|
>>The bible is a collection of sources, there is more than one >>source there. It is the definitive collection because many >of >>the other accounts were destroyed... > >Those sources are not objective at all.
Yup.
>Maybe those books didn't make it in, because the MAN/MEN who >commissioned the whole project, didn't like how those books >were written.
No one commisioned it. It was probably a collection of oral histories, written down...
he had the power to do that since he hired the >writers in the first place....
So no one was hired to write it (except for scribes who commited the physical act...)
>>Personally, whilst Jesus may not have been the son of God (I >>dont believe that...), he probably existed as a person. I >mean >>why not. > >An Agenda?
The agenda made him more than just the illegitimate son of a carpenter. There probably was a charismatic Jewish man at that time who led people his name could easily have been Jesus...
> >> >>Now you PROVE he didnt exist. > >C'mon mayne... > >First, the burden of proof is definitely not on me. I'm not >tryna convert tsunami victims to 'Mau777ism'.
Im not trying to convert anyone to Christianity. Im saying, that a man called Jesus could have existed...
>Second, i'll give you a minute to think about, "prove he >didn't exist", hoping you can see the obvious lapse in logic. > > >The fact is, there is no proof >>either way because many of these stories are so >metaphorical, >>garbled and messed up over the course of time as to be >>basically fictional anyway... > >No, there's just no proof. >
I know, I just said that....
Im tempted to sift through Roman documents from the time and see who led uprisings...
"This isnt an argument, you are just contradicting everything Im saying"
"No Im not" ****************** "Dont open your mind too much or your brain will fall out"
******************************
Its 2005, where's my hoverboard and jetpack?
|