truth about the bible
First Prev
of 33
Next Last
truths

Oneida, TN

#1 Apr 20, 2013
There is no proof of anything in the bible. Not even that they were Hebrew slaves. Not even that there was a Jesus, and no proof of a heaven.
HOTOTO

Wartburg, TN

#2 Apr 20, 2013
There is no proof in anything you say. No proof you even typed that post. No proof u know anything or have any understanding of anything. Carry on proofless. lol
Freedom

United States

#4 Apr 20, 2013
truths wrote:
There is no proof of anything in the bible. Not even that they were Hebrew slaves. Not even that there was a Jesus, and no proof of a heaven.
You say Can you explain to me how the Bible that was written long before any of us ever came into existence, can be so accurate in the prophesies? Can you explain Doctors saying someone will die within a few weeks and they live many years. People being diagnosed with diseases and then when they go back, it is gone. Luck? I don't think so. A Miracle of God is what it is.
You don't have to believe that is your choice. It is one of your freedoms, but as for me and my family: We will serve the Lord.:)
well

Oneida, TN

#5 Apr 21, 2013
So much that is in the Bible has now been historically, scientifically, or archeologically proven or found to be true in many ways. Of course, there are many stories that were handed down orally before the Bible was ever put in writing, and some were not included by the Catholic church in the Bible or later taken out like the Apocrypha, or the Book of Thomas, Book of Mary Magdalene, etc. The Dead Sea Scrolls also come to mind which give other versions of same times; and you have to remember that the Old Testament was originally in Aramaic and Hebrew (and the New T) and some errors in translation to English back then may have occurred. Still in all...I believe the essence of the Bible, its lessons, spiritual teachings and accounts to be just as relevant today as 2,000+ years ago and is God's help in guiding our lives and how we should treat one another.
well further

Oneida, TN

#6 Apr 21, 2013
Go to www.interfaith.org/Christianity/apocrypha if interested in exploring those books, your faith or lack thereof further. Life in and of itself for each person is a spiritual journey, and not all take the same road or same walk or have the same experiences getting there.
Chuck-a-Luck

Oliver Springs, TN

#7 Apr 21, 2013
I have no proof that there is oxygen around me,but I breathe it.
Amazing Athiest

Huntsville, TN

#8 Apr 21, 2013
It's a book, just a book. A book unfortunately that people have used in so many horrific ways. To kill, conquer, control, to make money, to further their ignorance, to justify their bigotry, pass laws to stifle free speech and other rights.

Still just a book though. What we did with it should get more attention than if what's written in it is true.
Football Fan

Oneida, TN

#9 Apr 21, 2013
There's no proof that there was a Jesus? That's where you're completely and totally wrong. Aside from the 4 Gospels of the Bible that include first-person accounts of his birth, life, death and resurrection, there is a ton of secular historical documents that record the fact that there was a man who walked the earth named Jesus and that he claimed to be the son of God.

There's also a ton of secular history that recorded the fact that this man was ultimately executed in the way that was commonly used by the Roman government at the time: crucifixion. And, there's secular history that his body was removed from its tomb. Secular history claims that Jesus's followers removed the body.

There is no doubt that there was a man named Jesus who founded the Christian church, who spent his life preaching and who had a huge following, who claimed to be the son of God, and who was executed by the Roman government.

The only thing that is in question is what happened to his body after his death. Secularists say that his followers moved/hid it. The authors of the Bible say that he was resurrected just as he said he would and a few weeks later ascended into heaven.

Certainly there's no "proof" that this man named Jesus rose from the dead, if physical proof is what you're looking for. But there's no proof that he didn't, either. In fact, through the marvels of DNA and sophisticated archaeological techniques scientists have discovered a lot of bodies of ancient rulers...some of them far older than the body of Christ would be; the body of Christ would only be a little more than 2,000 years old. By comparison, there have been skeletons found that have been dated back millions of years (the oldest was 4.4 million years old).

Where is the body of Jesus Christ if the Bible is false? Just one bone would completely destroy the very foundation that the Christian faith is built on. But despite teams of scientists and archeologists who have dedicated their entire careers to finding that body, no one has been able to.

And if there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth, who preached that there is one true God, who claimed to be the son of that one true God, who claimed to be able to heal the sick and raise the dead, and if that man's body has not been found, maybe it's time to start exploring just who that man really was.
Amazing Athiest

Huntsville, TN

#10 Apr 21, 2013
Football Fan wrote:
There's no proof that there was a Jesus? That's where you're completely and totally wrong. Aside from the 4 Gospels of the Bible that include first-person accounts of his birth, life, death and resurrection, there is a ton of secular historical documents that record the fact that there was a man who walked the earth named Jesus and that he claimed to be the son of God.
Actually, the question is if the contents of the bible are true. Whether a person named Jesus lived during that time doesn't matter. Even if it did it wouldn't say anything as to the validity of the bible.
Football Fan wrote:
There's also a ton of secular history that recorded the fact that this man was ultimately executed in the way that was commonly used by the Roman government at the time: crucifixion. And, there's secular history that his body was removed from its tomb. Secular history claims that Jesus's followers removed the body.
Assuming your claims are right..even though you provide nothing to back them up..how does that even begin to speak to the validity of the bible?
Football Fan wrote:
The only thing that is in question is what happened to his body after his death. Secularists say that his followers moved/hid it. The authors of the Bible say that he was resurrected just as he said he would and a few weeks later ascended into heaven.
Certainly there's no "proof" that this man named Jesus rose from the dead, if physical proof is what you're looking for. But there's no proof that he didn't, either. In fact, through the marvels of DNA and sophisticated archaeological techniques scientists have discovered a lot of bodies of ancient rulers...some of them far older than the body of Christ would be; the body of Christ would only be a little more than 2,000 years old. By comparison, there have been skeletons found that have been dated back millions of years (the oldest was 4.4 million years old).
Well, at least you accept it when science dates something at 4.4 million years
Football Fan wrote:
Where is the body of Jesus Christ if the Bible is false? Just one bone would completely destroy the very foundation that the Christian faith is built on. But despite teams of scientists and archeologists who have dedicated their entire careers to finding that body, no one has been able to.
And if there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth, who preached that there is one true God, who claimed to be the son of that one true God, who claimed to be able to heal the sick and raise the dead, and if that man's body has not been found, maybe it's time to start exploring just who that man really was.
How does finding a body that could be verified to be that of Jesus be in any way considered a validation of the bible?
Football Fan

Oneida, TN

#11 Apr 21, 2013
You need to read it again. The original poster said that there is no proof that there was ever someone named Jesus. I was addressing that point in particular. I don't need to offer anything to back up my "claims" that secular history is full of references to a man named Jesus who walked the earth, because it stands for itself. Try reading your middle school world history textbook, for starters. This isn't a debatable or disputable piece of information.

Finding the body of Jesus wouldn't validate the Bible. It would invalidated it. The entire Christian religion is based on the premise that Jesus provided a means for salvation by dying as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind who followed him and would accept it. If the body of Jesus were found, it would prove he did not return from the dead as he said he would and as his followers claimed he did. And if he was lying about that, he would have been lying about being the son of God. I'm confident the body of Christ will never be found because he is exactly who he said he was.
Amazing Athiest

Huntsville, TN

#12 Apr 21, 2013
Football Fan wrote:
You need to read it again. The original poster said that there is no proof that there was ever someone named Jesus. I was addressing that point in particular.
Perhaps you might want to take your own advise my friend. The very first sentence states there's no proof that anything in the bible is true. Now mind you that's a very broad statement and not one I would even make. But since you chose to ignore that and move on to the claim that Jesus didn't exist then it would seem to me you're ignoring the very premise of this thread.
Football Fan wrote:
I don't need to offer anything to back up my "claims" that secular history is full of references to a man named Jesus who walked the earth, because it stands for itself. Try reading your middle school world history textbook, for starters. This isn't a debatable or disputable piece of information.
What flawed logic you use. You make a claim and then state that the claim stands for itself ..well...because you made it and there plenty of evidence you're just not going to tell me what it is. If that is the foundation by which you make your argument then I really have no choice but to simply accept it as a baseless claim as you give me no reason to lend any credibility to it. Here's a question for you though, assuming of course you think you're willing to consider it: If one person named Jesus or a thousand people named Jesus existed during that time how does that give any validation to the bible? After all, Jesus was a very common name during that period.
Football Fan wrote:
Finding the body of Jesus wouldn't validate the Bible. It would invalidated it. The entire Christian religion is based on the premise that Jesus provided a means for salvation by dying as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind who followed him and would accept it.
Could you clarify just a little more? If we found a body and somehow determined the name of that person to be Jesus, then how would we then determine it was the Jesus as mentioned in the bible? Let's say for the sake of argument that it was the Jesus as mentioned in the bible. We still couldn't use that as a basis to validate or invalidate the bible as that is only one very small part of the claims the bible makes.
Football Fan wrote:
If the body of Jesus were found, it would prove he did not return from the dead as he said he would and as his followers claimed he did. And if he was lying about that, he would have been lying about being the son of God. I'm confident the body of Christ will never be found because he is exactly who he said he was.
I'm still curious as to how you got to the conclusion that the body was never found. If you mean the body of the Jesus as mentioned in the bible you're really asking for the impossible. To find a body that can be verified to have lived during that time isn't impossible. To find one that was named Jesus again not impossible. But to find the one as described in the bible and performed miracles along with all of the other supernatural claims would be impossible as we have no way to know if this individual performed said miracles. Claims of the supernatural require some pretty staunch evidence. Wait...you'll probably go with the whole "there's plenty of evidence but I don't need to back it up" argument? Am I right?
truths

Oneida, TN

#13 Apr 21, 2013
Football Fan wrote:
There's no proof that there was a Jesus? That's where you're completely and totally wrong. Aside from the 4 Gospels of the Bible that include first-person accounts of his birth, life, death and resurrection, there is a ton of secular historical documents that record the fact that there was a man who walked the earth named Jesus and that he claimed to be the son of God.
There's also a ton of secular history that recorded the fact that this man was ultimately executed in the way that was commonly used by the Roman government at the time: crucifixion. And, there's secular history that his body was removed from its tomb. Secular history claims that Jesus's followers removed the body.
There is no doubt that there was a man named Jesus who founded the Christian church, who spent his life preaching and who had a huge following, who claimed to be the son of God, and who was executed by the Roman government.
The only thing that is in question is what happened to his body after his death. Secularists say that his followers moved/hid it. The authors of the Bible say that he was resurrected just as he said he would and a few weeks later ascended into heaven.
Certainly there's no "proof" that this man named Jesus rose from the dead, if physical proof is what you're looking for. But there's no proof that he didn't, either. In fact, through the marvels of DNA and sophisticated archaeological techniques scientists have discovered a lot of bodies of ancient rulers...some of them far older than the body of Christ would be; the body of Christ would only be a little more than 2,000 years old. By comparison, there have been skeletons found that have been dated back millions of years (the oldest was 4.4 million years old).
Where is the body of Jesus Christ if the Bible is false? Just one bone would completely destroy the very foundation that the Christian faith is built on. But despite teams of scientists and archeologists who have dedicated their entire careers to finding that body, no one has been able to.
And if there was a man named Jesus who walked the earth, who preached that there is one true God, who claimed to be the son of that one true God, who claimed to be able to heal the sick and raise the dead, and if that man's body has not been found, maybe it's time to start exploring just who that man really was.
Football fan do you lie all the time or just when you want to make a point. There is not evidence of Jesus outside the Bible Give me two instances. I say two because I know you would mention one that says Christus which was a common name. The bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. Was this the language of Jesus? No, then why was the bible written in a language Jesus didn't know? Incidently, non of the found bible was written in the time of Jesus. They were all copied. There was more of the Bible but the ruler, Constantine destroyed all except the four gospels and Acts was part of Luke. I DON'T WANT TO BE AN ATHEIST, I just want help from someone that has studied and know what they are talking about. The disciples were real people, but John seem not to agree on many points of the other disciples.
Football Fan

Oneida, TN

#14 Apr 22, 2013
truths wrote:
<quoted text>
Football fan do you lie all the time or just when you want to make a point. There is not evidence of Jesus outside the Bible Give me two instances. I say two because I know you would mention one that says Christus which was a common name. The bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. Was this the language of Jesus? No, then why was the bible written in a language Jesus didn't know? Incidently, non of the found bible was written in the time of Jesus. They were all copied. There was more of the Bible but the ruler, Constantine destroyed all except the four gospels and Acts was part of Luke. I DON'T WANT TO BE AN ATHEIST, I just want help from someone that has studied and know what they are talking about. The disciples were real people, but John seem not to agree on many points of the other disciples.
Seriously? Cornelius Tacitus, an early Roman historian who authored many volumes of history about Rome's first 100 years AD, mentioned Jesus prominently in his writings. Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor about 80 years after Christ's death, wrote to the emperor seeking advice on how to treat Christians. He wrote that he had been killing them, but they continued to refuse to curse the name of Jesus.

Those are the two you asked for. There are many, many others. Until Thomas Brodie's book that was published last year, there were NO historical scholars who debated whether there was a man named Jesus of Nazarath. It is accepted by secular historians as fact and always has been. Their argument is centered more on whether he really performed the miracles described in the Bible and whether he actually was resurrected from the dead.
Football Fan

Oneida, TN

#15 Apr 22, 2013
Amazing Atheist, with all that is known about the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth do you really think it's impossible to take a body and connect the dots with DNA? We've done far more with far less with bodies that were older than Jesus's body would be.

Apparently you're thinking a little slow because you want to make some obscure argument that my post doesn't apply to the context of the thread, which is probably little more than trying to confuse the issue because you really don't have much to prop up your argument to my post. So let me break this down for you:

1. There is no debate amongst mainstream historians regarding the man known as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of a Nazareth woman named Mary, who was a direct descendant of King David, second ruler of Israel.

2. There is no debate among historians that this man named Jesus claimed to be the son of God, that he spent his life traveling and preaching.

3. Historical text upon historical text aside from the Bible records the fact that the man named Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Roman government.

4. The original poster makes the claim that there is no proof that the Jesus of the Bible existed. I could debate the other claims (that there were no Hebrew slaves, that there is no heaven) but I chose this one because it is obviously central to the debate. With no Christ, there is no Christianity, period.
citizen

Oneida, TN

#16 Apr 22, 2013
I have certain proof that the Jesus of the bible is real #1, He took away and forgave me of all my sin's, made me a total different man that I was. He healed me of a major heart attack, that only one in a thousand survive. He has healed me of major issues, that the doctors say they are no cure for. He lives inside me in the form of the Holy Spirit, and when this natural body dies, He will send angel's, to carry my spirit into the paradise of God. I stake my life on this, because I know for a fact, because He talk's to me every day. That is all the proof I need, and I base my life on this.
Amazing Athiest

Huntsville, TN

#17 Apr 22, 2013
Football Fan wrote:
Amazing Atheist, with all that is known about the lineage of Jesus of Nazareth do you really think it's impossible to take a body and connect the dots with DNA? We've done far more with far less with bodies that were older than Jesus's body would be.
I actually stated it was certainly possible, perhaps you should pay closer attention when reading my post. What I am asking, and you seem to either not understand or just don't want to answer, is how do you justify the existence of a person named Jesus as mentioned in the bible to be a validation or invalidation of the bible? Just because you prove Jesus existed (which you haven't..you just keep talking about all this secular evidence that you can't seem to point to). Furthermore, if this person is the one as mentioned in the bible, what evidence do you have that he was more than just an ordinary human being?
Football Fan wrote:
Apparently you're thinking a little slow because you want to make some obscure argument that my post doesn't apply to the context of the thread, which is probably little more than trying to confuse the issue because you really don't have much to prop up your argument to my post.
Actually, it's really not that obscure my friend. It's the very first sentence in the thread and the thread itself is titled "TRUTH ABOUT THE BIBLE". I don't think that's really a difficult concept for you to grasp. And btw, I haven't made single argument, I would be glad to provide you with evidence if I were making a claim or more than one claim. I've only asked you to provide evidence for the claims you've made and you haven't as of yet.
Football Fan wrote:
So let me break this down for you:
1. There is no debate amongst mainstream historians regarding the man known as Jesus of Nazareth, the son of a Nazareth woman named Mary, who was a direct descendant of King David, second ruler of Israel.
2. There is no debate among historians that this man named Jesus claimed to be the son of God, that he spent his life traveling and preaching.
3. Historical text upon historical text aside from the Bible records the fact that the man named Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Roman government.
4. The original poster makes the claim that there is no proof that the Jesus of the Bible existed. I could debate the other claims (that there were no Hebrew slaves, that there is no heaven) but I chose this one because it is obviously central to the debate. With no Christ, there is no Christianity, period.
What "main stream historians" are you referring to? Simply claiming there's no debate among these historians you speak of doesn't make your statement any more credible...even if you do type "period" at the end of your statement. You obviously saw or read this somewhere, give me few examples if you're so certain. I don't think I'm asking for to much buddy.
Amazing Athiest

Huntsville, TN

#18 Apr 22, 2013
truths wrote:
<quoted text>
I DON'T WANT TO BE AN ATHEIST
You know what's ironic? I didn't want to be an atheist either.
truths

Oneida, TN

#19 Apr 23, 2013
I don't want this thread to die without someone with knowledge defending the Bible. for example House of David? No historic record of David exists. Egypt has no record of Hebrew slaves.
Anonymous

Oliver Springs, TN

#20 Apr 23, 2013
Does it really matter? Believe what you want to believe and let others believe what they want to believe.
Amazing Athiest

Huntsville, TN

#21 Apr 23, 2013
truths wrote:
I don't want this thread to die without someone with knowledge defending the Bible. for example House of David? No historic record of David exists. Egypt has no record of Hebrew slaves.
Oh well, guess youll just have to be an athiest then.

Will somebody please save this poor soul from eternal d&mnation? I mean seriously folks!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 33
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Robbins Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Can't get him off my mind (Dec '13) 4 hr Opry King 15
Do you know her? Privett Redheaded Chick. Bisex... 16 hr SunShineky39 1
Who's selling drugs at Marvins trailer park in ... 16 hr Starvin Marvin 8
2500$ reward 16 hr myself 3
Sunbright police 16 hr myself 5
Judge James L. Cotton, Jr 18 hr thou shalt not judge 9
2018 Sheriff's Race 19 hr Butch 42

Robbins Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Robbins Mortgages