Can't stomach History Channel's - BIBLE series

Really? Does anyone even really believe that crap? This is the 21st century after all...

I think atheists never experienced anything beyond an animal level of existence. Eat, shit, sleep, repeat. Poor dead beings.

From [link to www.gotquestions.org]

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

EDIT: Answer to everything else you asked: Yes.

What do you expect from a bunch of apes?

You are only reading the "christian" point of view. Truth is that the secular writers you talked about talked MORE about Hercules in their writings. In other words, they were not writing about Jesus as if he was a real person. They were reciting myths and, besides that, they lived years after Jesus was already dead and gone so they heard these myths from early Christians. In other words, every single secular author that wrote about Jesus wrote nothing but hearsay. And there aren't many of these writers at all. And they say VERY LITTLE about Jesus, more about Hercules, actually. Look it up, if you dare.

You didn't actually look into why no Egyptians have records of plagues or their first born children dying, did you? There are no records of these things. There are no records and no artifacts of the Israelites sojourn in the desert for 40 years either. That is because it never happened. If they lived there for 40 years, there would be plenty of evidence but none was ever found.

In order to grow up, you have to stop believing in magic. Come on, are you an adult? Children believed that Santa brought gifts to every boy and girl on one special night. Don't you realize that you are believing in the same exact kind of thing? This world does not operate that way. You have to get your head out of the clouds and start to use good sense, reason, logic, facts, etc. You can't believe in these far out magical fairy tales and still be an adult so you have to grow up.

Why do you cling to these stories that, inside, you KNOW aren't true? Ask yourself why you do this? Why do you fight against anyone who tries to show you the truth? Why do you dismiss every other God and all other religions but still think your own religion is the one true religion? How are you not EMBARRASSED to be this way? I don't expect any answers to these question, by the way, because you won't be able to answer them honestly.

And to Adventus Domini:

I would like to ask you another question. If the story of the talking donkey or the sun standing still was written in ANY other book, besides the Bible, would you believe it? If that story was in the ancient Greek literature of old, would you believe it was honest to goodness fact, or would you think it was a mythological story?

If you say that you would believe in any story in any book that was insane and ludicrous, then why don't you believe in Alice and Wonderland and Jack and The Beanstalk and Pinocchio (I believe Pinocchio ended up inside some fish, if I recall correctly?)

If you say you would never believe in insane myths in any other book besides the Bible, WHY? Why do you believe ANY and ALL insane and crazy stories inside of only one book? Is this because you were brainwashed from birth to believe this? Is it because all your friends and all your family members also believe this same garbage? Is it so you can have some hope that you will live forever in some paradise? Look inside your own heart and answer this because it is very telling.

I believe that as an adult you are required to suspend your belief in superstition and magic until it can be proven to be scientifically possible. If you can't prove something, you should suspend belief in it. That is what an ADULT does. What does a child do? They believe in every fantasy told to them because they are gullible and immature. Children can be expected to believe in fantasy and fairy tales but I always thought adults should be more mature. Am I wrong?

You are only reading the "christian" point of view. Truth is that the secular writers you talked about talked MORE about Hercules in their writings. In other words, they were not writing about Jesus as if he was a real person. They were reciting myths and, besides that, they lived years after Jesus was already dead and gone so they heard these myths from early Christians. In other words, every single secular author that wrote about Jesus wrote nothing but hearsay. And there aren't many of these writers at all. And they say VERY LITTLE about Jesus, more about Hercules, actually. Look it up, if you dare.

You didn't actually look into why no Egyptians have records of plagues or their first born children dying, did you? There are no records of these things. There are no records and no artifacts of the Israelites sojourn in the desert for 40 years either. That is because it never happened. If they lived there for 40 years, there would be plenty of evidence but none was ever found.

In order to grow up, you have to stop believing in magic. Come on, are you an adult? Children believed that Santa brought gifts to every boy and girl on one special night. Don't you realize that you are believing in the same exact kind of thing? This world does not operate that way. You have to get your head out of the clouds and start to use good sense, reason, logic, facts, etc. You can't believe in these far out magical fairy tales and still be an adult so you have to grow up.

Why do you cling to these stories that, inside, you KNOW aren't true? Ask yourself why you do this? Why do you fight against anyone who tries to show you the truth? Why do you dismiss every other God and all other religions but still think your own religion is the one true religion? How are you not EMBARRASSED to be this way? I don't expect any answers to these question, by the way, because you won't be able to answer them honestly.

Atheists are exactly the same as you. Yes, we eat, shit, sleep, repeat, just like you. The ONLY difference is a simple one: We don't believe in magical, invisible beings in the sky who watch us every minute of the day and give a shit what we do. We are all grown up. Christians are children who still believe in Santa Claus.

I guess your life is so dull, boring and meaningless that you have to cling to some hope that things will get better after you die. That old adage, "the grass is always greener on the other side." Poor thing, you should go out and do something meaningful with your life. Go help someone out, go give away some of your belongings to the poor, like your mentor, Jesus, asks you to. Then you will feel better about your life. Then you can stop living with that hope that you will die and go to heaven, and concentrate on the important stuff, like today. Maybe you might even grow up. Who knows?

My faith, nor my salvation, hinges on a talking donkey.

I'm not a literal fundementalist. But, it wouldn't change things if I were.

I know enough to see that the entire Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. That the gospels are the testamony of Jesus Christ. And that the epistles of the New Testament declare the glory of Jesus Christ. See, for me, there is nothing more true than Jesus Christ -- the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Is there anything else I need to know?

You don’t seem to understand what a historian does. A historian gathers evidence and testimony in order to establish a historical point of view. As far as I know, no Lincoln historian sat down and had dinner with the man. So, if you want a firsthand testimony of Jesus, the gospel of John is a good place to start.

There is a mountain of archeological and prophetic evidence pointing directly to the authenticity of the Bible, but you choose to look for the gaps, or lack of evidence, in order to prove your hypothesis. But this has been going on for a long time. For example, according to the biblical scheme of events, there was a United Monarchy for about a hundred years in the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Then a civil war brought about the division of the country into Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judah, the southern kingdom. For years, skeptics argued that there was no such thing as a United Monarchy, and in short, there was no King David.

However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy -- at least David. Without any room for debate, the inscription on a tablet found at Tel Dan, dates to about 840 B.C.E., clearly mentions a "House of David."

So, there may be some small lack of archeological data to corroborate the Bible. But, it is being unearthed in real time. And much more importantly, there is NO archeological evidence to disprove the words of the bible.

Yea. That religion is a function of TIME and PLACE. Had you have been born in any other century or even on a different continent, chances are you would NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS...

You don’t seem to understand what a historian does. A historian gathers evidence and testimony in order to establish a historical point of view. As far as I know, no Lincoln historian sat down and had dinner with the man. So, if you want a firsthand testimony of Jesus, the gospel of John is a good place to start.

There is a mountain of archeological and prophetic evidence pointing directly to the authenticity of the Bible, but you choose to look for the gaps, or lack of evidence, in order to prove your hypothesis. But this has been going on for a long time. For example, according to the biblical scheme of events, there was a United Monarchy for about a hundred years in the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. Then a civil war brought about the division of the country into Israel, the northern kingdom, and Judah, the southern kingdom. For years, skeptics argued that there was no such thing as a United Monarchy, and in short, there was no King David.

However, in 1993 an inscription was found at Tel Dan. It mentions a dynasty of David. And on the Mesha stone found in the last century in Moab there is also a probable reference to David. So there is textual evidence outside the Bible for these kings of the United Monarchy -- at least David. Without any room for debate, the inscription on a tablet found at Tel Dan, dates to about 840 B.C.E., clearly mentions a "House of David."

So, there may be some small lack of archeological data to corroborate the Bible. But, it is being unearthed in real time. And much more importantly, there is NO archeological evidence to disprove the words of the bible.

I don't know. He found me laying in my own shit years ago -- I suspect he could find me anywhere. If you think I'm being vulgar, or trying to be vulgar, I am. It was like that.

I can't stomach History Channel's - BIBLE series because I
hear it is full of errors, Protestantized for American
non-Catholic Christians who are mainly viewing it.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Spoken like a true ape.

And the video you provided was proof of what?

I know all that stuff... It was amateurish.

The most common word used in the video was "Copies". They have no originals.

They used a clever technique drawing lots of pictures of copies of the NT pretending and showing that they came from 3 originals. How did they know there were 3 when they haven't got 1?

They made the point that the changes made don't change the substance and that is generally true... However 12 verses being added to Mark was substantial addition. Why the need?

Also at least one verse we know about was added to the Greek copy in the margin and written in Latin... You need to research this. Somehow that margin entry became a very controversial verse that confirmed the dogma you all believe.

Why the deceit? Were they selling a concept?

If the stones that contained the 10 commandments were real... then there was only one original. Your point on more than a single original is flawed. A writer can't write more than 1 original by hand at one time. Can you explain this problem with your thinking?

Anyhow when I have time I will watch more of that series.

LOOK! If you want to "just believe" the Bible go ahead. Anyone can do that.

Read all my other posts on many threads.

If you find no detail, then you are blind to learning.

Keep studying... and broaden your resource material... from You Tube videos

You are correct when you state that there is no way of knowing that the Sinaiticus was a direct copy of the original manuscript. However, if the original autographs remained in existence as a point of reference, then the Sinaiticus would be considered a copy of the autograph due to the fact that any copy can be checked against the autograph. If the Sinaiticus was copied in approximately 350 AD, and the oldest book of the New Testament was written in approximately 90 AD (Revelation), this gives us a gap of approximately 260 years. This may seem like a long period of time in modern times, but with respect to ancient literature, and the value placed on preserving original documentation, this is not a long period at all. And an example of this would be the Sinaiticus itself, which was preserved, and used, in a monastery from the 4th century through the 19th century -- for 15 centuries! So, the argument that the original autographs were in existence when these early copies were made (including some portions from as early as the 2nd century) is completely possible, and quite probable.

As for determining the meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in context, all one needs is a Strong's Concordance. The Greek for "apocalypse" is "apokalypsis". It is defined as: 1) laying bare, making naked 2) a disclosure of truth, instruction a) concerning things before unknown b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all 3) manifestation, appearance. [link to www.blueletterbible.org] So, what the heck is your point?


As for the rest of the diatribe, that's your choice. I'll just remind the both of us that in the end, our opinions don't count. Take care.

I apparently was logged out. The above quote is my response.

Whilst the Blue Letter Bible & Strong's concordance are correct in it's definitions of apokalypsis I used the "lifting the veil" and "revelation" definition that commenced being used around the 14th century.

Hence the name "The Book of Revelation".

You are a Christian... Were you taught the Apocalypse was the "end times" and when did you find out it wasn't? How did these preachers get it so wrong? Doesn't GOD speak through them?

My point was very clear. You have already misrepresented as a fact that the Codex Sinaiticus was taken directly from an original, when there is no evidence that suggest that is more than an hypothesis.

Now you try to justify your false statement with a "well it could be" type argument. Again proving my point how believers tend to include their hops in their conclusions.

I understand that weakness in your scholarship. It would greatly improve your ability in debating if only an original could be found.

Now you have failed in this debate you start to dismiss correct information as diatribe because you know that your book of choice the Bible supports my position and not yours.

Try defending your GOD rather than defending the BIBLE. GOD is easy to defend - THE BIBLE isn't.

Keep studying. You have at least walked part of the journey.

Whilst the Blue Letter Bible & Strong's concordance are correct in it's definitions of apokalypsis I used the "lifting the veil" and "revelation" definition that commenced being used around the 14th century.

Hence the name "The Book of Revelation".

You are a Christian... Were you taught the Apocalypse was the "end times" and when did you find out it wasn't? How did these preachers get it so wrong? Doesn't GOD speak through them?

My point was very clear. You have already misrepresented as a fact that the Codex Sinaiticus was taken directly from an original, when there is no evidence that suggest that is more than an hypothesis.

Now you try to justify your false statement with a "well it could be" type argument. Again proving my point how believers tend to include their hops in their conclusions.

I understand that weakness in your scholarship. It would greatly improve your ability in debating if only an original could be found.

Now you have failed in this debate you start to dismiss correct information as diatribe because you know that your book of choice the Bible supports my position and not yours.

Try defending your GOD rather than defending the BIBLE. GOD is easy to defend - THE BIBLE isn't.

Keep studying. You have at least walked part of the journey.

I should defend God? Really, because He needs defending? Lol. His existence is clear in everything and there really isn’t any hope in debating someone who cannot see that. However, even though it is not really the thread topic, I would gladly take that debate on with anybody who is willing.

I will state again that no other book in antiquity has the manuscript documentation to back it up like the books of the Bible. I challenge you right now to find one. You won’t take up that challenge, because you will not be able to do it.

You know, I was once in the world. I was not only in the world, but I excelled at being a very despicable person. Not that good works would ever gain me anything. But, my point is that everything I imagined about the Word of God was a product of the world, including the media. Your comment of the Book of Revelation and the meaning of the word “apokalypsis” was never known to me until I began studying the Bible. But, the title is really 'The Revelation (apokalypsis) of Jesus Christ'. Because, you see, everything in the Old Testament is a shadow of Jesus Christ who was to come. Everything in the gospels is a testimony of his walk on this earth. Everything in the epistles and the Book of Revelation is an apokalypsis of the glory of Jesus Christ, and a promise of what is to come. So, you are really hurting yourself by allowing yourself to be blinded to this very simple concept. Open your eyes -- the Word of God is good news.