Comparing Religious and Scientific beliefs on how the universe was created...Need Help Urgently!!

[IrishEyes]

This is the same thing as you being able to decide who is and who is not a Christian regardless of that person's personal claim. As you have done here before. It seems anyone can make up anything they like and claim they are what ever it is they randomly choose to call it. Guess I'm a 13yr old white female. Ops that's on another discussion group!

 

You are again trying to credit me with assertions i never made. I am totally incapable of deciding who is a Christian, or of telling who has accepted Jesus as their personal savior, as the term 'personal savior' clearly states it will between that person and Jesus. I have stated that when people truly accept Jesus, there is a change in their lives. As for making up anything they like and claiming whateve they randomly choose, why are you the judge? If a person is born to Jewish parents, lives life as a Jew, then accepts Jesus as Messiah, why should they have to relinquish their "Jewishness" because you say they are now a Christian? The Jews in the first century that believed in and accepted Jesus as Messiah did not forsake their Jewishness. They remained Jews. Why should now be different, just to validate your argument?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Please provide VALID VERIFYABLE evidence showing that the NT ("Matthew, John, Paul...") was written by those whose names it is credited to.

 

Polycarp was a personal disciple of John, the Apostle. Polycarp verifies by mention all NT books from Matthew through 1 Timothy, plus 1 peter and 1&2 John. How much more valid can you get than a disciple of the Apostle John saying John actually wrote his books?

 

There is no known outside mention of any Gospel prior to that of II Peter (150CE) which mentions "Gospels." Justin Martyr (140CE), for example, never quotes from or mentions a Gospel. This is strange in that it would have been very advantageous for the early Christians to have referred to the Gospels, had they existed, in their arguments with detractors.

 

There is no known mention of the *four* Gospels prior to that of Iranaeus in 185 A.D. -- and he stated that he found them to be preposterous on the grounds that he had heard from John that Jesus lived to a ripe old age!

 

The only credence that can be given to the Polycarp legend is thru Ignatius and that based on Eusebius. The ONE text associated with Polycarp is part of the Ignatius collection. Ignatius was the subject of very extensive forgeries; fifteen Epistles bear the name of Ignatius, including one to the Virgin Mary, and her reply; two to the apostle John, others to the Philippians, Tarsians, Antiocheans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans, and to Polycarp, besides a forged Martyrium; the clerical forgers were very active with the name of Saint Ignatius. Of these, eight Epistles and the Martyrium are confessedly forgeries; "they are by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bilshop of Antioch" though, "if the Martyrum is genuine, this work has been greatly interpolated." As to the seven supposed by some to be genuine, "even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form"and even the authenticity of the "genuine seven" was warmly disputed for several centuries. The dubious best that can say is: "Perhaps the best evidence for their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name ... UNLESS, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or FORGED." For example,Polycarp was quoting, in his letter to the Philippians, a version of Acts called the "Western" version, which is about 10 percent longer than todaay's version.

 

Clement of Rome, a friend of the Apostle Peter, verifies the writing of at least 9 books.

 

Clement's letters are all conveniently unsigned. Highly unusual, except in attempted fraud, which was very popular. And the letters miss some very important details which are part of today's version of the bible.

 

These letters are all proof of the evolutionary development of the texts we have today. We see how each time something is referenced, it HAS CHANGED. There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not one has the same collection of verses as any popular English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript before 800CE which has 27 books in its New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about 350CE, comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

 

Forging and changing texts was common in the early years of Christianity. Eusebius, 4th Century Bishop of Caesarea and Father of ecclesiastical history wrote "The Preparation of the Gospel". In it he had a chapter named "How Far It May Be Proper to Use Falsehood as a Medium for the Benefit of Those Who Require to Be Deceived". In it he writes "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory

[IrishEyes]

There is no known outside mention of any Gospel prior to that of II Peter (150CE) which mentions "Gospels."

 

Can you please clarify what you mean by 'outside mention'? What wold be considered an 'outside mention' for you?

Thanks.

[IrishEyes]

Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript before 800CE which has 27 books in its New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about 350CE, comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

 

The Codex Sinaiticus (almost positive it's AD330), and Codex Vaticanus (also AD330) ( part of the Uncials) both were missing 'books'. Vaticanus was also basically held captive by Rome for centuries, making it difficult to verify and validate. However, as these books were probably based upon text edited by Origen (the Egyptian) they would contain heresies, including many Gnostic leanings, not accepted by many early Christians. And as for Barnabus and Hermas, well hey, come one, they're fun to read, right? (That was a joke.)

 

As for there not being a single Greek manuscript containing 27 books before 800CE, you could be right. I do know that many times, 1, 2, and 3 John were lumped together, and that caused some problems. The Mutorian Canon (AD170) did list all but 4 of the 27 now included. The Councils of Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) list all 27 as authentic.

 

Anyhow, I have studied the history of the Bible a little, but I don't claim to know it all. You seem knowledgeable, and I'd like to know your sources. Most of my study was not done for specific authentication of the texts, but as a fact-finding mission for the 'most correct' English version of the Bible (KJV, NIV, NLT, etc.). Man, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that some of the things I found just really blew me away! To read quotes from the RCC (3-5 centuries) saying that they had intentionally distorted, omitted, changed, etc in order to support their party line was upsetting. But hey, what can you expect from the folks that changed the word "Repent" to the idea "do penance"?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

There is no known outside mention of any Gospel prior to that of II Peter (150CE) which mentions "Gospels."

 

Can you please clarify what you mean by 'outside mention'? What wold be considered an 'outside mention' for you?

 

Thanks.

 

Non Christian. As opposed to your attack of:

 

As for verifiable proof from an atheist of the day...

 

There were plenty of writers of the day that wrote texts that are not part of the Christian Bible. They do not mention the Gosples. Pliny the elder, Josephus, ...

 

And as I posted, even with-in the early church there is obvious omission, such as Justin Martyr. Why was he not aware of the Gosples?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Anyhow, I have studied the history of the Bible a little, but I don't claim to know it all. You seem knowledgeable, and I'd like to know your sources. Most of my study was not done for specific authentication of the texts, but as a fact-finding mission for the 'most correct' English version of the Bible (KJV, NIV, NLT, etc.). Man, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that some of the things I found just really blew me away! To read quotes from the RCC (3-5 centuries) saying that they had intentionally distorted, omitted, changed, etc in order to support their party line was upsetting. But hey, what can you expect from the folks that changed the word "Repent" to the idea "do penance"?

 

Although I am responding a little, in light of Tormod's thread about threads.... I don't want to drag this thread into this discussion. But as an explanation, my research on the historical background of the bible came about because of my personal drive to know as much as I can before making any decisions. I originally accepted the historical existence of a Jesus of some type., as most people uncritically do. Discussions came up that required my researching things and the more I did the more I found the early church had invented the whole thing during the first few centuries of the CE. The more I studied, the more I found a complete lack of support for the biblical texts. As names where thrown out as outside verification of biblical texts, research fouond them to in fact NOT support the bible.

 

Stories like Polycarp are typical of this. He is used to validate the early existence of the Gosples. But his actual existence itself is highly questionable. The ONLY validation we have is things associated with Ignatius from things pretty well rejected as fraud. We find a lot of intentional fraud by people in the early invention of the Church. We find many thijgs like your complaints about the RCC, which did not exist until around 1,000. (Split between Orthodox and RCC). In the first couple hundred, there were dozens of little groups all claiming to be THE Christian one. (Just like today, only less killing) Each had their set of revelation dogma and texts. As time went by, they were merged and rewritten to conform. We KNOW this from both the editors themselves and early historians (Such as Eusebius, an unquestioned historian of the early Church) that admits they lied in finalizing the biblcal texts.

 

Anyway, this is way off topic.

[IrishEyes]

Non Christian. As opposed to your attack of:

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for verifiable proof from an atheist of the day...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry if this sounded rude, but I really was teasing. It was meant as a joke.

 

There were plenty of writers of the day that wrote texts that are not part of the Christian Bible. They do not mention the Gosples. Pliny the elder, Josephus, ... And as I posted, even with-in the early church there is obvious omission, such as Justin Martyr. Why was he not aware of the Gosples?

 

I don't have anything definitive about Pliny. I am familiar with Josephus. I know that he did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the true text, but I have never heard/read that he rejected the other accepted NT books. As for mentioning the Gospel books, could that be due to them not yet being called "The Gospel"? I mean, Josephus was around less than a hundred years after the last book was written, right? Is it possible that they just weren't referred to in this manner at the time, as most originated as personal letters or accounts? Also, as I understand it, by AD150, Martyr cited at least 15 different books that became part of the NT. Is my information incorrect?

[IrishEyes]

We find many thijgs like your complaints about the RCC, which did not exist until around 1,000. (Split between Orthodox and RCC).

You're right. I did not mean the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today, post-split from the Orthodox.

 

In the first couple hundred, there were dozens of little groups all claiming to be THE Christian one. (Just like today, only less killing) Each had their set of revelation dogma and texts. As time went by, they were merged and rewritten to conform. We KNOW this from both the editors themselves and early historians (Such as Eusebius, an unquestioned historian of the early Church) that admits they lied in finalizing the biblcal texts.

 

I agree, and I think I refered to this on another thread at one time. The first few hundred years were very rough for the Christian faith. The Gnostics, and others, tried (successfully at times) to mold Christianity to fit their idealogy. And yes, there was much fighting. Using this history of early Christianity as an example, I have very strong feelings against government instituted religion, regardless of the religion. When governments take one side and makes it THE truth, there will always be a disenfranchised minority. It is evident in America today, though I often wonder WHO the minority really is. (LOL) Any time an idea is forced upon people by government, whether religious, political, economical, or otherwise, there will be people that suffer. This is especially evident with the early Church.

 

I believe the same thing applies to this country. While it WAS founded under the idea of religious freedom, and I dont believe that means freedom FROM religion, I also don't believe the fed govt should force religion on people. Do I like "under God", "In God We Trust" etc? YES, I LOVE THOSE THINGS. I like the idea of living in a country that believes in God. However, the reality is that this is NOT a Christian country any longer. And while I may want it to become one again, I am not the only person that lives here. And just because I personally believe in God, and I believe that many of our founding fathers shared that belief, I also STRONGLY believe (and I think this is fully supported in MANY texts from the time), that their intent was to create a country that was free from the bonds of religious persecution for ALL people, not just their particular Protestant denominations. Also, a close study of early colonial life will reveal that there was an enormous amount of religious persecution going on here as well. Churches fought each other, and were vicious about it. So even here, there was not true freedom to pursue one's own religious beliefs without fear.

 

Anyhow, as you did Freethinker, I strayed way off topic. Sorry about that, and I hope Tormod won't be too mad, but this stuff is fascinating and invigorating for me!

[Freethinker]

 

There were plenty of writers of the day that wrote texts that are not part of the Christian Bible. They do not mention the Gosples. Pliny the elder, Josephus, ... And as I posted, even with-in the early church there is obvious omission, such as Justin Martyr. Why was he not aware of the Gosples? Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I don't have anything definitive about Pliny.

 

I DO! But that would be no surpise! Pliny the Younger is one of the false claims of support made by Christians to validate their myth. While his father, the elder, who actually DID live at the time AND wrote about it, failed to mention tha first thing about this Jesus of the bible or a single event it describes. You would think he would notice if the earth stopped or split in two!

 

I am familiar with Josephus. I know that he did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the true text,

 

"not accept the Apocrypha"? He does not even mention, as with Pliny, he DOES NOT MENTION a biblical Jesus. (Except in a small section that is an obvious addition, rejected by ALL credible biblical historians)

 

but I have never heard/read that he rejected the other accepted NT books. As for mentioning the Gospel books, could that be due to them not yet being called "The Gospel"?

 

Here we see how Christians are not only willing to, but are required to reject even simple rational thought. Consistancy is impossible for Christians. A few posts ago, you wanted to use Polycarp as PROOF of the existence of the Gosples because he supposedly mentioned them. But now you want to change it for someone else that lived at the same time!

 

I mean, Josephus was around less than a hundred years after the last book was written, right?

 

Josephus was around BEFORE the FIRST were written. He was born approx 30CE. You obviously are NOT "familiar with Josephus".

 

Is it possible that they just weren't referred to in this manner at the time,

 

Based on ALL of the evidence we have, it is OBVIOUS that they DID NOT EXIST.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I agree, and I think I refered to this on another thread at one time. The first few hundred years were very rough for the Christian faith. The Gnostics, and others, tried (successfully at times) to mold Christianity to fit their idealogy.

 

Ya really gotta love such attempts at revisionist history. Trying to say that religions that were around BEFORE Christianity tried to mold Christianity to fit their ALREADY EXISTING ideology. These religions ALREADY EXISTED. THEY did not have to do ANYTHING to Christianity. It was Christianity that kept changing it's ideology to try and sucker believers from these other religions over. That is why Christianity had to make sure it's MYTH included such common elements as a god's son, virgin birth, miracles, torture/ death/ resurrection.

 

Christians always think their religion is something special, unique. That it spouts something that was not well worn by the time it was invented. The ONLY thing that caught on with Christianity was the ability to walk away from personal responsibility. That was why Christianity gained political strength which made it waht it is today. Constantine took the concept to it's ultimate extreme. He lived an attrocious life. But based on the promises of the Christian leaders of the time, as long as he converted on his death bed, all would be forgiven and he would go to heaven. Thus he made Christianity the official religion, but did not convert himself until his death bed.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

And yes, there was much fighting. Using this history of early Christianity as an example, I have very strong feelings against government instituted religion, regardless of the religion. When governments take one side and makes it THE truth, there will always be a disenfranchised minority. It is evident in America today,... I also don't believe the fed govt should force religion on people.

 

And once more we see the total lack of consistancy of Christians. An outright condemnation of Government taking sides in religious matters. Followed shortly after by:

 

Do I like "under God", "In God We Trust" etc? YES, I LOVE THOSE THINGS.

 

Just like your earlier assertion that Christians are NOT bound by the OT. Yet desire to see the 10C's posted all over Public Spaces!

 

Christians are only interested in the FREEDOM to FORCE their beliefs on EVERYONE!

 

I believe the same thing applies to this country. While it WAS founded under the idea of religious freedom, and I dont believe that means freedom FROM religion,

 

Yes, I should be arrested and sent back to the country I came from.... er..... I was born here....

 

and YOU should have been jailed during your self proclaimed "Atheist" phase?

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

 

I like the idea of living in a country that believes in God.

 

Then move to Saudi Arabia! You'll love it!

 

Otherwise, this is just one more LIE. In the US, while a majority DOES believe, a growing minority DOES NOT. According to the most extensive survey ever done, approx 14.5% of the US pop do not have religious beliefs. Almost double from 20 years earlier.

 

However, the reality is that this is NOT a Christian country any longer.

 

It NEVER WAS. In fact, if you read things posted on this site, you would have been educated on the Treaty with Tripoli, an OFFICIAL US Document, passed UNANIMOUSLY by the Congress of the time, started under Washigton, signed by Adams. It stated flatly that the US government is not in any way based on Christianity.

 

You have been so brainwashed by Christian revisionist history, you have no idea what is real.

[rileyj]

you guys are still going huh? why not spend that energy on on something that will actually go somewhere

[geko]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

the Treaty with Tripoli, an OFFICIAL US Document... stated flatly that the US government is not in any way based on Christianity.

 

What about the research into stem-cells being restricted?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: geko

Originally posted by: Freethinker

the Treaty with Tripoli, an OFFICIAL US Document... stated flatly that the US government is not in any way based on Christianity.

 

What about the research into stem-cells being restricted?

 

The discussion was about the founding, basis of the US> not the current situation where Fundamental Christianity has hijacked it.

 

I agree with (the assumed) attack against religion stopping the benfitial progress of society. That is why I come out against religion instead of the usual promotion of religion being either helpful or at least benign.

 

We could track thru history and see that at EVERY STEP, religion, esp Christianity, has tried to stop every advancement of medical science.

[Tim_Lou]

this is way off topic from "Comparing Religious and Scientific beliefs on how the universe was created...Need Help Urgently!!"

 

you guys should really start a new topic b4 tormod comes in...

: )

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

this is way off topic from "Comparing Religious and Scientific beliefs on how the universe was created...Need Help Urgently!!"

 

That depends on whether you go strictly by the original post text or the subject line.

 

We are discussing how religion's interaction with scientific beleifs relating to creation is harming science today and help is needed urgently to stop it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: geko

Originally posted by: Freethinker

the Treaty with Tripoli, an OFFICIAL US Document... stated flatly that the US government is not in any way based on Christianity.

 

What about the research into stem-cells being restricted?

 

Yes. This is a classic case of religious interference in things that can have a major positive advancement for society.