|
| Thread: The Bible |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted January 18, 2004 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Something that causes a person to create some of the greatest works of art in all of mankind's history
So has the Koran, so has the Torah and the equivalents in the Hindu and other religions. Must I single out the bible just because it's art is most familiar to me? Must I accept that christian art is proof of god when beautiful works comes from other relgions alongside non-believers? I have a tendency to believe that with many artists they worked for whomever paid them to do so, given the nature of the time that renaissance artists lived in, they inevitably ended up painting either nobles/kings or religious scenes. Why? Because no-one else could afford to keep them and pay them. I don't doubt some were inspired by the bible, but again I believe not all were so devoutly inspired as you hint at.
Quote:
I feel this book had something to do with that which has compelled so many people to create such beautiful and inspiring works of art
And I don't believe this theory entirely as it's too simplistic.
Quote:
You say over and over that it does not affect you while its meaning to others may be great. Don't you ever wonder why that is?
People read the bible for many reasons, I don't venture to place specifics on what as the subject is too broad to do so. Why should what affects them affect me though? I am entitled to be my own person after all. If it does not affect me, it does not affect me.
Quote:
Ask yourself, "What could possibly compel a person to spend their entire life committed to expressing love and peace under God."
Again, a number of reasons. I don't see the precise link with this committment and the bible though as you can do the above without believing in or reading the bible.
Quote:
I don't even know if God exists but these paintings are real enough.
As are the paintings and architecture of the Islamic faith, do they make you believe in Allah? It comes from more than this of course so I am at a loss as to why I should see the link you are making.
Quote:
Don't you wonder why we humans stick to wars and conflict until touched by some unexplainable love?
Of course I do, I don't consider this to be solely related to either christianity or the bible though, especially considering others read the book and come to the conclusion of unexplainable hatred.
Quote:
Fine but don't drag the rest of down with your hints of pessimistic views that allude to a world where we are all victims of power-craving dictators
*sighs* (and yes I do mean it)
Please. I have not ONCE said that others should follow my beliefs. My beliefs are entirely personal and I do NOT drag others down for following the bible. I have on the other hand pointed out what I personally see as some facts about it in contradiction to what I saw as wrongfull statements, and I have stated my personal opinion.
And my political stance has nothing to do with this discussion. Your inclusion of it is another pathetic attempt to undermine me simply because I personally refuse to accept your conclusions. The fact that I do not consider it to have meaning for me does NOT mean I think it has no meaning. I would have expected you to have seen this by now.
Quote:
Research to your heart's content how this battle went or that siege ended. You won't find peace there I guarantee it.
Pathetic.
I can believe it or not study war and history and at the same time be a spiritual person. I do find religion boring to be frank, and the bible, does this make me unable to find peace? Let me enlighten you, I do not see or feel the need for a structure that suits another person in terms of morality. I do not like organised religion. I believe in a direct link between me and god. The fact that I prefer to discuss history over religion of others does not mean I have no soul or ability to think peacefully.
Quote:
You are human and there will come a time when the interest of wars will poison your mind.
Really? Has it poisoned yours yet to read the biblical accounts of slaughter and war? Don't be so pathetically simple, I don't intend to be.
Quote:
You may be young now but if you grow old never having known the difference between bloodshed and compassion then I pity you.
How well do you know me consis, You don't frankly. Nor do you have any idea if I have a notion of compassion. Let me suprise the hell out of you consis, I spend at least 3 evening every single month raising money for charity off my own back. Does this strike you as uncompassionate? Do you honestly believe that just because someone doesn't discuss organised religion or the bible that they prefer death to helping others?
Your conclusions are appalingly way off the right ones. If you knew me I'd be highly offended, since you don't, I guess I'll put this down to ignorance and arrogance on your part.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Tyler
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 08:23 PM |
|
|
At the time the bible was written the people of Israel were conquered by the romans...
Why are the romans so rarely mentioned and why there are'nt any bad words about them in the bible? It's like telling a story about France form 1940 -1945 without mentioning Germany and Hitler... Comments?
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 08:39 PM |
|
|
Tyler
Partly true. The Israelites were conquered by the Romans, but had not been in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Roman oppression of the Jews is mentioned quite a few times, actually. Jesus was supposed to be, or so the Jews thought, the messiah, their savior from the Roman rule that they suffered under. Later on, the Bible speaks of Christians being persecuted and killed by Roman rulers and those who were in power at the time. I'd say the Bible mentions it quite a bit.
____________
>_>
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 18, 2004 08:56 PM |
|
|
Does The Truth Hurt?
This shall be my last post to debate with PrivateHudson on this particular thread. I will, ofcourse, be glad to carry out the ongoing discussions with anyone else participating in this thread but not with the aforementioned fellow. I feel there is no progress in our debate here. Perhaps there will be progress between us in a different thread but not this one.
As you so surgically seem to cut into my thoughts with a scalpel of unbridled discontent, I will make this reply in light of your honor(sic) in cutting through someone's carefully written thoughts the way you so skillfully and consistently do. Shall we proceed for the last time? Let's go.
Quote:
I feel this book had something to do with that which has compelled so many people to create such beautiful and inspiring works of art
Here I am quoting myself on something I believe in very strongly.
Quote:
"And I don't believe this theory entirely as it's too simplistic."
Here you are telling me I'm a simpleton. My theoretical beliefs are simple according to you.
Quote:
"Your inclusion is another pathetic attempt."
Here you are telling me I have a tendency towards attempting pathetic inclusions.
Quote:
"Pathetic."
Straight forward and to the point. That's what I like about you PrivateHudson. Here I clearly appear blatently pathetic to you. No beating about the bush there eh?
Quote:
"I believe in a direct link between me and god."
As you like to drill into all people that respond to you, here I am 'paying attention' to what you are saying.
Quote:
"Don't be so pathetically simple."
It seems, here, that I have lost the rank of "simpleton". Now it would seem I've been demoted to "pathetic simpleton".(I hope I'm still getting paid)
Quote:
"How well do you know me consis, You don't frankly. Your conclusions are appaullingly way off the right ones. If you knew me I'd be highly offended, since you don't, I guess I'll put this down to ignorance and arrogance on your part."
Apparently I don't know you, but it's quite obvious that you know me. You seem to know me so well you can identify me as largely pathetic and a simpleton with 'pathetic inclusions' and 'simple theories'. I think what I have gathered from debating with you is that it is a truly pointless venture as I am clearly known by you to be 'simple' and 'pathetic'. It's responses like these that fill me with pity. The subject of the thread is the bible. In the bible I am taught to learn to forgive. I forgive you for calling me these things and I would be happy to invite you over for dinner were you ever to visit Oregon in the United States. However, expect no further responses from me addressing you or your ideas in this thread.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 09:15 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 18 Jan 2004
|
Tyler:
Quote:
At the time the bible was written the people of Israel were conquered by the romans...
Why are the romans so rarely mentioned and why there are'nt any bad words about them in the bible? It's like telling a story about France form 1940 -1945 without mentioning Germany and Hitler... Comments?
1) The Romans treated the Jews considerably better than the Nazis did.
2) As Shadowcaster notes, the Roman rule is mentioned a number of times. Remember Pontius Pilate? Remember "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."?
Consis: regarding art.
As PrivateHudson points out, many things inspired great Renaissance art. The Bible is undoubtably one of them. No one can deny that. However, there are others, including Greek and Roman mythology, secular events such as war, great leaders (or rich leaders  ), and personal triumphs and tragedies. Some works combine inspirations. Michaelangelo's David is a Biblical subject portrayed in classical Greek heroic style. When you look at Bottecelli's Venus on the Half-Shell (dunno the real name), how can you determine the inspiration? Is it the Christian God? Is it the Roman Venus? Is is a beautiful mistress of the artist's? Is it the promise of food on the table for another month? Is it personal fame? Maybe all of the above?
That's not even counting the beautiful creations of people who aren't Christian at all -- the graceful Islamic architecture PH mentions, or their calligraphy. The Parthenon. The Taj Mahal. The tomb murals in the Valley of the Kings. The Mayan pyramids that are astronomically aligned just so. None of these are inspired by the Biblical god, but all are inspired.  The Bible certainly has its place in the history of wonders, but I'm always wary of overstating the importance of that place.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 10:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here you are telling me I'm a simpleton. My theoretical beliefs are simple according to you.
I called them simplistic because they lack the observation that such art has many different inspirations and ideals behind it. If you feel otherwise you could of course have stated so rather than making the debate about personalities again. All I am saying though here is that your conclusion lacks depth because you seem to assume that the only influence on a work of art based on the bible is the bible itself and the beliefs of the artist and not the numerous other aspects, some of which I stated. Unlike your own conclusions about myself I did go to the trouble of explaining mine. As for calling you a simpleton, wrong again, I said your theory was simplistic, not you. As you consist of much more than your opinion on religion it would be rather arrogant of me to call you simplistic for such a thing. So please, feel offended if it avoids you addressing my points, offense was not intended on the level you have taken it though.
Quote:
Here you are telling me I have a tendency towards attempting pathetic inclusions.
Actually I was stating that including my opinion on politics in order to reduce the value of my points is beneath you. I had kind of come to expect decent debate, not reducing the discussions to mud-slinging about what I believe on a totally unrelated topic. I find such diversions in order to undermine my points pathetic yes. I don't necessarily find you especially pathetic, though my opinion is dropping with every post you make in which you avoid what I debate about in order to make your points.
Quote:
Straight forward and to the point. That's what I like about you PrivateHudson. Here I clearly appear blatently pathetic to you. No beating about the bush there eh?
Or alternatively I found your conclusion particularly lacking as it lacked any kind of evidence from this thread that would draw you to it. I'd hate to be awkward, but I can perhaps suggest your point is pathetic without equally calling you the same. Allow me to rework an earlier sentence:
As you consist of much more than your opinion on religion it would be rather arrogant of me to call you pathetic for such a thing. So please, feel offended if it avoids you addressing my points, offense was not intended on the level you have taken it though. Criticism of your opinion on one subject is not the same as criticism of you as an entire person.
Quote:
It seems, here, that I have lost the rank of "simpleton". Now it would seem I've been demoted to "pathetic simpleton".
Again, I was reffering to one remark, not your entire personality. I find your belief that I will descend into some war-mad fiend a little short of pathetic yes. I happen to know myself and know that my morality will keep me from such things, without the bible or such works.
Quote:
Apparently I don't know you, but it's quite obvious that you know me. You seem to know me so well you can identify me as largely pathetic and a simpleton with 'pathetic inclusions' and 'simple theories'.
No, you have concluded that I believe that. What I do believe is that your conclusions either on me or on certain aspects of religion are quite basic/simplistic, and what's more I have said why. The relevant action then would be to say something in defense of your conclusions rather than leap about as if I have just stabbed you with a sword.
I have not, nor will call you simplistic. I have merely passed an opinion on the points you have made. It is you that takes these to be opinions on your personality for whatever reason you choose. Perhaps to avoid responding to the points I make you find it easier to either pass remarks on my personality or to take my remarks as insults when they clearly are not intended as such. Perhaps when someone fails to match your religious opinions you get defensive. Perhaps it's both of these or more, I don't know. What I do know is that your remarks tend towards commenting on my personality than my responses.
Quote:
I think what I have gathered from debating with you is that it is a truly pointless venture as I am clearly known by you to be 'simple' and 'pathetic'
No, your answers in this thread are IMO both of those. Again I have not said you personally are. Your conclusion once more, not mine.
Quote:
It's responses like these that fill me with pity
I'm sure you'll live safe in the knowledge that you are in the right without ever having adequately explained most of your opinion, instead preferring to pick holes in my personality.
Quote:
The subject of the thread is the bible
In the bible I am taught to learn to forgive. I forgive you for calling me these things and I would be happy to invite you over for dinner were you ever to visit Oregon in the United States
I'm glad you can forgive me for something you alone believe I said in the first place. I have attempted to keep my remarks on your points, not you.
Quote:
However, expect no further responses from me addressing you or your ideas in this thread.
To be frank, you've avoided most of my points since very early in this thread and chosen to comment on me personally without explaining properly. It comes as no suprise now that you refuse to remark on what I brought up.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2004 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
At the time the bible was written the people of Israel were conquered by the romans...
Why are the romans so rarely mentioned and why there are'nt any bad words about them in the bible? It's like telling a story about France form 1940 -1945 without mentioning Germany and Hitler... Comments?
As it was already pointed out above, the Romans are mentioned quite a few times. Still itīs quite interesting that the whole New Testament, while being extremely antisemitic (for example John 8:38-45, ... You are of your father the Devil ...), rarely says a bad word about the Romans. This extends even to such absurdities as blaming the Jews for Jesusī death, although the execution was commited by the Romans.
The reason is apparently a tactical one: While the (non-converted) Jewish people were the direct rival for early Christianity, the Romans on the other hand - numerous, powerful, and followers of rather tolerant pagan deities - were ideally suited for evangelization.
Needless to say, that worked out to be quite a succesful calculation. In 392, Christianity became state religion, the worship of pagan deities became forbidden, their temples destroyed and those who refused to be baptised killed.
And Consis, please ... Iīve never in my life seen such a high concentration of strawman arguments.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 19, 2004 05:24 AM |
|
|
Good Points Khaelo
Great points Khaelo,
Yeah, I think you're right. I also think it is good of you to remind me to get out and see more of the world. I've been trying to approach the bible subject without doing what every clergyman of any opposing religion will do. You know how they immediately start making quotes directly from the book to support their own religious preferrence? I've seen it happen and it's truly not a lie when people describe that as a neverending debate. It kinda seems like for every verse written there's another that can either countermand or supercede or whatever. I get really apathetic when I hear conversations like that. There's no real opinion, only a quote from a verse and chapter etc. It's dry to say the least. Lews_Therin is right to recognize that I haven't tried any good solid evidence to support my theories. I don't think there's anything tangible in the way of "what if....it never existed". I just thought it might be a good direction to take the mind as usually these sorts of debates in bible discussions end in verse-quoting. Anyway, thanks for being such a pleasant person to volly ideas with.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 08:18 AM |
|
|
Well it's nice to see that having insulted me, got offended when I question you and having stated your half thought out ideas you are now avoiding my points altogether. I guess I'll chalk this one up to experience and next time not discuss things with someone who can't support their theories and can merely poke holes in others without saying why.
I'm quite disapointed really Consis, I don't believe you ever stated fully just why you believe Britain is more influenced than any of the other nations, the topic of the original discussion between us. All previous posts by yourself had lead me to believe that you were a worthy person to discuss such things with. Since though you feel you cannot discuss such things without taking offense or resorting to personal criticism of those that disagree with you then whether you quote from the bible or otherwise, your arguments here lack both substance, and yourself the will to defend them when questioned.
Oh well, having stated my opinion on the bible I guess that's me done for this thread since no-one seems to want to question it properly.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 09:19 AM |
|
|
Just let it go. What exactly do you think that you are going to accomplish by nipping at each other's heels? You two are trying so hard to convince the other that your view is correct that you have turned this thread into a personal war that will actually produce quite the opposite result as the one you had originally intended. Both of you are smart enough that I'm sure you've realized what you're doing is not going to win the other over to your side, but is instead going to close their mind to whatever you have to say in the future. I hope it doesn't come to that.
But what then do you hope to accomplish? Do you want bragging rights? a submission from your "enemy"? a new red convertible? What? Nothing I can come up with strikes me as particularly worthy of causing the quarrel like the one in this thread.
I've some advice for both of you, if you'll take it.
Privatehudson: Stop thinking that you have to be proven wrong for you to even consider what the other side's point of view has to offer. From what I've seen, you are a very talented debator, and I respect you for that, but you have got to lighten up a bit. This is a friendly debate, there are no prizes for "winning".
Consis: You have got to take things less personally. Insults will be flung around, thus is the nature of an online forum. Granted, it is not fun to be mocked and insulted, even online, but you have to question whether a retaliation is really necessary, or even worth it, in a potentially friendly, potientially hostile environment.
Now, I apologize for my preaching, and I hope it will not hamper my relations with either of you. I really meant no offense. I'm usually pretty conservative with my opinions, but this kind of stuff really pushes my buttons the wrong way. I hope you understand.
____________
>_>
|
|
Tyler
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 10:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) The Romans treated the Jews considerably better than the Nazis did.
No offence but what does that has to do with anything?...What i sayed about France was just an example, notting to do with the Jews
Quote:
2) As Shadowcaster notes, the Roman rule is mentioned a number of times. Remember Pontius Pilate? Remember "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."?
Yes but i still cant remember any bad words reguarding the romans...
My point was as the bible mentiones that Jesus was convicted and sentinced to "CRUCIFICATION" by Caiafa who was a jew priest if i'm not wrong...NOW the death penality for Jews was STONE KILLING, and crucification was clearly a roman death penality... U guys draw the conclusions and comments
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 02:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just let it go. What exactly do you think that you are going to accomplish by nipping at each other's heels?
I expected a civilised debate on the topic at hand.
Quote:
You two are trying so hard to convince the other that your view is correct that you have turned this thread into a personal war that will actually produce quite the opposite result as the one you had originally intended.
Actually I have no great intention to convince him of anything, I am merely stating my opinions on the subject he raised and objecting to irrelevant aspects of my personality being brought to bear in opposition of this.
Quote:
Stop thinking that you have to be proven wrong for you to even consider what the other side's point of view has to offer.
I don't "have" to be proven wrong. I did though expect him to justify his original argument. Later I protested at his inclusion of personal irrelevent issues. He can be either right or wrong, I merely wish to hear more of his justification for his stance and less about his opinion of me as a person.
Quote:
This is a friendly debate, there are no prizes for "winning".
Again, I have no intention of "winning" I merely wish to see more of his points so that I can remark on whether I agree with them or not and try to show him why if I do not. I do though object to personal comments when points failed to materialise.
As for pushing the wrong buttons, well people push the wrong ones with me when they start a discussion on a topic that they fail to continue when pressed on it and instead resort to personal remarks. I have already made my position on both the bible and religion clear, I don't expect to have to be accused of being in danger of having no compassion and doomed to becoming a warmonger over them though. If people wish to discuss my position feel clear to, but I object to off topic, off base conclusions about my person.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 04:05 PM |
|
|
Personal disagreement: Suffice to say, I am confused. PrivateHudson and I made many of the same points: none of the points are addressed, and one of the point-makers gets attacked and the other congratulated? I don't understand; I'm not going to try to understand; I'm just going to back away slowly.
Quote:
No offence but what does that has to do with anything?...What i sayed about France was just an example, notting to do with the Jews
Hmm. Then never mind. I don't know how the Germans ruled/treated the French people during occupation.
Quote:
Yes but i still cant remember any bad words reguarding the romans. My point was as the bible mentiones that Jesus was convicted and sentinced to "CRUCIFICATION" by Caiafa who was a jew priest if i'm not wrong...NOW the death penality for Jews was STONE KILLING, and crucification was clearly a roman death penality... U guys draw the conclusions and comments
The punishment was indeed Roman. However, the main beef was with the priestly class in Jewish society. My impression from the Gospels is that the priests used the Roman government to kill Jesus by convincing them that he was attempting to start a political rebellion. Hence the big deal over "King of the Jews."
For historical circumstances, the Acts of the Apostles is a good document to look at. There's a section in there recording a debate within the community over whether it was permissible for Gentiles to convert. There was a faction who thought Christ's message was for Jews only. They lost, obviously. The editing Lews proposes would have to have occurred after (or possibly during?) that debate.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 08:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes but i still cant remember any bad words reguarding the romans. My point was as the bible mentiones that Jesus was convicted and sentinced to "CRUCIFICATION" by Caiafa who was a jew priest if i'm not wrong...NOW the death penality for Jews was STONE KILLING, and crucification was clearly a roman death penality... U guys draw the conclusions and comments
Jesus was not sentenced to death by the Jewish high priest, Caiphus, but instead by the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who ruled over the province in which Jesus was captured. Pilate was very reluctant to do so, though, as he found no fault in Jesus. The crowds, which were probably predominately Jewish, were the actual sealers of Jesus' fate because they are the ones that drove the governor to send Jesus off to trial, so you were correct at the core of your implication that the Jews were the ones who sentenced Jesus to die. The Romans, however, by law were the ones who carried out Jesus' sentence once he was convicted, therefore crucifixion was chosen instead of a stoning.
____________
>_>
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 19, 2004 08:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hmm. Then never mind. I don't know how the Germans ruled/treated the French people during occupation
Brutally. They may not have carted them off to gas chambers whenever possible, but they tortured resistance members, shot civilians and generally treated the French nearly as badly as they did those in the east. I don't doubt that there were peoples that the germans treated worse, or that there was not some german governors/people who treated them well, but overall, the opressive and brutal treatment the nazi regime meted out to france was not at all pleasant, if it was slightly less than that meted out to say Russia or the Jewish people.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Tyler
Known Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2004 12:02 AM |
|
|
Shadowcaster, i dunno if u read the bible (i sure didnt) or where do u get your info (maybee ur right), but most of all i posted here is from Discovery chanel and movies...
I saw a documentary about Jesus's "real life" on Discovery from the moment he was born and until he died...and it was pretty impressive...it was like founding out about how the piramides were made...Sure made more sense to me then what the bible says
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 22, 2004 12:27 AM |
|
|
I'm told though that the bible misses about 20 something years of the account of his life though during which no-one knows what happened.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted January 22, 2004 01:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
i dunno if u read the bible (i sure didnt) or where do u get your info (maybee ur right), but most of all i posted here is from Discovery chanel and movies...
Well, that explains some things!
The chronology: We have birth stories in three Gospels, a story from when Jesus was twelve in Luke, and then the beginning of the ministry, which (I was taught) started when he was ~30. I couldn't find the source for that offhand, but Luke cites a) a census conducted by Augustus in the year of Jesus's birth and b) the year of Tiberius's reign when Jesus's ministry began. Romans would have records of these things as well, so that's probably how the chronology got figured out. So, yes, about 18 years are unaccounted for.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted January 22, 2004 01:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Shadowcaster, i dunno if u read the bible (i sure didnt) or where do u get your info (maybee ur right), but most of all i posted here is from Discovery chanel and movies...
I saw a documentary about Jesus's "real life" on Discovery from the moment he was born and until he died...and it was pretty impressive...it was like founding out about how the piramides were made...Sure made more sense to me then what the bible says
Yes, I have read the Bible, but I have also gotten information about it from other sources, like you. I frequently read books involving others' views on and interpretations of the Bible, because the way I perceive it may be missing something if I allow my knowledge of Biblical interpretations to remain limited. Not that I'm declaring myself a Biblical scholar, I'm nowhere near that level of knowledge. 
Quote:
I'm told though that the bible misses about 20 something years of the account of his life though during which no-one knows what happened.
That is essentially true, because the Bible, as far as I know, only dedicates one verse to Jesus' life between the ages of twelve and thirty. Read below:
Luke 2:52
And Jesus grew in both wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
____________
>_>
|
|
Tyler
Known Hero
|
posted January 22, 2004 01:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, that explains some things!
Well i know it sounds bad , but in fact i guess all it takes is minimum knowloge and eyes open to see that is just a big fat lie
(Just for the record)
____________
Sir, we are surrounded! Excellent, now we can attack in any direction!
|
| |
|
|
