The way Jesus died on the cross...

[Jaimecbr900]

[QUOTE=admin]"The Gutenberg Bible, the first book printed with movable type, is one of the greatest treasures in the Ransom Center's collections. It was printed at Johann Gutenberg's shop in Mainz, Germany and completed in 1454 or 1455. The Center's Bible was acquired in 1978 and is one of only five complete examples in the United States." - University of Texas at Austin


Well it seems that there are more versions of who came first, the chicken or the egg....

Here's a quote I found after doing a quick google search:

"The present division of the whole Bible into chapters was made by Cardinal Hugo de St. Cher about 1250. The present division into verses was introduced by Robert Stephens in his Greek Testament, published in 1551, in his edition of the Vulgate, in 1555. The first English Bible printed with these chapters and verses was the Geneva Bible, in 1560.

CIRCULATION OF THE BIBLE.--The first book ever printed was the Bible; and more Bibles have been printed than any other book..."

Soooo, it stands to reason that logically they couldn't "divide" something into chapters if there wasn't something WRITTEN down prior, eh??? Again, connect the dots. If it was broken down into chapters in 1250, then there is no way it was WRITTEN AFTER that, right???

That to my knowledge is the first book ever printed, what century is that? they did have block printing previous to this but that is still not actual printing b/c of the process it took to make a book, most stuff was still monks & scrolls

You are correct about it being the first book ever printed, but the time is off. I understand what you are saying about putting together all the books of the bible into one is a consideration of "when" it was technically printed, but again there are differing time lines.

[ISAtlanta300]

Damn Jaime.... I need to invite you over for some beers and stuff....

[Killer]

dude you either know more than most about the bible or your unreal on the internet!!!! either way you've made some great points!!!
so how do u know so much????

[4dmin]

^^^ wow OMG look what we found ^^^

[Killer]

yeah i'm not a moron!!!! but u've gotta know something about what ur looking for...... and he seems to know... way to be a dick!!!

[4dmin]

yeah i'm not a moron!!!! but u've gotta know something about what ur looking for...... and he seems to know... way to be a dick!!!

...

[chuck]

"The Gutenberg Bible, the first book printed with movable type, is one of the greatest treasures in the Ransom Center's collections. It was printed at Johann Gutenberg's shop in Mainz, Germany and completed in 1454 or 1455. The Center's Bible was acquired in 1978 and is one of only five complete examples in the United States." - University of Texas at Austin

That to my knowledge is the first book ever printed, what century is that? they did have block printing previous to this but that is still not actual printing b/c of the process it took to make a book, most stuff was still monks & scrolls

printing the bible in the 14th century was done from the hand-written pieces that were pass up through the generations...they didn't just make it up out of no where...they are all the different books that the bible were made up from...you may have heard of some of the authors; mathew, mark, luke, john, job...they didn't just title the books randomly...lol, acts is about the acts of god, etc...

not sure if you were thinking they decided to write the bible in the 14th century??

[4dmin]

printing the bible in the 14th century was done from the hand-written pieces that were pass up through the generations...they didn't just make it up out of no where...they are all the different books that the bible were made up from...you may have heard of some of the authors; mathew, mark, luke, john, job...they didn't just title the books randomly...lol, acts is about the acts of god, etc...

not sure if you were thinking they decided to write the bible in the 14th century??

the bible was never printed until the 15th century which was the Gutenberg Bible(that was the first book ever printed), as i listed, previous to that there wasn't any real printing previous to that. now i also stated previous the first writings of the bible, according to the bible we as early as 1445 bc by Moses . everything previous to print had to be hand written and passed down: scrolls, papayus, stone, etc.

[Jaimecbr900]

Guys, let's keep it civil. Paul and I are friends. He and I have had similar debates several times before. I don't mind having this discussion with him because we never take it to the personal level. He knows he's still my boy even if we disagree on this topic, because there are other topics in which we do agree. So it's all good.

Chuck, I am far from a theologian. I just ask a lot of questions and do a ton of my own research. When I have a question about something in particular about the Bible, I normally ask someone that is smarter than I on the subject. Some of the things we talked about today I already knew from my own curiosities before. Some I had to look up. I don't have a problem with admiting that I made a mistake and try really hard to express when I'm not sure about certain things, hence my infamy for long winded posts....

BTW Paul, I only "Googled" one thing....

[Jaimecbr900]

Paul, you know you're splitting hairs with me. You are saying "printing" and using it's literal meaning of writing on pages and binding them into a book.

I am using it's more laxed definition of simply "written down". The Bible, as I already pointed out, has parts that are not based on tangible data. Thoughts, fables, prophecies, commands, etc. are all not necessarily based on tangible proof, much like other things that require FAITH as part of the answer.

That's just my point. It is impossible to be able to 100% "prove" religion or beliefs to ANYONE without using FAITH as one of the determining factors. As such by it's very definition, it can NOT be LOGICALLY deciphered. So, if someone is looking at it merely from a "logical" point of view of give me this proof and that proof.....it will never work.

[4dmin]

Paul, you know you're splitting hairs with me. You are saying "printing" and using it's literal meaning of writing on pages and binding them into a book.

I am using it's more laxed definition of simply "written down". The Bible, as I already pointed out, has parts that are not based on tangible data. Thoughts, fables, prophecies, commands, etc. are all not necessarily based on tangible proof, much like other things that require FAITH as part of the answer.

That's just my point. It is impossible to be able to 100% "prove" religion or beliefs to ANYONE without using FAITH as one of the determining factors. As such by it's very definition, it can NOT be LOGICALLY deciphered. So, if someone is looking at it merely from a "logical" point of view of give me this proof and that proof.....it will never work.

the point of bringing up the age of the bible was to state from my first post about how they have not found anything of the crucifixion of jesus in roman records, records that date back before christ. now actually printing 15th century the bible was printed, from what i now around 1445?bc is the earliest know writings of the bible "moses"... everything before the 15th century had to be hand written... but back to my point, there are works older than the bible that say different than the bible. Am i trying to disprove the bible, NO, just proviing my earlier point that everyone didn't seem to believe. (you know i'm always up for a good Efight bro)

[ISAtlanta300]

So where did you get the "no records in roman records" from? History CHannel? A & E ??? Google?

[technoteg97]

Damn all you Anti race social ppl..I mean Racist Bittches lshdfl;a

[4dmin]

So where did you get the "no records in roman records" from? History CHannel? A & E ??? Google?

i saw a documentary on jesus christ... i don't remember what channel i was watching... probably as suggested as above... shit it may of been a E! true hollywood

na but it was about the life of jesus and it had tons of top researchers including top professors from Emory, Harvard, etc, etc. I personally wouldn't doubt if its actually true i took 4 years of latin/classical studies and never once was the life of jesus every brought up in any History I read other than the bible.

by the way i love religion and posing questions for inquiring minds... religion is a great topic w/ people who don't mind discussing w/o murdering one another

[Jaimecbr900]

Remember Paul, much like Farrenheit 911, anything can be twisted and made to prove the point someone is trying to make.

My biggest logical argument to rebut the "big bang" theorists is that I have yet to see any scientist or genius mind create anything that they say evolved from either animals or single cell organisms. They can't do it. Now they can clone it, but that's copying not making. Just like someone else mentioned earlier, How do you explain different ethnicities of humans if they all came from a monkey?

[AtifSajid]

I just have to say one thing on this topic. To me the Bible was a book brought down to earth from God in parts that was memorized by Prophet Jesus, in which he relayed it to all his people. The wrote it down. Now over the years, the stories Im sure have been changed since everyone in there previous posts are posting how many different types of people re-wrote it and translated it. NO translation is ever the real translation.

The same was done with the Quran - it was revealed to Prophet Mohammad and he relayed to his people who wrote it down also. It was relayed in Arabic and is still written in Arabic. The Quran is not written in any language without the Arabic writing across from it. And is always written in Old English.

The religion of Islam believes the words of the Bible and the words of the Quran were sent down EXACTLY the same. But over time the words of the Bible have been changed. I have read the Bible and I have read the Quran and LOTS of things are exactly alike, but the Quran is much stricter that the Bible. There is also an original Quran in Saudi Arabia that is safely kept. If you open that book and open a Quran that was printed today, not one word will be different. There were 30 books written for the Quran when it was written back in in the Prophets time, and there are 30 books today.
So nothing has changed in the Quran.

[Killer]

Well in fact not all of the Bible was relayed by Jesus, and people didn't just write down what He sayed. God revealed what was to be written down. David wrote Psalms (if not more books) and was alive well before Jesus... Another example would be Moses.....

[Pedal]

There is proof, just not proof YOU believe in. It's called the BIBLE. It's a book just like any other history book. Why do you choose to believe something written on those pages and not the bible??? The Bible actually has been around since it was written as it is first hand accounts of things that happened. A "history book" on the other hand is NOT a FIRST hand account of anything. It is mostly based on either materials, ideas, or thesis that the author came up with. Why not question those books??? Seems to me that they have far more questionable info in them since there is no tangible evidence of what Christopher Columbus was "thinking" or what Napoleon "ate" one morning yet we all KNOW they both existed, right? Then why is it sooooo far fetched that Jesus existed then????

how many times had the bible been translated?????? so it is not truly a first hand account of anything.... when something is translated from one language to another it is extreamly possibale that is is misinterperated(sp) or looses osme of its meening....like they have word for things that we dont have word for so we use the closest word we have to make it simmilar..but in turn in years to come people willl not understand that each word is not what it once may have been

[Pedal]

Remember Paul, much like Farrenheit 911, anything can be twisted and made to prove the point someone is trying to make.

so true

My biggest logical argument to rebut the "big bang" theorists is that I have yet to see any scientist or genius mind create anything that they say evolved from either animals or single cell organisms. They can't do it. Now they can clone it, but that's copying not making. Just like someone else mentioned earlier, How do you explain different ethnicities of humans if they all came from a monkey?

MY OPINION on this....

it seems to me that they explain the differences in humans, so to the different climats and such that each "race" "evolved" in. example the africans are darker skinned b/c they live much closer to the equator there for much hotter temp. causing the pigment in the skin to make their skin darker....thing os that nature...and as far as proving we cam from singel celled organisums to humans i can not do...but there does seem to be fosel and bone evedence that dues sugest that it is possiable that we evolved from monkeys... the fossel skull evidence of the progression from to monkey to man...i will try and find this and post it give a brotha a min?!?!?!?!?!?

the sloping of the forhead and all is what i am trying to find

[Killer]

Your right about the trasnlations being off, but just cause it was translated doesn't mean they just completely wrote the opposite of. yeah there are gonna be some differences but there not gonna leave out anything important, or add meaningless bull. it wouldn't make sense to do that.... i'm sure that when someone is translating for a foreigner there are some words left out, but the point is made. that's just how different languages work.

[Pedal]

yes but i was more talking about the amount of times, over several times it COULD have been messed up is all i am saying nothing else



as everyone has said this is just a discushion and i know jamie and paul is one of my best friends so there is no bad feelings here



and as chuck said i too love these type of discushions...they make you think

[chuck]

but you have to think to about what types of things are lost in translation...i'm not at all familiar with any languages other than english and spanish but it seems to me that most basic words could be translated giving a good idea of what happened...

say one original verse says "jane ran through the foothills" , i'd imagine the translation may end up getting altered to be something like "jane jogged through the area at the base of the mountian"....i don't think it could get off to anything like, "jane walked around the hill" ,especially at a frequency that would make the entire bible different than the original writings...but i guess its too late to really know for sure.

[Jaimecbr900]

Remember too that all languages PERIOD have evolved greatly since 2000 years ago too. So back then, there were words that didn't even exists like car, plane, motorcycle, THE SHOCKER.... JP, but you get my point. So not only are we trying to translate an ancient language into a modern one, but you are also translating languages that were difficult to begin with. What I'm trying to say is that not necessarily have things been deleted or omitted but sometimes things were merely made to be understood. This is the reason why brainiacs were the translaters and not merely some joe schmo that knew the language.

This is the reason too why going to church is not as bad idea as some would think. The leaders of the church are theologians and scholars that have STUDIED the bible and I'm sure would've been able to answer everyone's questions here, including mine, without breaking a sweat. They are the ones that "preach" on Sundays and let us laymen understand what sometimes may seem like Shakespearean writtings.

[4dmin]

since we are talking about translation, if the bible is as old as it is made out to be then the beginings of the written bible would of starteb 1400?bc w/ moses; i don't think moses spoke english b/c english wasn't even a language. eygptian, greek, latin, hebrew... plus here is another wrench in the mix. All most all common people could not read or write, this followed up into the 18-19th century... The only people who could of translated the bible would of been monks or nobles. There were points in history when the english bible was considers treason, people of the time would of been hanged/burned if found w/ one. So what you read today is what the CHURCH wants you to read; nothing more.

I'm not saying that the bible is 100% false but it for sure isn't 100% accurate.

[Jaimecbr900]

i don't think moses spoke english b/c english wasn't even a language. eygptian, greek, latin, hebrew...

You are getting things all jumbled up. Didn't we already agree that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew???? What's English got to do with that? Besides, point out any part of the Bible in which it states that MOSES wrote anything. It TALKS about Moses and what he did or said, but that doesn't mean HE wrote it.

Again, Christopher Columbus didn't write any history books, but yet we all agree he existed. His ships are long gone, his memoirs never written, and most of his "legacy" was told by people who were there and knew him. How come that's not being questioned?

All most all common people could not read or write, this followed up into the 18-19th century... The only people who could of translated the bible would of been monks or nobles.

A little too much generalization. Literacy rates weren't what they are in the modern age, but it certainly wasn't zero. Schools date back to early Roman times, and they knew how to read and write then. We're talking hundreds of years after the Romans had schools. Do you really think in that time there couldn't be some literate people besides just the upper crust and monks? Scholars could have certainly translated documents as long as they knew the two languages it was being translated from and to.

There were points in history when the english bible was considers treason, people of the time would of been hanged/burned if found w/ one.

I've never heard that version. I've read about persecution of Christians, but not English bible carrying Christians.

So what you read today is what the CHURCH wants you to read; nothing more.

No offense, but how would YOU know what the "church" wants from anyone??? So let me get this straight.....you think that ALL the churches that follow and believe the Bible (which is ALL churches BTW) got together and even though they may be millions of miles, generations, and totally different cultures apart they STILL got together and came up with a scheme to fool followers???? For what possible reason? To lead billions of people thru the ages into Hell instead of Heaven???? What possible logical reason can remotely come up with to justify that point of view?

Remember, it wasn't the "church" that wrote or even translated the Bible, so how could they scheme it's contents????? :confused:

I'm not saying that the bible is 100% false but it for sure isn't 100% accurate.

That's one thing you and I will never agree on.

[4dmin]

^
seriously jamie you should read more about roman history, there were schools, but for people who had a name. common folk as most everyone was in the bible would not be reading/writing. check out our literacy % today. If people can't read/write today w/ all of the technology how do you think they did over 2000 years ago

By the way your looking way too deep into my statements... the CHURCH does tell you what they want you to read, if it was anything different you would be speaking latin and translating the bible yourself. I'm sorry who do you think translated the bible... we spoke earlier of the bible being made up of many books previously written on scrolls, tablets, etc... what do you think all that was put together by just some joe blow in bible. don't think so? since the fall of roman empire going into the middle ages the church had as much power as a king.

[C22H19N3O4]

Which is the real Bible? Perhaps the Koran? Maybe the holy bible is the so called Christian Bible? You can't leave out the Mormon Bible and the Catholic Bibles contain seventy-three books, the Protestant Bibles have only sixty-six. So many choices.....which one should I believe?...LoL.

[Killer]

You are getting things all jumbled up. Didn't we already agree that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew???? What's English got to do with that? Besides, point out any part of the Bible in which it states that MOSES wrote anything. It TALKS about Moses and what he did or said, but that doesn't mean HE wrote it.

Well actually Moses did write parts of the Bible. He wrote the first five books.... Genisis, Exodus, Leviticus(spl),Numbers, and Dueteronomy. This is call the Pentetuch. Genisis is the only book that the information was passed down to Moses. (well of course God told moses what to write in all books, but moses was alive for the other 4 books.)

[Jaimecbr900]

^
seriously jamie you should read more about roman history, there were schools, but for people who had a name. common folk as most everyone was in the bible would not be reading/writing. check out our literacy % today. If people can't read/write today w/ all of the technology how do you think they did over 2000 years ago

You should know better my friend. I do read. A lot as a matter of fact. And here is where I'm coming from and why:

You are absolutely correct, about the EARLY Roman Empire. In the early part of the Roman Empire there were no public schools. Most of the educating was left up to the parents in the home. They only taught their children crafts like farming, fighting, and labor intensive things for the boys, and weaving and sewing for the girls.

Now, in the later years (like 300 B.C if I remember correctly but don't quote me) when the Romans came into contact with the Greeks during the Macedonian Wars they got a different view of what "schools" were like from them. The Romans thought that like the Greeks, they should learn philosophy and liberal arts in order to be a better orator which was necessary in order to get the most coveted positions of working with the government (the Empire or the Senate). The wealthy hired Greek tutors to privately tutor their children. The not so wealthy were taught in "schools" by Greek slaves. They were taught how to read, write, and math along with philosophy and liberal arts. They also learned about astronomy, music, geometry, etc.

So commoners did in fact get to attend school, just not as good as the wealthy folks who had private tutorships. They still learned how to read and write. Since their "teachers" were Greek slaves, they also learned all this in Greek making them bilingual. Good students went on to "grammar" schools in their early teens. In those schools, they learned even more about Greek literature and also picked up Latin as yet a third language.

Now, with all that being taught, they also had Libraries to hold the books. Books were a very valuable possesion to the Romans, so in the wealthy homes they had slaves that would "copy" works and make them into books for their own private collections. By 400 A.D. , there were more than 30 libraries in Rome with the most important one being in Alexandria .

I highlighted certain things because again it connects the dots between what we've already discussed and how it makes total sense because of WHEN and WHERE things that have to do with the Bible and it being "written" occured.

1. Remember, the Old Testament was written in what??? GREEK. So it wouldn't be a far fetch since the Greeks were the ones that taught the people in that part of the world how to read and write.

2. Around the same time that Roman history says "libraries" were booming, ie. people were obviously literate enough to write books, was the time when the first parts of the Bible were WRITTEN down for the first time. Coincidence? Probably not.

3. As you notice, SLAVES were the transcriptionists of the past. So, how could it be that far fetched that Scholars could do the same work? How about not only doing it, but doing it better? And furthermore, those scholars that transcribed the works that make up the bible were far more educated and lived in a far more "civilized" world than the early Roman Empire. So again, how can it be so difficult to understand that if the works of people like Plato, Homer, and Virgil not only survived but are being taught in schools even today as part of ancient history....how come the Bible's validity and accuracy is questions, when we know was translated AFTER that?

By the way your looking way too deep into my statements... the CHURCH does tell you what they want you to read, if it was anything different you would be speaking latin and translating the bible yourself.

I don't follow that. How is the Church telling what to read, when they're merely telling you about it in your own language? It doesn't change the message just because you say it in a different language. The church didn't translate the Bible into a different language, scholars did remember. That's like saying that a teacher can manipulate what a BOOK says that was written before she even started to teach. She is not responsible for it's content anymore than a student is.

I lost you on that one bud.

I'm sorry who do you think translated the bible... we spoke earlier of the bible being made up of many books previously written on scrolls, tablets, etc... what do you think all that was put together by just some joe blow in bible. don't think so? since the fall of roman empire going into the middle ages the church had as much power as a king.

Again, you are partially correct. The church did in fact have vast powers in the Middle Ages and even beyond. I follow that. What I don't see is how you correlate that with scholars translating things from one language to the next? Are you saying that they were somehow influenced by the church's vast power into mincing words or manipulating a message? :confused:

[Killer]

The only way that i know of that the Catholic church kept people from knowing what was in the Bible was by not letting them read the Bible for themselves. I know that most commoners couldn't read anyway, but if i'm not mistaken the priests were the only ones allowed to read the Bible so the commoners didn't really know what the Bible really said, they had to believe the priest.

[4dmin]

The only way that i know of that the Catholic church kept people from knowing what was in the Bible was by not letting them read the Bible for themselves. I know that most commoners couldn't read anyway, but if i'm not mistaken the priests were the only ones allowed to read the Bible so the commoners didn't really know what the Bible really said, they had to believe the priest.

thats exactly what i'm talking about; +10 to you...

jamie are are forgeting Roman Empire was a cluster fuck of cultures... all of the knowledge, wealth came from rome, the rest of the empire was made up of broken cultures now forced to live as the romans, we are talking about tons of different languages and cultures. the common person in that time did not know how to read or write; they were farming and fighting to expand the empire for rome. you can google post all day long on how ROME had schools b/c it doesn't matter, literacy was quite a problem back then. Besides even in your post you have a greek slave teaching a roman , i've never heard about uber educated slaves, or how is a greek slave going to communicate w/ a roman, eygptian, indian, or w/ any tribe member for that matter? i forgot they were so well educated they all knew 10+ languages back then

[Killer]

Well now what u need to realize is the priests didn't rewrite the Bible's... so once the common folk had access they started believeing differently. that's how different denomonations formed.... so ur right... but ur wrong.... Today's Christianity is not yesterdays..
and we don't have to have a preacher tell us how to believe.

[Jaimecbr900]

jamie are are forgeting Roman Empire was a cluster fuck of cultures... all of the knowledge, wealth came from rome, the rest of the empire was made up of broken cultures now forced to live as the romans, we are talking about tons of different languages and cultures. the common person in that time did not know how to read or write; they were farming and fighting to expand the empire for rome. you can google post all day long on how ROME had schools b/c it doesn't matter, literacy was quite a problem back then. Besides even in your post you have a greek slave teaching a roman , i've never heard about uber educated slaves, or how is a greek slave going to communicate w/ a roman, eygptian, indian, or w/ any tribe member for that matter? i forgot they were so well educated they all knew 10+ languages back then

I haven't "googled" but one thing in this entire discussion and it was about the English translation of the Bible.

I looked up some of the information in the ENCYCLOPEDIA to verify what I had suspected or wasn't 100% clear about. Again, you want to re-invent the wheel but you haven't said but one place where you're getting your info from.....a documentary on TV . We all KNOW that TV is the most accurate form of research.

Do a little research yourself and you'll see that what I'm saying is far more accurate than your documentary on TV.

Greek slaves were far more educated than commoners in the early Roman Empire. They had to know how to read and write as part of their duties because they not only served their masters in the normal way, but they often served as basically a secretary to them as well. Remember, they were the ones that transcribed books and took down info for their masters since most Romans felt that their life stories were part of history to be passed down.

[4dmin]

I haven't "googled" but one thing in this entire discussion and it was about the English translation of the Bible.

I looked up some of the information in the ENCYCLOPEDIA to verify what I had suspected or wasn't 100% clear about. Again, you want to re-invent the wheel but you haven't said but one place where you're getting your info from.....a documentary on TV . We all KNOW that TV is the most accurate form of research.

Do a little research yourself and you'll see that what I'm saying is far more accurate than your documentary on TV.

Greek slaves were far more educated than commoners in the early Roman Empire. They had to know how to read and write as part of their duties because they not only served their masters in the normal way, but they often served as basically a secretary to them as well. Remember, they were the ones that transcribed books and took down info for their masters since most Romans felt that their life stories were part of history to be passed down.

actually i have 4 years of latin/roman history ; not just a documentary i saw on tv, so if you would to discuss more roman history i can dig out a box of books/papers i have and we can go over them

do you even know what period of time christianity was even being seen as a religion by the roman empire, or even what emperor made christianity what it is today??? christians weren't even taking part in roman life anyway; (why do you think they were being put to death by the romans) so they weren't learning to read by greeks b/c there were too busy trying to build their own religion and churches. christians thought the romans were dumb b/c they admired the gods; christians at the time thought they were something better b/c they were made in GODs image.

[Killer]

now i could be wrong.. (i'm not one too look stuff up) but was the emporrer constantine????

[Jaimecbr900]

do you even know what period of time christianity was even being seen as a religion by the roman empire, or even what emperor made christianity what it is today???

Constantine did beginning in the 4th century. That simply goes even further to prove what I've been saying all along. Most info I've looked up during this discussion points directly at the 4th century as the turning point in which Christianity flourished, was finally thought of as a "religion", and the first signs of a Bible as we know it today started happening. It would obviously make sense that it would all happen around the time which Constantine was Emperor since previously Christians were persecuted by other Emperors.

christians weren't even taking part in roman life anyway; (why do you think they were being put to death by the romans) so they weren't learning to read by greeks b/c there were too busy trying to build their own religion and churches. christians thought the romans were dumb b/c they admired the gods; christians at the time thought they were something better b/c they were made in GODs image.

Again, that may very well be so for the beginning part of the Roman Empire. By the end of the Roman Empire, the Christian "church" had quite a bit more power than it did in the beggining of the Empire. Again, mostly due to Constantine and the fact that many high power people had converted to Christianity during Constantine's rule.


We have really gotten off on a tangent here though.

I think we have proven that there are quite a few things that are historically accurate about the Bible. I understand that you have a secular point of view and as such are trying to logically figure out things that are impossible to understand with logic because by definition you have to have FAITH before you believe.

The bottom line is that noone will ever be able to convince a true believer by using logic because a true believer's FAITH far outweighs simple logic. Some things "are" just because you FEEL they "are". Just like any other "feeling" any human feels....it's very difficult to express in words to someone who's never felt it themselves because their mind has a hard time grasping something that's not within themselves already.

[4dmin]

Constantine did beginning in the 4th century. That simply goes even further to prove what I've been saying all along. Most info I've looked up during this discussion points directly at the 4th century as the turning point in which Christianity flourished, was finally thought of as a "religion", and the first signs of a Bible as we know it today started happening. It would obviously make sense that it would all happen around the time which Constantine was Emperor since previously Christians were persecuted by other Emperors.




Again, that may very well be so for the beginning part of the Roman Empire. By the end of the Roman Empire, the Christian "church" had quite a bit more power than it did in the beggining of the Empire. Again, mostly due to Constantine and the fact that many high power people had converted to Christianity during Constantine's rule.


We have really gotten off on a tangent here though.

I think we have proven that there are quite a few things that are historically accurate about the Bible. I understand that you have a secular point of view and as such are trying to logically figure out things that are impossible to understand with logic because by definition you have to have FAITH before you believe.

The bottom line is that noone will ever be able to convince a true believer by using logic because a true believer's FAITH far outweighs simple logic. Some things "are" just because you FEEL they "are". Just like any other "feeling" any human feels....it's very difficult to express in words to someone who's never felt it themselves because their mind has a hard time grasping something that's not within themselves already.

it was constantine; going from the late 3rd century into the 4th century was when christains were actually becoming a religion, but this is a great topic going along w/ the statement i made earlier about "how you read/know what the church wants you to know". during constantines rule is when the cross became the symbol for christians and he also made other christian groups (nastic(sp?)christians) conform to his ideas of christianity.

just so you know i'm not trying to convince you of anything, i know you well educated, but some things you may want to read more on... specially as far as education for common romans goes.

either way this religion forum is my new favorite

[Jaimecbr900]

either way this religion forum is my new favorite

That's because you like arguing with me.......

[Killer]

lol

[4dmin]

That's because you like arguing with me.......

arguing makes you feel alive... better to have something to stand on then nothing at all