bernee51 wrote: Mkey4God wrote: This entire argument is pure speculation. The first writing discovered could have been a copy of the original, which dated back earlier. Or perhaps it was the first official catalog. Maybe the words were taken from Matthew's (for example) journal. Or maybe it was passed down.
And you call my words 'speculation'.
Both our words are speculation. We don't know how these things were written down or when, but they were. And considering the manner in which they were written, I do not look at it and automatically assume that it was all a lie. Like I've noted before, if this is how we think, then we would have to deny the existence of all other subjects of ancient writings in order to be consistent.
Do you believe that King Tut existed? What causes you to think that Tut exists but Jesus does not? Are you drawing conclusions due to bias?
[quote="bernee51]
Mkey4God wrote:
A story like this, over the time of 30-70 years, certainly would not have been poluted into a legend.
Ya reckon.
Have you ever visited spokes.com. If 'urban legends' can grow and proliferate now why not then? [/quote]
We live in a free country. No one will get crucified for their beliefs. The early Christians, including Matthew and the rest of the apostles, would have. In fact, the disciples all were martyred. All except Judas, who hung himself.
Mkey4God wrote: Mkey4God wrote:
Honestly-- how does the story of several rabbi or just an ordinary teacher excalate into the Son of God, the long-awaited Messiah, who performed miracles and rose from the dead?
It can escalate very easily. These were difficult times witht he nation underthe thumb of colonial rulers with a corrupt priestly class. Mr Joe Citizen would be crying out for a saviour.
But the writings would have been in the family of the disciples (if not the disciples themselves) until they were made public, however that happened. It's possible that the story was edited after that, but then why are there so many copies of the Gospel that have been found that have practically no differences? There are 24,000 manuscipts of the New Testament, in many different languages, and they are all 99.5% synchronized. There are only 650 manuscripts of the
Illiad.
bernee51 wrote: Mkey4God wrote:
And, behind all this is the fact that the early Christians were following someOne. They would not have faced relentless persecution if there was no One that had proved Himself, undeniably, as the Messiah, Son of God. I have yet to see this point properly addressed.
I don't know why you have a probl;em wiht this...people are dying for their beliefs everyday.
Because their beliefs are liable. If the early Christians had seen no Christ and no resurrection, then they wouldn't have stepped out of line. You wouldn't take a bullet for something you knew to be proven false. You might take a bullet for something that
could be true. But you would very likely take a bullet for something that had been proven to you.
If there were no Christ, then there wouldn't have been any Christians.
bernee51 wrote: Christian morals have also guided me. As has the words of the Buddha. And the words of Rumi. And the words of Patanjali.
Are there any differences in the four? Do you agree with them all?
bernee51 wrote: To acknowledge sin is to deny self awareness. Once self awareness is achieved sin is seen to be ONLY in the mind.
How can you watch the news in the morning and tell yourself that there is no sin? Mankind is evil.
The only way to not see the evil in this world is to be a part of it. And self-awareness is not trying to fit in with the crowd.
bernee51 wrote: I define 'sin' as a trnsgression of 'god's law'. Immorality is apparent. Immorality is not sin.
Morality=God's Law
How is immorality in any way different from sin? How do you expect man to behave, if not in direct sync with the teachings of the Bible?
bernee51 wrote: I would put it ...spontaneous generation, cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny - yet. More god of the gaps.
"God of the gaps" is in the minds of those who already assume that they are right and that there is no God. The need for a Creator has never shrunk, and it never will. In fact, it has grown. We can see that in spontaneous generation.
If there ever comes a time when a need for a Creator is gone, then I'll take that back. But that time will never come.
-Michael
"When cordiality is lost, truth is obscured. And it is truth, especially when trying to answer a question such as the one set before us, that provides for us the very rationale and foundation for a civil existence."
-Ravi Zacharias
, In retaliation i said "what if you are wrong?, what if there is nothing and you wasted your whole life"? and he replyed "i would have done it out of love"
, but how are you going to waste your entiere life on something that may not exist 
. Then i relized, i am Atheists because i have had so many discustions on this that it is entierlly to confusing so Atheists is the way to go in my opinion. 
