the admiring crowd he drew, ran off to the temple to report to the rabbis that the son of Joseph was "working" on the Sabbath day making sculptures. The rabbis were already upset with him because of his knowledge and abilities to read Hebrew letters even better then they and so they rushed out to catch him in the act so they could boot him and his family out of the temple. As the furious priests were rounding the corner to Joseph's modest home, a friend warned Joseph and he rushed to his son Jesus telling him to destroy the dozen sculptures at once.
"No need sir," was his reply, as he quickly clapped his hands and all twelve mud doves instanly came to life and flew away. Needless to say, seconds later, the rabbis found no evidence of sabbath breaking and therefore could not have the family kicked out as they wanted.

When I was a Christian I was taught that the bible contains a valid description of the history of Jesus.

I realize now that they have no basis for their claim.

You ask if the bible contains the only valid passages about the teachings of Jesus.

I ask, "Who can give any evidence that these teachings are historically valid?"

The answer is clear that there is no such evidence. So the church is lying to people when they claim that they are valid descriptions of history because no one can know this.

But here's the contradiction,...

The bible says that God is unchanging. This is a must because a God who changes is undependable and therefore cannot be relied upon to be the same tomorrow as he was today. So God must be unchanging.

Yet, the Old Testament has God hating the world so much that he drowns out all human civilization save for a hand full of people.

But then the New Testament has God loving the world so much that he gives his only begotten son to be crucified on a cross to save it.

So which is it? Does God love the world or hate it?

The doctrine is self-inconsistent. And therefore it must be discarded as untrue. The church should be ashamed of themselves for not reporting this truth to the people. But then again, does anyone really expect the clergy of such an organized and profitable institution to give up their pointy hats and expensive jewelry?

You say all this while openly admitting that you have lost your faith, but you offer no proof to contradict the bibles accuracy other than abra says so.
Archaeology and Egyptian hieroglyphs on the other hand, have proven the accuracy of much of the time line and information contained in the bible. As far as the new testament goes the disciples of Jesus did not die with him. No, many wondered the world spreading the word and writing the events of Jesus life and his teachings for many years after. The Romans also recorded much of it.





You have obviously left out on purpose, or forgot that after the flood God gave us the rainbow and a promise,

"I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease." God blessed Noah and his sons, and told them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. "It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth." [Gen 8-17]

Giving us Jesus was God upholding his promise and trying another approach to a world which had except for a few forgotten where we came from and who created us and what he had taught us. If he had changed his mind and chose to contradict him self he would have, and could have simply smote us again.

hmm that's strange Fanta - this is one of the stories in geness i believe show's god to be man's creation.

"It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;"

did rainbows not exist before this? were there not clouds of rain before this?

if so then light refracting off or through them would have been the same before and after the flood wouldn't you think?? or did god suspend this phenomena till afterward's?

but did not your god say - all creation was finished on the 6th day? and would not the defraction of light to cause a "rainbow" as it does now, be just as it was then? or do you believe defraction came only after the flood?

what to do Fanta?? or do you believe that there were always rainbows before and after but it was not until then that god decided to make it a sign? if so - then how would one know for sure what it was the sign of if it existed before the flood and after? just on the words of the bible?

we know for a "fact" that water droplets, prisms and other things can produce what is decidedly a "rainbow affect - for a bieng to say that at that point it was to be a "sign" seem's very odd don't you think??

explain it to me Fanta??

No assumption,
as·sump·tion (ə-sŭmpshən)
n.


1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
5. Presumption; arrogance.

You're assuming that Light reflected through water droplets making rainbows before God made it happen. Nothing happened before God made it happen.
Since he made it happen in one place through one water droplet then it stands to reason that it would do so in all water droplets everywhere.

Hi MorningSong


Read this too Tribo. Many scientist say science only deepens their belief in God!


By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN


Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html