The Proof for Christ's Claims

[SSaxdude]

ok so jesus was born of a virgin. he lived a perfect sinless life and performed miracles. islam agrees no? then he was crucified. that is WIDELY accepted by even atheists.

Not quite. I saw an episode of Penn and Teller Bull$#@!! (they are atheists) about the bible and they were debating weither Jesus was real. They also mentioned that there were other accounts of "saviors" at the time of Jesus(but not mentioned in the bible.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth

This is pretty funny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ed_to_be_Jesus

[ICE]

""Jesus as myth" refers to the idea that the narrative of Jesus in the gospels may be considered as part of Christian mythology, and shows parallels to mystery religions of the Roman Empire such as Mithraism, and the myth of rebirth deities. Study of such elements is often, but not exclusively, associated with a skeptical position about the historicity of Jesus.

The theory was first proposed by historian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century, but is now supported by a small minority of scholars, often outside the historical discipline. Biblical scholars and historians of classical antiquity reject the thesis"

um yeah. supported by a small minority of scholars. thats from your own link..

[MasterMind]

umm the roman catholic church is not christian. i have explained this time and time again and im not doing it again. catholics added an entire new section to the bible so i prolly wouldnt listen to their opinion on the topic...

Concerning the KJV of Bible it scholars stated that they

"As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word." [The King James Version Defended pg. 216]

This distrust lead to the first major revision of the text of the KJV, this revision was done By Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, [Two of the original translators of the King James Version]. It was a attempt to correct the many errors of the original 1611 translation, This first major revision was the 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge. This revision was completed just eighteen years after the translation.

In this site it professors tell you KJV has defects....
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/d...in_the_kjv.htm

The original aramic is no where to be found. It was translated into sometime ago into Hebrew, Greek, and finally english.

[ICE]

Concerning the KJV of Bible it scholars stated that they

"As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word." [The King James Version Defended pg. 216]

who are you quoting? although its not like it matters anyways since we use the HEBREW BIBLE. ei the one before it was translated to english.

This distrust lead to the first major revision of the text of the KJV, this revision was done By Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, [Two of the original translators of the King James Version]. It was a attempt to correct the many errors of the original 1611 translation, This first major revision was the 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge. This revision was completed just eighteen years after the translation.

good thing we use the HEBREW BIBLE..

In this site it professors tell you KJV has defects....
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/d...in_the_kjv.htm

The original aramic is no where to be found. It was translated into sometime ago into Hebrew, Greek, and finally english.

um you do realize that site says CATHOLIC apologetics right?

[tactful mcbee]

Concerning the KJV of Bible it scholars stated that they

"As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word." [The King James Version Defended pg. 216]

This distrust lead to the first major revision of the text of the KJV, this revision was done By Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, [Two of the original translators of the King James Version]. It was a attempt to correct the many errors of the original 1611 translation, This first major revision was the 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge. This revision was completed just eighteen years after the translation.

In this site it professors tell you KJV has defects....
http://www.catholicapologetics.net/d...in_the_kjv.htm

The original aramic is no where to be found. It was translated into sometime ago into Hebrew, Greek, and finally english.

Translation is the interpretation of the meaning of a text in one language (the "source text") and the production, in another language, of an equivalent text (the "target text," or "translation") that communicates the same message.

the word translation tells you its not the perfect word. therefore we study aramic and hebrew.

Biblical Hebrew contains 22 letters, as noted in Psalm 119, all of which are consonants. The alphabet and language remained pure until the Babylonian exile in 587 BC, when spoken Hebrew came under the influence of other languages, particularly Aramaic. Aramaic became the prevailing language, or "lingua franca" of the entire Middle East from about 800 BC to 400 AD. Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic.

therefore get off the subject of translations because we use the original so your argument is pointless

[gdf]

hold on, going back a bit...how exactly is it scientifically possible that jesus was born of a virgin?

[bullhead]

Its just like that southpark episode. Y'know the one about cartmans mum? Smae principal...

[gdf]

mary was a hemaphrodite, i see....

[bullhead]

aye, thats the word. Silly me... thanks bro.

[tactful mcbee]

we believe God spoke everything into existence, every molecule, atom, particle. yet people can't seem to gather that God can not speak ONE Y CHROMOSOME into existence( by the way thats all that is required to produce a child in a woman).

irony is the word i'm looking for i believe. lol