Religion III - Friday the 13th

[inmate running the asylum]

Posted by Terry

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps the average Christian reading the bible has no idea of these things, and doesn't notice the problems.

As a long time criminal and civil investigator for some of the largest law firms in Southern California -- conducting fraud and even investigations in which clients were facing the death penalty -- I am passing along what one of my lawyer clients provided me with years ago, which I applied in my research on the truth of the Bibles.

12-1 - :read: Tests of Truth:

At the base of all human knowledge and judgment there are two simple rules known as the “Two Primary Laws of Thought.” Of these is the simple proposition, on which all valid judgment depends: “Of two contradictions, one must be false.” Both of the contradictions may indeed be false; but one must be false inevitably. If an object is spoken of and one person says “it is white,” and another says “it is black,” one or the other such statement must of necessity be false. Of course both may be false, as the object may be red or blue or whatever, but in any event one or the other statement that it is white or black must be false, for it cannot be both. This is the fundamental law of thought or correct judgment or of truth.

12-2 - :read: False in One Thing, False in all Things:

The other principle is somewhat complementary. Every judge declares it to his juries as the law of every jury case on trial and this ancient maxim is the law in every legitimate court today. As a Latin maxim it is: “Falsus in uno, falsus omnibus” -- that is, “false in one thing, false in all things.” Not necessarily so as to the whole; for one part of the testimony of a witness or of the contents of a document, or of anything said or written may be false or mistaken, while the remainder may be quite true and correct. The maxim merely means, as the court always explains to the jury, that if the jury believes that a witness “knowingly or willfully has testified falsely as to any material fact” in his testimony, they are at liberty to disbelieve him entirely and to reject all of his testimony as false.

The reason is evident; for if a person orally or in his document says one thing which is detected as false, everything else which he says or writes is at once discredited and thrown into doubt, and unless otherwise corroborated or shown to be true, may well be considered to be all erroneous or false. Often it is impossible to know with certainty what things, if any, apart from the proven false ones, may possibly be true. All are tainted and discredited for belief, by the parts shown to be false. This would be particularly true with respect to the scriptures, said to be true and totally “inspired” by God, and even perfect according to the Vatican and many Protestant theologians. So if some parts are shown or proven to be false, as we have read, then the whole would be discredited and thrown into doubt.

Using the above criteria as a guide, we now apply this to just one of many contradictory stories found in the Bible.

12-3 - Every Christian has heard of the story of the two thieves being crucified with Jesus, whereby one thief accepted Christ as his savior and was saved and one did not. But how many people know that three of the four gospels indicate this is not what happened and this DECEPTION has remained a secret to the public for centuries?

____________________

12-4 - The four gospels in the New Testament of the Christian Bibles, are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In comparing these four gospels, we find a contradiction between stories surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus, and at least one of the gospel stories has to be false! In the gospel of Luke we read where one thief said:

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when

thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto

him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be

with me in paradise. [Luke 23: 42-43 - KJB]

12-5 - But in the gospel of Mark, we discover that this is not what happened and get an entirely different story, indicating that neither thief accepted Christ as their savior. Here we read where the two thieves were crucified with Jesus, but “they” [indicating both] reproached him [meaning they discredited Jesus - CB] or reviled him [called him abusive or contemptuous names - KJB]. There is no mention that either thief accepted him as their savior, and if one had, you can be sure that the Biblical writer would have told us that.

27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the

one on his right hand and the other on his left.

32 . . . And they that were crucified with him

reviled him. [Mark 15: 27, 32 - KJB]

12-6 - So according to the gospel of Mark, there is no mention that either thief was saved, in that THEY [meaning both] either reproached or reviled Jesus. In the account in the gospel of Luke, however, the thief that was reportedly saved, was conciliatory and did not reproach or revile Jesus. So based on the contradiction in the gospel of Mark, it must be assumed that neither thief was saved, for a person would hardly revile or reproach someone who they expected to save them shortly. So what do the other two gospel books of Matthew and John have to say about these three crucifixions?

12-7 - In the gospel of Matthew, we again read where both thieves were crucified with Jesus, but both again rejected him.

38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. [Matthew 27: 38, 44 - KJB]

So now we have two out of three of the gospels which say that the two thieves rejected Jesus and no indication that either thief accepted him as their savior and was saved. So what does the fourth book, the gospel of John, say about this event?

12-8 - In the gospel of John, there is only mention of Jesus being crucified with two others. There is no mention that they were thieves, reviled him, or even spoke to Jesus. But no mention that one thief accepted Jesus as his savior either.

Where they crucified him, and two others with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. [John 19:18 - KJB]

12-9 - As we have now read in the fourth gospel of John, there is no mention that either thief even spoke to Jesus, let alone was saved by him. Therefore if neither thief spoke to Jesus, neither thief could have told Jesus that he was accepting him as his savior. And we can be sure that if either thief had been saved, the gospel writer would have informed us of that fact.

12-10 - Therefore three out of the four gospels indicate that the thief on the cross with Jesus was NOT SAVED, and the gospels of Matthew and Mark contradict the gospel of Luke. This is quite different from the common, popular belief, that most people have about this story. If you were to ask the average Christian on the street about this Biblical story, just about everyone would say that one thief on the cross accepted Jesus as his savior and was saved.

12-11 - Because of the contradiction between the gospels of Matthew and Mark with Luke, it is obvious that one of these two differing accounts has to be false. And with the Matthew and Mark gospels saying that the thieves rejected Jesus, the odds are that the Luke account would be false, which would mean that the thief did not accept Jesus as his savior. Three of the four gospels also indicate that Jesus and the two thieves did not even speak to each other. At the very least, depending on which contradictory story you want to believe, we have another falsehood in the gospels. And because the other gospels give contradictory accounts from Luke, in using the criteria for truth stated above, we have a case of "false in one thing, false in all things." Consequently, the four gospel stories being all tainted, would be rejected by HONEST juries as NOT BEING THE TRUTH in any legitimate court of law.

Also, consider this: If God is omniscient or all knowing and can read the future, as most theologians like to claim, God should have known in advance about these contradictions in his "holy word" and taken the necessary steps to see that there was no confusion in his "inspiration." :doh:

:read: In comparing the entire King James Bible with the Catholic Bible verse by verse -- which I undertook years ago -- you find that these contradictory verses read basically the same and have the same meaning in both Bibles.

[mardi gras skin]

In reference to the account of Christ on the cross, you are abusing a basic tenant of testimony. You should look for consistencies in the testimonies, but you recognize the proof of validity in the inconsistencies.

If you ever get the exact same story from 4 different sources you can assume that they are lying. They got together and got their storied striaght. True witnesses will be able to give their own perspectives with their own variables. You will usually have a situation where none of the witnesses are lying, but they have differences in their stories. Just retell any event you have lived and then get somone else to tell about the same event in their own words to prove it out.

Look at the passages you've used. They agree that Jesus was crucified. They agree that he was crucified with 2 other guys. 2 of them say that he was crucified between theives, 2 are slient about the causes of their crucifixion. In the same way, matthew and John (John was the only eye witness) are competely silent on the conversion of either theif. Mark says they both hated him. Luke says one accepted him.

So from the stories, the conversion of either of them is unclear. But the fact that they didn't coordinate their stories makes the similarities more believable. Jesus died on a cross between two criminals...probably theives.

[inmate running the asylum]

First let me say Mardi that I believe I owe you a professional apology. I reread some of my previous posts -- and right or wrong -- I didn't like the presumptuous air or tone I had in some of them. If I were talking to you in person, I would not have said things to you that same way. Being a skeptic as I am, I have always felt this was a good attribute as a professional investigator. But there is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism, and one has to watch out for that, and I think I crossed over that line a couple of times. I must have been having a bad hair day.

I was very impressed that as a pastor, you could admit a mistake about the Bible, and that you also hand out food to needy people in Baltimore and wanted to adopt a child. Too many of the Protestant televangelists I see on TV, are nothing but crooks with a license to steal. And I think you know which faith healers I am talking about, as several were exposed on 20/20 years ago, but are right back on TV again ripping off the public. This along with the religious differences and dogma, fueling the fire and underlying the WTC and recent hostilities in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Middle East and India and Pakistan, is enough to make anyone cynical. Maybe you can understand now why I am not opposed to a belief in any creator, but just all these holy books which purport to be the word of gods.

[mardi gras skin]

Inmate, if you went back and re-read, then you definitely saw where I was a complete butthead too. No worries. You're right, the internet allows for the flow of information a lot better than it does for the flow of quality communication.

I have loved talking to someone who cares enough to actually look stuff up and research something this important. Om, Terry, Die Hard and several others also seem to care enough to do some research. No way you get 5 or more Cowboy fans that can go where we've gone.

I was very impressed that as a pastor, you could admit a mistake about the Bible

That has a lot to do with perspective. The Bible is infalable in its purpose. It is an account of God's relationship with man. When I approach it for the purpose of revealing God's love to me, I find it to be completely without fault. If I am looking for scriptual errors, translation errors, copy errors, whatever, they are there. Though honestly, no ancient manuscrit comes close to the integrity that the Bible has maintained for at least the last 2000 years (earliest copies we have).

Too many of the Protestant televangelists I see on TV, are nothing but crooks with a license to steal. And I think you know which faith healers I am talking about, as several were exposed on 20/20 years ago, but are right back on TV again ripping off the public. This along with the religious differences and dogma, fueling the fire and underlying the recent hostilities in Kosovo, Northern Ireland, the Middle East and India and Pakistan, is enough to make anyone cynical. Maybe you can understand now why I am not opposed to a belief in any god, but all these holy books which purport to be the word of gods.

When I see the abuses that are done by "Christians' I am sickened. The Bible says that there are a lot of people that are going to be suprised because they said they Christians but they didn't live it. As a church planter, I've kind of gotten popular in some circles of Christianity. Little old lady kind of churches that want to pinch my cheek and tell me how proud they are. So they ask me to come preach at their church. Usually just once. Most of them hate to hear what true Christianity is about. If they just read the Bible, they wouldn't need me to tell them.

[inmate running the asylum]

13-1 - The Devil makes me write these long dissertations Om. :doh: Mardi, referring to the last Thief on the Cross post, take it from one who has taken thousands of statements and declarations for attorneys and the courts over the years, this is not an abuse of testimony. The consistencies are not being overlooked here, they are just not relevant to the issue at hand. Although we are not concerned with torts or liability here, the issue here is not the CRUCIFIXIONS. The ISSUE here is the supernatural event of immortal SALVATION and did one thief really accept Jesus as his savior in order to be saved. Why? Because the Church has always trumpeted and promoted this story on salvation as being true and real, saying that one of the thieves was saved and attained immortality.

13-2 - So the consistencies are really irrelevant because there is no dispute on the issue of crucifixions, in that it has already been proven that the Romans crucified thousands of people in history, and there is nothing supernatural about crucifixions. While the crucifixion of Jesus may very well be true, it would not result in the immortality of anyone, no more then the crucifixion of Spartacus would have resulted in the immortality of anyone. So the contradictions not the consistencies are relevant here, on the issue of the possible truth of these four gospel statements. So looking at the four gospel “statements,” lets consider a few things reflecting on their credibility, even before we evaluate what was actually said.

1. First of all, these statements are not first-hand witness observations or statements, by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, with the possible exception of John. They are not even second-hand eyewitness accounts.

2. The credibility or identities of these gospel writers is really lacking, although there is a paragraph or two of sketchy information purportedly on their backgrounds. And how reliable is this information really, after 2,000 or so years?

3. We can only estimate when the original gospels were written, because they are undated manuscripts.

4. All the gospels are COPIES of COPIES of COPIES, in that the original gospels known as autographs, are not known to exist anywhere in the world.

5. Even the original autographs, which the gospels are copies of, were written down 40 to 100 years after the crucifixion they allegedly describe. The oldest witness statement I ever took was 7 years after the fact [most of time the statute of limitations tolls before then] so I can’t possibly imagine taking a statement from someone 40 to 100 years after the fact and then really expecting that witness statement or account to be accurate. :doh:

6. The gospels have been handed down to us not by the actual witnesses themselves, but passed through numerous unknown hands, including the Early Church, Roman Church and Vatican, who had control over their recopying and production for over 1,000 years. Some of the people who had access to these gospels were known criminals, as their unsavory historical track record attests.

13-3 - And consider this: The Romans operated off a cruel slave system and had conquered and enslaved everyone around the Mediterranean for hundreds of years. Then everyone was overtaxed by them and abused and they were hated by everyone. But in spite of this, in reading the New Testament what strikes me as more than suspicious, is that neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers had one single detrimental thing to say about the evil Romans, their slavery system, or their cruel empire in the Bible.

13-4 - The first Christian Bible came into existence with the arrival of the evil Constantine -- but between the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 66-70 A.D., and the first Christian Bible in 325 A.D. -- the Roman emperors had been persecuting and torturing Christians and Jews alike. In that most Biblical scholars agree that all of the four gospels were probably written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple, who were these NT writers who strangely saw nothing wrong with the evil Romans? They certainly could not have been Jews or Christians, unless they were collaborators. Either that or the subsequent Council of Nicaea or bishops “doctored” the first Christian Bible, so that the Bible reflected nothing derogatory against the Romans. The Jews were not consulted of course when their OT was appropriated for inclusion in the first Christian Bible, because they were already scattered. But this didn’t matter anyway, because the Romans are not mentioned in the OT in a derogatory manner either.

13-5 - Now I know what you are probably going to say Mardi -- that the gospel writings preceded the Council of Nicaea. But the three oldest Bibles today in existence, only date from the 4th century. Then the Early Church fathers although admittedly not controlling the Roman legions before Constantine, nevertheless destroyed every heretical document they could get their hands on, as we see below.

QUOTE: One of the earliest writings we have from the church of Rome -- a letter attributed to Clement, called Bishop of Rome [c 90-100 A.D.] -- was written to the Corinthian church in a time of crises. Clement argues that whoever refused to “bow the neck” and obey the church leaders is guilty of insubordination against the divine master himself, who delegates his authority of reign to rulers and leaders on earth. Clement warns that whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities “receives the death penalty.” - page 34 ----- “We have long known that many early followers of Christ were condemned by other Christians as heretics, but nearly all we knew about them came from what their opponents wrote attacking them. Bishop Irenaeus, wrote five volumes, entitled The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge.” [Note the word “destruction” in his title. He is writing in 180 A.D., or almost 150 years before Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.] By the time of Emperor Constantine’s conversion, when Christianity became the officially approved religion in the entire Roman empire, Christian bishops previously victimized by the police, now commanded them. Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. page xviii ----- Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. page xix -----The gnostics rejected the literal interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection. But Tertulian [190 A.D.] declares that anyone who denies the resurrection of the flesh is a heretic, not a Christian. page 5 END QUOTE - Source: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels

13-6 - So we see Clement and other bishops verbally attacking anyone who doesn’t toe the orthodox line, as early as 90 A.D., which is only 20 years after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 66-70 A.D. So it is obvious here that there is no such thing really, as freedom of religion in the region. There were many other versions of the gospels and Biblical books in circulation after Christ died that differed from the official orthodox view, such as the views of the Gnostic Christians, who did not believe in the literal interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection.

13-7 - So with all these different versions floating around the Near East, who is to say which one is the true version? If the Gnostics had had the power of Rome behind them in later years, their writings might have been the ones that survived and were in vogue today. And Christians today instead of believing in the physical resurrection of Jesus, might believe as the Gnostics, which was that Jesus’ crucifixion had only been spiritual! Or they might now believe in the Gnostic story of the Garden of Eden, which is written from the viewpoint of the snake, according to Elaine Pagels! What we know for sure, however, is that the early church fathers denounced and went after anyone and their documents, that deviated from what they wanted to promote, and that is what survived and is in our possession today as the so-called NT truth.

13-8 - To say that the books which eventually wound up in our present day Bibles are there because of "God's inspiration," is a complete falsehood and nothing could be further from the truth. The Gnostic gospels, the books of Enoch, and numerous other manuscripts even mentioned in the Bible itself, were not canonized or included because the early church fathers and later Council of Nicaea had their own personal agenda and simply excluded them.

13-9 - :read: Luke - says in his gospel that one of the thieves accepted Christ as his savior. [Luke 23: 39-43 -KJB] But he also admits he was not personally an eyewitness to any events, when he states “many have taken in hand to set forth a declaration” [Luke 1:2]. Then he later seems unsure of himself, when he qualifies his statement on the genealogy of Jesus, which contradicts Matthew’s genealogy [Matt. 1:1-17], when Luke says “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being AS WAS SUPPOSED the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. [Luke 3:23] Being the only gospel writer who said the thief accepted Jesus as his savior, Luke sure doesn’t sound like a reliable witness to me!

Mark - says that “they” meaning BOTH thieves reviled and called Jesus contemptuous names. I think it is safe to say here that neither thief accepted Jesus as his savior, especially being that Mark would have told us like Luke if a thief had. [Mark 15: 27, 32]

Matthew - says the two thieves “cast the same in his teeth” at Jesus, which is derogatory, indicating they both rejected Jesus. I think it is safe to conclude that neither thief accepted Jesus as his savior here, again because Matthew would have told us like Luke if a thief had. [Matt. 27: 38, 44]

John - says Jesus was crucified with two others; but there is no mention that they were thieves; reviled him; accepted him; or even spoke to him. We should never read into the Biblical writings what is not there. So avoiding reading into the gospel what is not written there, it is safe to conclude that neither person crucified with Jesus accepted him as their savior, because neither person even spoke to Jesus. And we can be sure that if either thief had been saved, John would have informed us of that fact. [John 19:18]

13-10 - Even before we looked at what the gospel writers actually wrote, we had already seen that their writings lacked credibility because they were tainted by our six points. But even if we accept them for consideration into evidence, three of the four gospels indicate that Jesus and the thieves did not even speak to each other. Then three of the four gospels give no indication that a thief accepted Jesus as his savior. And we can be sure that the other three gospel writers would have told us so, if a thief had accepted Jesus as his savior. Luke being the only gospel writer who says a thief accepted Jesus, is himself unreliable as pointed out.

13-11 - Because the other gospels give contradictory accounts from Luke, in using the criteria for truth outlined in the previous post, we have a case of "false in one thing, false in all things." So irrespective of whether the thief could even attain immortality if he had accepted Jesus as his savior -- which is a whole other ball game -- the gospel accounts even if not tainted, would be rejected on their face value by HONEST juries as NOT BEING THE TRUTH in any legitimate court of law. Rats - Om is gonna kill me for the length of this post. :doh: But he will still read it. Its on the BIG PICTURE, Om.

[Om]

I've enjoyed being a relatively silent bystander throughout this debate. The main protagonists, Inmate and mardi, represent both sides of the debate admirably, and in the context of this matter, to my mind at least leave little need for the middle-of-the-road voice I would provide.

This debate has been about Absolutes ... and as I consider Absolutes both the MOST worthy of possible subject-types to discuss, and coincidentally the LEAST likely to ever find resolution -- not to mention agreement -- I have been more than happy to simply read and enjoy. Great information, commendable research, quite civil tone (considering the potential when dealing with this area) ... and entertainment value as well.

As a confirmed Skeptic myself, Inmate is basically preaching to my choir, in impressive volume and detail ( ) ... but he's right; I do read (just about) every word because, well, because his efforts are thorough, sincere, passionate ... and contain lots of pictures and pretty colors.

Mardi is that rarest of breeds; a devout believer with the ability (willingness?) to open his soul to inspection and discuss his faith in intellectual terms. I have known many truly religious people in my life (as well as many self-styled ones), and treasure the precious few among them I have found with whom a Skeptic can truly "dialog."

*

And btw, I know nobody ever took seriously my "complaint" about the length of posts (how could they, Art and I practically invented the genre here after all) ... but just in case there's any doubt -- DON'T. Post on, brothers.

[PCS]

YEA! What he ^ said! Looks around. Oh. Sorry. Carry on.

(walks away sensing possible "contract".

[mardi gras skin]

Wow Inmate. That is going to take a while to unpack. But just so I know what I'm hearing you say, "false in one thing, false in all things" means that if any part of a testimony, book, essay, or post, whatever is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong? Does that mean that if you were wrong in any part of your posts on this thread that everything you have said has to be considered wrong?

BTW, I'm going to write you back point by point but that's going to take some time.

[mardi gras skin]

The consistencies are not being overlooked here, they are just not relevant to the issue at hand. Although we are not concerned with torts or liability here, the issue here is not the CRUCIFIXIONS. The ISSUE here is the supernatural event of immortal SALVATION and did one thief really accept Jesus as his savior in order to be saved. Why? Because the Church has always trumpeted and promoted this story on salvation as being true and real, saying that one of the thieves was saved and attained immortality.

Sorry Inmate. I thought you were calling in to question the validity of Jesus' experience on the cross. If you are questioning whether or not the conversations overheard between two guys on crosses, behind guard, were heard acutely and completely by every witness questioned, that's fair. It seems reasonable to me that the people Mark interviewed may have heard a different part of the event than the people Luke interviewed.

It seems equally reasonable that if there were some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth or validity of the event, this would be a non-issue. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have gotten together and got their stories straight. barring that, the Early Church Fathers would have rewritten them or eradicated a few of them. So this sort of vairiance in detail speaks to the honesty of the writers rather than deception.

[inmate running the asylum]

14-1 - First of all Mardi, if you reread the “Tests of Truth” it applies only to testimony or documents presented to a court of law or jury, particularly with respect to deciding on the truth of contradictory statements. Then if you reread “False in One Thing, False in All Things,” it says that if the jury believes that a witness “knowingly or willfully has testified falsely or mistakenly as to any material fact,” they are at liberty to disbelieve him entirely and to reject ALL his testimony as false, although it is recognized that the remainder may be quite true and correct. Notice that it says that the remainder may be quite true and correct, but the court or jury is at LIBERTY to disbelieve him entirely, which really means they have that as an option.

14-2 - In my opinion in the example I used on the Thieves on the Cross, the deception lies not with the gospel writers but mainly with organized religion in promoting this as the absolute truth. For they willfully and knowingly are aware that the gospels are tainted -- which the public is not -- and that 3 of 4 gospels contradicted the gospel of Luke. In that 3 of the gospels contradicted Luke, any honest jury would reject as the truth, that a thief on the cross accepted Jesus as his savior and attained immortality as a result.

14-3 - The difference here is that my posts are not being presented to a court of law or jury to decide on their truthfulness. If I were presenting my posts in a document to a court of law, I sure as hell would spend far more time on them, to make sure they were as air-tight as possible. Organized religion on the other hand, has had 2,000 years to clean up the Bible text, and yet it still contains hundreds of errors, mistakes, falsehoods, etc. In that I am well aware that I am not perfect, I may or may not have made mistakes in some of my posts on religion. So if you run across where I have made contradictory statements, then point it out and we will discuss them.

14-4 - Unlike my posts, however, the Bible has been used in courts of law and before juries down through the centuries. And in the case of Galileo, the Biblical text was used as part of canon law, to accuse and convict Galileo of heresy. However, I think we would all agree today, since even the Vatican has admitted they were wrong in convicting Galileo, that he was tried before a Vatican kangaroo court. Whether anyone has ever put the Biblical text on trial as to a test of truth -- would be interesting to know, although I doubt it -- for I am presently unaware of any such case in history.

Originally posted by Mardi

Beyond your assumptions, or the assumptions of anyone you can find, there is no evidence that anything in the Bible is false. Find me the documentation or evidence that proves that any aspect of the Bible is false. I’d like to see it.

Originally posted by Mardi

Dude, how did I miss the fatal Tyre mistake. Right there in chapter 26, the bible says it will sink under the seas. Dumb error on the part of the writer. To make matters worse, Tyre is called a ship made of wooden timbers and a wooden mast in chapter 27. Ezekial must have been an idiot for mistaking the CITY of Tyre (which was decimated by wave after wave of destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, by Alexander the Great, and by the Muslims in 1291) with a SHIP that sinks. You got me man. The bible is full of errors. Or maybe there was poetic license going on. Got any more?

Originally posted by Mardi

If I am looking for scriptural errors, translation errors, copy errors, whatever, they are there. Though honestly, no ancient manuscript comes close to the integrity that the Bible has maintained for at least the last 2000 years (earliest copies we have).

14-5 - By your own admission Mardi, you acknowledge now that the Bible is full of errors, mistakes and omissions, etc. And I don’t think I would be putting words in your mouth now, if we also included falsehoods and contradictory statements are also in the Bible. For as I recently pointed out in Religion II, number 29, you admitted that [Ezekiel 26: 1-21] contains what amounts to a number of false prophesies and statements made by God through Ezekiel.

14-6 - Now we did not discuss these falsehoods in Ezekiel in detail, but these are not simply typo errors that can be discarded and swept under the rug. Ezekiel being one of God’s top prophets, we are told in the Bible, regularly received visions and prophesies from God. When God states or prophesizes something in the Bible and it turns out to be untrue and false, that is about as serious a breach of truth as one is likely to find, considering that the Bible is a book organized religion claims is “the word of God.” So that being the case, if the Bible was ever presented to an honest jury, how could they rule otherwise with hundreds of other errors, but to reject the Bible as the true “word of God?”

14-7 - In my five year investigation of the Bible, it has been my longest and most difficult investigative challenge to date. And by far my least rewarding financially. :doh: For unlike investigations in the real world -- whether civil or criminal investigations -- at most I am generally investigating facts and events that took place a maximum of five years after the fact. In the case of the Bible, however, where there are no living witnesses, I have been investigating events that took place over 2,000 years after the fact! A monumental challenge to say the least. :doh: To be continued......

[mardi gras skin]

In my opinion in the example I used on the Thieves on the Cross, the deception lies not with the gospel writers but mainly with organized religion in promoting this as the absolute truth.

Oh. Yea, I have no love for organized religion. Though, to be honest, what we are doing here is that we are both presenting a rather organized faith. And, as Om has said, both of our positions seem rather extreem when measured against each others.

For they willfully and knowingly are aware that the gospels are tainted -- which the public is not -- and that 3 of 4 gospels contradicted the gospel of Luke.

This makes no sense to me. I am convinced that the Gospels are not tainted. I read you saying that every testimony has to correlate to the other in every detail and that goes against reason and logic to me. There is no way that honest testimony can, in fact, be in agreement in every detail. It doesn't happen, unless the person is heavily preped by council.

Additionally, I would like to know how the public is not aware of anything concerning the Bible. I can (have) given you free links to any translation of the bible including transliterations of the Greek and Hebrew. If anyone can read and determine a thing for themselves, where do deceptions and lies come in?

Here's the way it works with me. there's this guy Eric that's been coming to my church. Nasty drug habit. He asked me about the Bible. Was it true? I said, "Read it, starting with Matthew and go through as far as you want." He's in 2 Corinthians now and we've been discussing it. I haven't done anything to ask him to become a Christian. If he feels drawn to what he has read like I was drawn, then he's become a Christian. If not, he won't.

A lack of awareness on the part of the public is determined by their own choice to be ignorant not the fault of any institution.

[mardi gras skin]

1. First of all, these statements are not first-hand witness observations or statements, by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, with the possible exception of John. They are not even second-hand eyewitness accounts.

Wrong in part...

John was first hand. He caught part of what was going on but I'm sure not all of it. Still, he was a first hand witness. The others are second hand accounts at least. They all knew John well and spent time with him. As well, they all knew Jesus' mother Mary (unquestionalby a first hand witness) and Mark was related to Mary Magdalene, almost surely a first hand witness. The accounts are definitely not worse than second hand.

Good thing you don't have the same standard for truth in your essays that you demand of the Bible.

[mardi gras skin]

2. The credibility or identities of these gospel writers is really lacking, although there is a paragraph or two of sketchy information purportedly on their backgrounds. And how reliable is this information really, after 2,000 or so years?

Far more reliable than any other ancient manuscript. Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any ten pieces of classical literature combined ( source "History and Christianity", InterVarsity Press, 1971)

There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add to that over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers. In comparison, the "Iliad" by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive.

Besides the number of manuscripts that survived, the New Testament is unique in that the time span between its composition and the date of the earliest existing manuscript is incredibly short compared to other classical works. The time span between composition and earliest manuscript for most of the New Testament books range at about 100-125 years. This is to be compared with spans of 1,000-1,600 years for the classical works of Caesar, Plato, Tacitus, Herodotus, Suetonius, Horace, Sophocles, Aristotle, Euripides, Aristophanes, Catullus, etc (Handbook To Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Macmillan and Co., 1901).

Hope this helped asnwer your question.

[mardi gras skin]

3. We can only estimate when the original gospels were written, because they are undated manuscripts.

4. All the gospels are COPIES of COPIES of COPIES, in that the original gospels known as autographs, are not known to exist anywhere in the world.

I'l take these together. They are undated. They are copies, most definitely. But the frramgents that have been found dating to only the second century CE could well be second generation and some of them are probably no worse than 3rd generation. Unparalled for an ancient parchment document.

[mardi gras skin]

5. Even the original autographs, which the gospels are copies of, were written down 40 to 100 years after the crucifixion they allegedly describe. The oldest witness statement I ever took was 7 years after the fact [most of time the statute of limitations tolls before then] so I can’t possibly imagine taking a statement from someone 40 to 100 years after the fact and then really expecting that witness statement or account to be accurate.

a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John (P52) has generally been dated to 125 CE. Now either we are dealing with an original (which we both agree to be unlikely) or the text was written very early. As stated previously, the gap between writing and earliest manuscripts is by far the smallest of any ancient manuscript. Comparing the gap to other ancient manuscripts is a better gague than the witness statements you took, agreed?

If not, then you have to throw out anything you have ever been told about ancient history on the same grounds. We then know almost nothing of the Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Assyrian empires, etc. None of it can be believed.

[mardi gras skin]

6. The gospels have been handed down to us not by the actual witnesses themselves, but passed through numerous unknown hands, including the Early Church, Roman Church and Vatican, who had control over their recopying and production for over 1,000 years. Some of the people who had access to these gospels were known criminals, as their unsavory historical track record attests.

True, the witnesses did not hand them down to us directly. That is an imposibility. They aren't alive to hand them down to us directly.

The Codex Sinaiticus, from about A. D. 350, is a complete manuscrpt. It has all the books. Wouldn't those criminals, who continued to corrupt the Bible, have ended up with a work that was vastly different from this one? Wouldn't old fragments recently found have shown the deceit? The lack of variance of mansucrpts dating from all the various ages proves that great pains were taken to mantain the original text.

[mardi gras skin]

13-3 - And consider this: The Romans operated off a cruel slave system and had conquered and enslaved everyone around the Mediterranean for hundreds of years. Then everyone was overtaxed by them and abused and they were hated by everyone. But in spite of this, in reading the New Testament what strikes me as more than suspicious, is that neither Jesus nor any of the NT writers had one single detrimental thing to say about the evil Romans, their slavery system, or their cruel empire in the Bible.

Today, if you want to build an easy following, start "healing" people, claim to be a direct prophet who knows the date of the end of the world, etc. Talk big and swagger around. In that day, all the "messiahs" got their crouds by talking out about the Evil Empire. That's how you got an easy croud.

Jesus came along and said that if you want a good life, give abundantly to others. If you are slapped on the cheek, brush it off. If a Roman officer demands that you carry his cloak for a mile, carry it for 2. In effect, he drew his audence the hard way. He said that the Roman Empire wasn't the problem...our own selfishness and pride were the problems. Want to change the world? Quit looking to blame everyone else.

The only harsh words he had were for the religious institution who had become cheif of the selfish/pirdeful croud...very much like the religious establishment that turned you off to God.

[Terry]

Mardi sez:

Compared with other ancient writings, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any ten pieces of classical literature combined ( source "History and Christianity", InterVarsity Press, 1971)

I'm not sure you wanted to say that. In an argument about the historical accuracy of a piece of work, having it described as literature may not help the argument.

They need to define what 'manuscript evidence' actually means.

My guess is that the Old Testament is as accurate as the stories of Arthur and the Knights Of The Round Table when it comes to the first 5 books, about as accurate as Homer's account of the sack of Troy when it comes to events after the first 5 books and on down to Josiah, then is as accurate as Ramses II's own account of the battle of Meggido when it comes to the rest.

When it comes to accurate historical evidence, I'd say that the thousands of cunieform cylinders containing the records of the Hittite foreign office found at Boghazkoy blow the bible out of the water when it comes to actual historical evidence. Likewise the cylinder seals found out Amarna and other places in Egypt representing the foriegn correspondence between Egypt and the rest of the middle eastern kingdoms, supercedes any historical account in the Old or New Testament.

note: Akkadian cylinder seals were the lingua franca of the era, the common diplomatic language used by all major powers and correspondents.

These were the accounts of current events by the witnesses and players involved. It's the difference between your great grand-daddy's verbal account of the Spanish American war, and having the actual State Department accounts from that era.

[mardi gras skin]

13-4 - The first Christian Bible came into existence with the arrival of the evil Constantine -- but between the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 66-70 A.D., and the first Christian Bible in 325 A.D. -- the Roman emperors had been persecuting and torturing Christians and Jews alike. In that most Biblical scholars agree that all of the four gospels were probably written after the destruction of the Jewish Temple, who were these NT writers who strangely saw nothing wrong with the evil Romans? They certainly could not have been Jews or Christians, unless they were collaborators. Either that or the subsequent Council of Nicaea or bishops “doctored” the first Christian Bible, so that the Bible reflected nothing derogatory against the Romans. The Jews were not consulted of course when their OT was appropriated for inclusion in the first Christian Bible, because they were already scattered. But this didn’t matter anyway, because the Romans are not mentioned in the OT in a derogatory manner either.

Again, if there were variances that came into play as a result of the evil Romans, wouldn't the sizable chunks of the bible found earlier have shown some problems? The books and fragments that have dated to the second and thrid centuries prove that there was not a later edit of the text by Roman officials in the fourth century and later.

"Wrong in part..."

[dchogs]

here is a discrepency that a professor showed me in college. i haven't done much (read: any) research on the topic since, so i'm not 100% on this. here is what i remember...

jesus was crucified, a punishment saved for the most dangerous and violent offenders of the time. it was the worst death handed out by the roman courts.

jesus was then placed in a tomb, sealed by a large boulder. being entombed was reserved for the upper classes, an honor and a privledge not given to many.

now why would the romans allow someone who they saw fitting of the most heinous punishment to be honored via entombment? it doens't add up.

it is more likely that they, like with other common criminal, would have allowed the scavengers (birds/dogs) to devour jesus's body.

[mardi gras skin]

Terry, Inmate is arguing textual criticism...very different from historical accuracy. If the piece has proven to be altered over time, as he suggests, then there would be discrepincies over time. In that, there is no question that the Bible has maintained a high degree of integrity over time dating to the second century. Far better than the ancient manuscripts I quoted, though I'd love to learn more about the Hittite cylendars you've talked about. Can you give me the name of a book or web site that cam give me some insight?

You believe the bible is King Author stuff. That's fine. It is a belief that you hold just as I hold a very different belief. But that is a choice, just as you chose the believe the truth of anything you've heard or read.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by Mardi

Oh. Yea, I have no love for organized religion.

Hey we finally agree on something. :jump: I am curious though about something? You have no love for organized religion, but yet you attended New Orleans Baptist Theological School. Wasn't organized religion giving you your theological education? Explain the apparent fallout here, if its not too personal?

There is no way that honest testimony can, in fact, be in agreement in every detail.

No one expects honest testimony to be in agreement in every detail. But when the testimony of one witness [Luke] is contradicted by three other gospel writers, Luke's testimony becomes suspect. Have you ever testified in court Mardi? I don't think that you have, otherwise it would not be necessary to explain this to you twice. If you had ever been cross-examined by attorneys on discrepancies or contradictions in testimony you want know what I mean.

Additionally, I would like to know how the public is not aware of anything concerning the Bible. I can (have) given you free links to any translation of the bible including transliterations of the Greek and Hebrew. If anyone can read and determine a thing for themselves, where do deceptions and lies come in?

Not everyone is a nice guy like you Mardi. Very naive of you to say where do deceptions and lies come in about the Bible. You tell me then how cult leaders like David Koresh, Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones, fool, manipulate and murder naive Christians all the time?

John was first hand. He caught part of what was going on but I'm sure not all of it. Still, he was a first hand witness. The others are second hand accounts at least.

If the Gospel of John was a first-hand observation, then explain to me why most Biblical scholars think it was the last gospel written and was written 50 to 100 years after the crucifixion? Talk about waiting a little while before committing something to writing! :doh:

Wouldn't those criminals, who continued to corrupt the Bible, have ended up with a work that was vastly different from this one? Wouldn't old fragments recently found have shown the deceit?

No they wouldn't have Mardi. You are too naive when it comes to the criminal or devious mind. I showed you in a post where some of the Early Church Fathers were destroying the manuscripts of Gnostics and other heretics, which did not conform to their orthodox interpretation. Once the Early Church Fathers determined what this was, every heretical manuscript which did not conform was torched. No wonder all the surviving Christian Bibles closely match today. Nothing surprising about that. I am sure all copies of the Communist Manifesto matched too in Russia. But when the Gnostic Gospels were found at Nag Hammadi, we discovered that their Christian Bible and beliefs were quite different from what has been passed down to today's Christians. The Gnostic Christians were persecuted to no end, by the Early Church Fathers.

It is also very naive of you to think that Paul and not a single NT writer, ever had anything derogatory to say about the hated Romans. Obviously when Constantine orders and pays for the first 50 Christian Bibles in existence, I am sure he didn't want to read in his copies what ba$tards the Romans were. The NT had obviously been "doctored" long before this, to toe the Roman party line.

If the piece has proven to be altered over time, as he suggests, then there would be discrepincies over time. In that, there is no question that the Bible has maintained a high degree of integrity over time dating to the second century.

Alas, :doh: I guess we will never agree on this Mardi. The Romans and subsequent Vatican had over a 1,000 year monopoly on the Biblical manuscripts within their empire. More than enough time to burn all heretical manuscripts and see that all theirs were in conformity. Mardi you are too trusting and therefore I believe too naive about the criminal mindset. I guess it comes with the territory. Again very naive to believe that popes, antipopes, and cardinals involved even in murder, would not tamper with the Biblical text.

[inmate running the asylum]

Terry,

Is that photograph you always show in your Signature a self-portrait or what? :laugh: Chill out.... Terry, just kidding. :laugh:

dchogs,

A lot of things don't add up about the Bibles. That's why I keep showing you guys this stuff.

[Terry]

naaahhhh....... although I feel that way sometimes

[mardi gras skin]

jesus was crucified, a punishment saved for the most dangerous and violent offenders of the time. it was the worst death handed out by the roman courts.

jesus was then placed in a tomb, sealed by a large boulder. being entombed was reserved for the upper classes, an honor and a privledge not given to many.

now why would the romans allow someone who they saw fitting of the most heinous punishment to be honored via entombment? it doens't add up.

It does seem strange. Except that there has been a body exhumed from a tomb that was crucified. Surely a rare thing, but the physical evidence exists that proves that at least one crucified person was, indeed, buried in a tomb.