How true is the Bible?

[basics]

The Bible is in existence because of the Council of Nicaea. Your rationale for why the Bible has a monopoly on who the god is nonsensical. You're basically saying that Bible is true because Bible says so. Is this the only argument you could come up with?

PointOfViewGun,

And here was me thinking that the Jews actually had the first portion of the Bible long before when Jesus told their leaders that they didn't know the Scriptures and so were in great error. The second part being a verification of all that He said during His ministry thus completing what God our Saviour had to say in writing. To some it is the dead letter yet to others it is the living word of God as if He Himself had written it.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

And here was me thinking that the Jews actually had the first portion of the Bible long before when Jesus told their leaders that they didn't know the Scriptures and so were in great error. The second part being a verification of all that He said during His ministry thus completing what God our Saviour had to say in writing. To some it is the dead letter yet to others it is the living word of God as if He Himself had written it.

So, you're saying that the Bible that the Council of Nicaea decided on was 100% accurately what Jesus uttered? That priests at Council of Nicaea did not pick and choose what to include and what to exclude. In Christianity, it was not god that decided Jesus was god but humans.

You also seem to be avoiding trying to substantiate your claim that there is no god if the Bible is not true. This was a preposterous claim to make. You should be able to provide an even slightly logical argument to that. Clearly, what we have here is your own belief being presented as facts.

[basics]

So, you're saying that the Bible that the Council of Nicaea decided on was 100% accurately what Jesus uttered? That priests at Council of Nicaea did not pick and choose what to include and what to exclude. In Christianity, it was not god that decided Jesus was god but humans.

You also seem to be avoiding trying to substantiate your claim that there is no god if the Bible is not true. This was a preposterous claim to make. You should be able to provide an even slightly logical argument to that. Clearly, what we have here is your own belief being presented as facts.

PointOfViewGun,

Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that cometh from the mouth of God so where and what is that word? That word is the Bible part 1 which Jesus firmly acclaimed. Part 2 affirms His claim by citing His continual battle with the religious leaders of the time but most importantly His death and resurrection at Golgotha. When we get to Nicaea we find the same old arguments about Who Jesus was/is. The Reformation put an end to the nonsense that Constantine's meddling began. The Bible is the finished word of God.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that cometh from the mouth of God so where and what is that word? That word is the Bible part 1 which Jesus firmly acclaimed. Part 2 affirms His claim by citing His continual battle with the religious leaders of the time but most importantly His death and resurrection at Golgotha. When we get to Nicaea we find the same old arguments about Who Jesus was/is. The Reformation put an end to the nonsense that Constantine's meddling began. The Bible is the finished word of God.

Avoiding substantiating your claim that there is no god if the Bible is not true. I find it blasphemous to make such a claim and then run away from substantiating it the slightest.

Are you now claiming that any and all ideas rejected by the priests at Council of Nicaea were creations of Constantine? You're confusing the issue as well. The issue at Council of Nicaea was not whether simply Jesus was something contrary to what he said. The issue was whether Jesus said those things at all. You're basically taking one theory as granted and trying to judge any other theory solely based on that theory. Of course you're gonna think that you're right. You have no real compass to find the truth. No, Jesus isn't your compass here, ignoring substance is.

[Common Soldier]

It is a common false belief that the Council of Nicea was about what books of the bible should be included in the Canon and be considered the official word of God.

The Council of Nicea did try to determine the nature of Jesus, but it was a matter of interpreting writings that everyone agreed on. Even today people can read the exact same passages of scripture and come to different conclusions about the nature of Jesus and God. Constantine did not create the differences between Christians and what he believed, and his accused "meddling" did not create the problem of conflict between different doctrines. He did try to produce uniformity among Christians among 5heir beliefs and practices, but he left.it to the Christians themselves to work out the issues, merely lending his support to what the majority decided.

[swabian]

It I a common false belief that the Council of Nicea was about what books of the bible should be included in the Canon and be considered the official word of God.

The Council of Nicea did try to determine the nature of Jesus, but it was a matter of interpreting writings that everyone agreed on. Even today people can read the exact same passages of scripture and come to different conclusions about the nature of Jesus and God. Constantine did not create the differences between Christians and what he believed, and his accused "meddling" did not create the problem of conflict between different doctrines. He did try to produce uniformity among Christians among 5heir beliefs and practices, but he left.it to the Christians themselves to work out the issues, merely lending his support to what the majority decided.

That's actually the spirit.

Jesus was simply a Hewbrew or Aramaic rebel against the Roman opression. So to speak (in a modern perspective) he was a Semitic nationalist of some sort. Paulus was originally all for oppressing the Semitic uprising, but was fascinated with Jesus and unable to get detatched from him and his rebellious views. So what Paulus did was to adopt the teachings of Jesus (who simply was a clever and brave Jew, basically) and to turn it into something that can be applied to every society. Paulus didn't really care about the real Jesus, he basically stole everything the Jew had to say and turned it into some magical cult. And the result is that the Romans went crazy for it and spread it all over their empire.

Why did the Romans go crazy for it? Well, nobody really knows. My guess is that early Christianity was very popular among the lower classes who identified very strongly with the fate of Jesus of Nazerath and his followers. They saw how Christians were treated in the arenas, etc. Also there might have been a component to Paulus' interpretation of it all that had an effect that was somewhat comparable to socialism in modern times. The ancient world was very cruel and slavery was everywhere. There was also no society that allowed for ascention on the social ladder through education. Many Roman slaves were possibly quite educated; even more so than their owners.

So all of this probably resulted in a pissed lower class that was increasingly aware of how cruelly they were actually treated. And since the Romans were always opportunistic and cowardly vaginas, they simply one day declared that Christianity is now the rule and they felt very clever about it in their naive idiocy. Which is why we have to deal with this nonsense today.

[Common Soldier]

That's actually the spirit.
O
Jesus was simply a Hewbrew or Aramaic rebel against the Roman opression. So to speak (in a modern perspective) he was a Semitic nationalist of some sort. Paulus was originally all for oppressing the Semitic uprising, but was fascinated with Jesus and unable to get detatched from him and his rebellious views. So what Paulus did was to adopt the teachings of Jesus (who simply was a clever and brave Jew, basically) and to turn it into something that can be applied to every society. Paulus didn't really care about the real Jesus, he basically stole everything the Jew had to say and turned it into some magical cult. And the result is that the Romans went crazy for it and spread it all over their empire.

Not really. If you read the NT gospels, which are our primary source on Jesus, Jesus repeatedly shows he was not some nationalist New pushing a nationalistic agenda as some modern scholars try to claim. If your opinions are based on Reza, 5he man does not know what he is talking about, and he is not 5ye expert he claims to be

Jesus was a first century apocalypictic Jew. They believe that the his current world was evil, not just the Romans but everyone, and that God himself was going to come soon to completely destroy the existing world order.

To the apocalyptic Jews the Romans were no worse than anybody else, and they were merely a symptom of the evil the times, not the cause. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have a good idea of what apocalyptic Jews like Jesus thought Reza's Jesus rhe Zealot is flat wrong. Apocalyptic Jews didn't care whonruled, since God was going to come soon and destroy everything anyways. It would be like worrying about corruptionnij city hall when you know the city is going to be completely destroyed in a few weeks.

Why did the Romans go crazy for it? Well, nobody really knows. My guess is that early Christianity was very popular among the lower classes who identified very strongly with the fate of Jesus of Nazerath and his followers. They saw how Christians were treated in the arenas, etc. Also there might have been a component to Paulus' interpretation of it all that had an effect that was somewhat comparable to socialism in modern times. The ancient world was very cruel and slavery was everywhere. There was also no society that allowed for ascention on the social ladder through education. Many Roman slaves were possibly quite educated; even more so than their owners.

To someone at the bottom of the Roman social ladder, life sucked, and a promise of a better life would have been very appealing to those who otherwise had no hope.

And to someone of w Roman background, the courage of the martyrs would have been something they would admire, even if they thought the Christians were fools. The Romans always admired courage, and the Christians who were will to sacrifice their lives were courageous.

So all of this probably resulted in a pissed lower class that was increasingly aware of how cruelly they were actually treated. And since the Romans were always opportunistic and cowardly vaginas, they simply one day declared that Christianity is now the rule and they felt very clever about it in their naive idiocy. Which is why we have to deal with this nonsense today.

The Romans had many flaws, but bring cowardly was not one of them. As conditions in the empire declined, especially in the 3rd century CE, people would have lost faith in this world, and a future better world Christianity offered would seem attractive, even to the elites. Julian tried in vain to ressurect the old pagan culture, no one was interested.

As for nonsense, it was not the Muslims, Indians, or Chinese society that sailed around the world, or successfully predicted the return of a comet, or landed on the moon. The modern university used throughout the world was a creation of the Church, and it was Christianity that took some of the more backwards parts of the world like Germany in ancient times and made those same areas the most advanced in the world today.

[swabian]

Germany in ancient times and made those same areas the most advanced in the world today.

I'm not really answering, just swiftly throwing in something: the ancient Germans and Celts were absolutely horrible (human sacrifices and superstition). Nobody wants that crap back for sure.

[basics]

Avoiding substantiating your claim that there is no god if the Bible is not true. I find it blasphemous to make such a claim and then run away from substantiating it the slightest.

Are you now claiming that any and all ideas rejected by the priests at Council of Nicaea were creations of Constantine? You're confusing the issue as well. The issue at Council of Nicaea was not whether simply Jesus was something contrary to what he said. The issue was whether Jesus said those things at all. You're basically taking one theory as granted and trying to judge any other theory solely based on that theory. Of course you're gonna think that you're right. You have no real compass to find the truth. No, Jesus isn't your compass here, ignoring substance is.

PointOfViewGun,

The substance is that once I was a sinner whom after some forty years God revealed Jesus Christ to me, put me on my knees and converted me. It all started with dreams and visions before and after that night in question after me finding a Bible in a newly built house in which there had been no other occupant but me. After my conversion I still didn't know that Jesus was/is God that coming by me reading the Scriptures but I knew from experience that He did die for me on that cross because I was taken back in time to witness Him in His dying throes. I quivered in fear during that seven odd hours at seeing Him on that cross waking up covered from head to toe in sweat. I cried like a baby whenever I tried to tell anyone about it because the figure I saw was not the usual picture that artists down through the ages have painted. Covered in blood, sweat and dirt I only recognised Him when His head rose up and I saw His mouth cry out something I didn't hear but yet went over and past me in the darkness. It was as I cringed back in fear that I woke up drenched in sweat.

Since that time I have poured over the Scriptures in particular the ones concerning the crucifixion and have found nothing that descibes other than what I was taken to see. Indeed John 3-16 sums it all up " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." That's the substance for all mankind to ponder and act on. The choice is yours. Seek Him in earnest and He will do the rest.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

The substance is that once I was a sinner whom after some forty years God revealed Jesus Christ to me, put me on my knees and converted me. It all started with dreams and visions before and after that night in question after me finding a Bible in a newly built house in which there had been no other occupant but me. After my conversion I still didn't know that Jesus was/is God that coming by me reading the Scriptures but I knew from experience that He did die for me on that cross because I was taken back in time to witness Him in His dying throes. I quivered in fear during that seven odd hours at seeing Him on that cross waking up covered from head to toe in sweat. I cried like a baby whenever I tried to tell anyone about it because the figure I saw was not the usual picture that artists down through the ages have painted. Covered in blood, sweat and dirt I only recognised Him when His head rose up and I saw His mouth cry out something I didn't hear but yet went over and past me in the darkness. It was as I cringed back in fear that I woke up drenched in sweat.

Since that time I have poured over the Scriptures in particular the ones concerning the crucifixion and have found nothing that descibes other than what I was taken to see. Indeed John 3-16 sums it all up " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." That's the substance for all mankind to ponder and act on. The choice is yours. Seek Him in earnest and He will do the rest.

One night Jesus visited me as I was playing Rome II. "Yo" he said looking at my screen above my shoulder. "Nice kingdom" he continued, "wanna see mine?" "Yes, yes I do" I said in a trembling voice. I was shaking in fear. How could he be there? He sat across me, opening a Blue Moon bottle with the wave of his hand. He told me a story that night, of how he visits random people to play games making them believe random stuff. Apparently, he finished everything on Hulu and Netflix and wanted a little fun. He was hilarious. I can't even remember at what point I slept but I found myself in my bed in the morning sleeping like a baby. True story. God bless...

Sigh... I did not ask for you to preach. You made tangible claims and now you're cooking up intangible stories to run away from substantiating those claims. Regardless of whether Christianity is the way or not your argumentation here is not the way of Jesus in any shape or form.

[Gromovnik]

I love confession threads! OK, so this one time, I went to Mexico and I was a really bad boy there, so I ended up in a prison. Needless to say, I was touched by Jesus.

[basics]

One night Jesus visited me as I was playing Rome II. "Yo" he said looking at my screen above my shoulder. "Nice kingdom" he continued, "wanna see mine?" "Yes, yes I do" I said in a trembling voice. I was shaking in fear. How could he be there? He sat across me, opening a Blue Moon bottle with the wave of his hand. He told me a story that night, of how he visits random people to play games making them believe random stuff. Apparently, he finished everything on Hulu and Netflix and wanted a little fun. He was hilarious. I can't even remember at what point I slept but I found myself in my bed in the morning sleeping like a baby. True story. God bless...

Sigh... I did not ask for you to preach. You made tangible claims and now you're cooking up intangible stories to run away from substantiating those claims. Regardless of whether Christianity is the way or not your argumentation here is not the way of Jesus in any shape or form.

PointOfViewGun,

I wasn't preaching, rather telling you what really happened to me that night. Nothing about it was cooked up. Not the way of Jesus in any shape or form you say and yet His word says that men will see visions and dreams about Him. Have a look at Youtube and see the number of people that have seen Jesus in those circumstances and been converted.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

I wasn't preaching, rather telling you what really happened to me that night. Nothing about it was cooked up. Not the way of Jesus in any shape or form you say and yet His word says that men will see visions and dreams about Him. Have a look at Youtube and see the number of people that have seen Jesus in those circumstances and been converted.

Which has absolutely no relevance to what we were actually discussing. Why you whore around Jesus like that to deflect from substantiating your arguments is beyond me.

[Gromovnik]

Dreaming about something doesn't make it true.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

I am discussing the Bible being true to its wording by my own experiences as well as that of many others so whether you believe me or not is your problem for it doesn't affect me in any way.

Gromovnik,

In this case it turned out to be true because Jesus did suffer an horrific death on a cross just outside Jerusalem and for whatever reason God wanted me to see it which I did. I had never read anything about the details of His death yet when I did it was just as the Bible said by the prophets many years before it happened. Another dream I had was of me opening the doors of a hospital ward to see my little daughter in her crib, her mother in a bed beside her. I wasn't married at that point, being two years divorced. Eight years later I did walk into a ward just as in my dream to see my little girl lying in her crib some twelve hours old. It was the most wonderful experience for me as I had only produced sons and never thought a little girl would be mine.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

I am discussing the Bible being true to its wording by my own experiences as well as that of many others so whether you believe me or not is your problem for it doesn't affect me in any way.

There are over 1 billion people who might believe Bible is true, and there are about 6 billion people who believes otherwise. You and other people's experience means nothing. You're claiming your opinion as a fact while being unable to demonstrate its validity.

[basics]

There are over 1 billion people who might believe Bible is true, and there are about 6 billion people who believes otherwise. You and other people's experience means nothing. You're claiming your opinion as a fact while being unable to demonstrate its validity.

PointOfViewGun,

Jesus did say that the path to salvation is so narrow that few ever get in so that puts clearance to the disparity. That said, today we are seeing people coming to Him from areas not thought of before but then that is the Power of our God.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,

Jesus did say that the path to salvation is so narrow that few ever get in so that puts clearance to the disparity. That said, today we are seeing people coming to Him from areas not thought of before but then that is the Power of our God.

Faith is no faith if you try to deflect simple examination of it like the way you do.

[Sir Adrian]

There are over 1 billion people who might believe Bible is true, and there are about 6 billion people who believes otherwise. You and other people's experience means nothing. You're claiming your opinion as a fact while being unable to demonstrate its validity.

"Your point of view is invalid because 6 times more people do not share it" is a non-argument if I ever saw one.

[PointOfViewGun]

"Your point of view is invalid because 6 times more people do not share it" is a non-argument if I ever saw one.

"Your point of view on making validity based on popularity is invalid because the popularity you bank on doesn't ring true." Context matters...