sapphi_snake said:
@quigontcb:
1)There is plenty of history in scripture. True, it should not be taken in and of itself to be an authoratative document that is beyong scrutiny for scholars of history. I dont see why the history contained in books fo the Bible should be completely dismissed, while the writings of some scribe who worked for or under a conquering king or general are acceptable for inclusion.
There is very little actual "history" in the Bible. Most of it is mythological mombo jombo. Those scribes you mentioned are better sources.
The people who wrote Christian scriptures, as you say, would not want to elevate Jesus to deity status, unless you are saying that they did not believe he was some sort of deity.
They probably wanted to believe he was a deity (the same way the followers of any such figure want to believe). People like this often make up stuff in order to elevate certain individuals and make them seem greater than they were (it's also true when you read stories about how great kings were). The point os creating a mythical figure (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed etc.). After all, you'd be a real hypocrite to say that their followers made up all the supernatural things about the Buddha or about Mohammed, yet everything that was said about Jesus by his followers was true (it's pretty obvious it's not).
3)You're speaking with an awful lot of authority there. It's not what you think, it's simply an undeniable truth? On what grounds can you claim, that without a shadow of a doubt, all prophecies are false? Would you be operating on an assumption, on faith in an idea? That puts you on the same level as anyone who believes in a creator; both operating on faith, just faith in different concepts, theories, and ideas.
Show me a prophecy that came true (note it has to be a prophecy that gives clear detailes, not riddles, and is not one that can become self-fulfilled). I dare you!
|
