Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[Bono]

Nope, the bible talks about a one world government at the end of times and it also says every nation will rise up against Israel. I don't see the USA doing that anytime soon.

Only if you look at the Bible with dispensationalist glasses.

[Bono]

Believing in the second coming, the rapture, or whatever one wishs to call it is a mental disorder.  Why? Because there is no such thing.  To believe in something that does not exist is a mental disorder.  It is to say that Jesus rose from the dead when in fact, dead people don't rise from the dead.  This is not to say that Jesus did not exist, because he did, and he was a wonderful man.  However, the "story" that he rose from the dead is only a story because, as I already stated, dead people don't rise.  He will also not return because dead people don't return.  Think about it for a minute,  can you really start to imagine all of this supernatural stuff starting to happen.  Do you also believe in ghosts?  If you do, would you go around telling people?  What is the difference between saying that you believe in ghosts and/or telling people that a dead man is going to return, spread fire all over and take those who, for some reason, can proove that they are faithful and go to Heaven.

A friend of mine says that he hopes that the rapture is for real.  He says that if all of the right wing Christian conservative Republicans get taken to Heaven (if if fact, that is where those people end up going), than the rest of us can finally get something done.

Of course something that hasn't happened yet "doesn't exist".
As for everrything else, you've provided a lot of hot air and no intelligent argument.

[Bono]

As for everrything else, you've provided a lot of hot hair

Bono, please take your flirting elsewhere.  This is a place for serious arguments.

*mumble grumble*

[Bono]

Being wrong is NOT a mental disorder,  believing in something that does not exist is an issue.  If you knew somebody who said that he saw the tooth ferry and insisted that it was true, would you or would you not say that he is dillusional?  The only reason a story such as the second coming is taken seriously is because millions of people believe in it giving it legitimacy in the minds of many.  Few if any believe in the tooth ferry, therefor we consider that person disturbed.  In reality, there is no difference between the two.

Tooth ferry? Does that carry teeth across the English Canal?
Anyways, that is all offered absolutely proof free, as if it was the most obvious thing in the world. Since there is no argument there, it's not possible to refute it, which is why you frame it that way.

That is the famous argument from craziness

   1. I would have to go crazy to believe in God.
   2. I am not crazy.
   3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist


This has one permise that is alwyas false, and another whch normally isn't, but seems to be in your case, and on top of that is also logically wrong.

[Bono]

English "Canel"  now we are even in the spelling wars.

Canel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Canal

Anyways, you provided no rebuttal to my argument.

[Bono]

As if any of that actually happened.  Accession into heaven while angles danced around him and dudes in white, and on and on.  Makes for a good movie,  but face it, that's a story.   Jesus died a violent death due to his liberal views toward humanity which were wonderful views even if they were filled with the supernatural.  His followers told the story over and over.  It got bigger and bigger.  After time went by, there was all of this wild stuff about rising from the dead, etc, etc.

English "Canel"  now we are even in the spelling wars.

No proof.

[Bono]

No proof.

Of course, those who assert that the Biblical account is 100% accurate have roughly equal proof.

The only people who are not required to give any are the smart ones who simply assert that we don't know.

You are misinterpreting me. I am not asserting that there is no proof for his assertions--not that there could be, because his assertions are merely that he finds it funny--but that he didn't present any. I cannot refute an argument that doesn't exist, because nothing is being argued, he is just saying things absolutely proof-free.

And actually, if that statement if merely personal, e.g. "I don't know", I agree that no proof is necesary. However, if the statement is categorical, e.g. "We can't know", then proof is required of just why can't "we" know.

[Bono]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Well, that is what an historian 2000 years in the future would have to believe, unless there was contradictory records. If there is a problem, it's not with christianity, but with the method of history.

Did you know that we only have one biography of Mohammed, written 212 years after his death, which used a source from about 100 years after his death, and yet "the historical scepticism of critical European scholarship is substantially less" where Muhammed is concerned! Are you going to put into doubt the records of the activities of Mohammed too? Perhaps in a while, you'll be arguing that we cannot know anything about what happened before we were born.

[Bono]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Well, that is what an historian 2000 years in the future would have to believe, unless there was contradictory records. If there is a problem, it's not with christianity, but with the method of history.

Did you know that we only have one biography of Mohammed, written 212 years after his death, which used a source from about 100 years after his death, and yet "the historical scepticism of critical European scholarship is substantially less" where Muhammed is concerned! Are you going to put into doubt the records of the activities of Mohammed too? Perhaps in a while, you'll be arguing that we cannot know anything about what happened before we were born.

I'm well aware of the issues surrounding historical accuracy, and the verification thereof.  The problem is that I simply cannot believe in the accuracy of an account of any event that is simply unbelievable.  Hence my anecdotal example.

Maybe you need to revise your presupositions.

[Bono]

Why?  Is it such a terrible thing that I disbelieve the Biblical accounts of miracles and such for the same reason that I would disbelieve the 'account' of my own physical feat?

The problem with your pressuposition is that you disregard supernatural events a priori, and thus even if you are presented with evidence for a supernatural event, you can never consider it unbiasedly because your pressupositions exclude them a priori. However, that pressuposition is completely arbitrary.

[Bono]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Actually thats a good example. If people followed the 'Almighty Joe' in his lifetime and after his death they would collect as much information about him. Much of that would be lost or change hands or be edited throughout the years or would be collected by people who had never met him, including that scrap of paper, into a book. The people would then say Joe ran a mile a minute. Anything to the contrary would be deemed as heresy and any references to his disability would be destroyed.

In two thousand years people would no doubt say that Joe existed and have evidence for his existance, but certain people would say it was physically impossible at the time (who knows about the future) to run a mile a minute yet still believe in the Almighty Joe while other would insist to their dying breath that Joe did what he or others said he did.

There is no evidence for said editing. All copies we have of new Testament Texts say the same, except for three small passages (1 John 5:7-8; John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20). All you have left is appeal to conspiracy theory.

[Bono]

I've just written down on a piece of paper that I just ran five miles in under five minutes.  This is surely a miracle of epic proportions, especially since I'm disabled.  Perhaps if this piece of paper survives for two thousand years, people living then will believe it to be true.

Actually thats a good example. If people followed the 'Almighty Joe' in his lifetime and after his death they would collect as much information about him. Much of that would be lost or change hands or be edited throughout the years or would be collected by people who had never met him, including that scrap of paper, into a book. The people would then say Joe ran a mile a minute. Anything to the contrary would be deemed as heresy and any references to his disability would be destroyed.

In two thousand years people would no doubt say that Joe existed and have evidence for his existance, but certain people would say it was physically impossible at the time (who knows about the future) to run a mile a minute yet still believe in the Almighty Joe while other would insist to their dying breath that Joe did what he or others said he did.

There is no evidence for said editing. All copies we have of new Testament Texts say the same, except for three small passages (1 John 5:7-8; John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20). All you have left is appeal to conspiracy theory.

Actually there is considerable historiographial evidence that there has been editing, both of the greek text and of course examples of papal edicts resulting in changes in translation alongside numerous existing and losts texts that never made the 'final cut' so to speak of the NT. And it is ludicrous and historically false to suggest otherwise (I have earned a qualification in historiography from a biblical context this gained at Jesuit college so I'm not saying this for the sake of argument!)

What is that evidence. Sources please?
Changes in translation only affect exactly that--the translation. Since we have the original greek text for all the books of the New Testament, I don't see how that is a problem.
As for the "lost books of the Bible", they were either complete trash or redundant.

EDIT: Before that, let me provide some sources of my own.  Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page. Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold! Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text." Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John , with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value. Beyond that, he proclaims :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Moreland adds:

   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An encyclopedic treatment of this issue is presented by the team of Kurt and Barbara Aland, who provide statistics as to both the percentage of variant free verses among the seven major editions of the Greek NT, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors). It is helpful to look at these:

Book---% of variant-free verses---# of variants per page

    * Matthew 59.9 / 6.8
    * Mark 45.1 / 10.3
    * Luke 57.2 / 6.9
    * John 51.8 / 8.5
    * Acts 67.3 / 4.2
    * Romans 75.5 / 2.9
    * 1 Corinthians 75.7 / 3.5
    * 2 Corinthians 78.1 / 2.8
    * Galatians 76.5 / 3.3
    * Ephesians 76.1 / 2.9
    * Philippians 70.2 / 2.5
    * Colossians 72.6 / 3.4
    * 1 Thess. 68.5 / 4.1
    * 2 Thess. 72.3 / 3.1
    * 1 Timothy 81.4 / 2.9
    * 2 Timothy 79.5 / 2.8
    * Titus 71.7 / 2.3
    * Philemon 76.0 / 5.1
    * Hebrews 77.2 / 2.9
    * James 61.6 / 5.6
    * 1 Peter 66.6 / 5.7
    * 2 Peter 52.5 / 6.5
    * 1 John 72.4 / 2.8
    * 2 John 61.5 / 4.5
    * 3 John 73.3 / 3.2
    * Jude 72.0 / 4.2
    * Revelation 52.8 / 5.1

    Total 62.9 equals 4999/7947 verses

The agreement here is quite astonishing, considering that this is the combined result of seven different teams and/or persons over an extended period of time. That all 7 editions completely agree on close to two-thirds of the NT is a striking indication of how much confidence we may have in our present text. (Though not given, the next statistics would show agreements on 6 out of 7, 5 out of 7, etc. - and if the trend above is followed, we might well reach that 99% agreement before going too far down the ladder!)

[Bono]

What is that evidence. Sources please?

If you're looking for a long list of online texts then I don't have any, it's not where I get information from. Most of what I know of this subject and studied was within books which I would have re-locate to give the correct source (and since I used about 20 seperate books for my examination essay on this it might take some time!)

Secondly, you cannot assume that the books not contained within the NT are 'trash'- the collected NT, as in terms of the collection of books chosen, is very much the hand of Constantine (who also gave us the 25th Dec as the Birth of Christ) The hierarchy of the church and of it's relationship with the state is also very much down to Constantine and his desire to strengthen his own personal power through what was little more than an extension of imperial tradition; the promotion of the faith of the emperor whatever that may be at any given time. He then proceeded to 'gut' the 600 or so books that composed the bible at the time to less than a hundred then down towards 80 (or 66 in the Authorised KJB which purged books from the bible at the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618) So the Bible and the NT has been consistantly re-organised. That's about as short as I can keep things.

I am not "assuming". Here is a list of the books that were considered for inclusion but that were excluded. Tell me why any of these books should be given biblical authority:
Epistle of Barnabas
Shephard of Hermas
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
1 Clement
2 Clement
Preaching of Peter
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel According to the Egyptians
Gospel According to the Hebrews

For none of these books do we have evidence that they should have made the canon. In fact, even of the books that made it, seven were disputed given that whether they met the criteria for inclusion was disputed. As for the hand of constantine, while constantine did call for the council, he had no hand in the proceedings. Here is an essay explaining in more detail the canonnicity process and busting some of those myths.
Also, check my edit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a lie, pure and simple. Ever since the auspices of the Reformation, the Bible has been translated from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew text, and not from the Latin Vulgate--at least in the protestant publication world. Maybe things are different in the romanist church.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

Idolatry is a sin, like it or not. By having people worshipping God, wickedness is drastically reduced.
BTW, I will respond to your post above later.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

Well I just got done doing some grocery shopping and saw a tabloid. Do the "wickedness" math from there.

That just means wickedness is more visible, not that it is greater in quantity.

[Bono]

Well I wouldn't doubt it. The world is wicked enough for his return, much like Noah and his time.

What makes you think the world is more wicked today then it was, say, two hundred years ago? If anything, it's less, since the percentage of Christians to the total population is much greater than ever.

How does being Christian alone reduce 'wickedness'? Do the wicked actions of those who call themselves Christians have no relevance, you simply have to be part of the 'tribe' and thats okay no matter what you do, how you treat others or how many wars you wage?

That's just a silly question.  Do you even remember the Spanish Inquisition?  Those holier than thou saints were far less wicked than those crazy buddhists over in Asia.  Damn heathens.

How many people were involved in the Spanish Inquisiton? Thousands at best. How many budhists live in idolatry? Hundreds of millions.
Plus, there isn't any evidence that, even if we take only into account the duties toward man and leave out the duties towards God, the average Budhist is more or less moral than the average Christian.

[Bono]

I am saying the evidence is the following:

1) From the historical accuracy of all the places and leaders mentioned in the Book of Acts, it can be concluded, with a high degree of certainty…that the Book of Acts was written in the middle of the 1st Century.

2) No other activity, other than the teaching of something controversial (like a religion), could explain the situational accounts of the book of Acts…meaning, the places and descriptions of the Book of Acts were not borrowed from the diary of a fish monger, the Book of Acts was originally what it claims to be – an intentional record of the activities of the first generation of Christians.

3) The first generation of Christians actually believed what they taught, they had no alterative motives, for if they had alterative motives (profit, fame, etc), they would have fallen away in short order, they would not have endured loss of possessions, freedom, and life...they would not have endured what they endured.

Therefore, since the trail of Christianity leads directly to eyewitnesses living in the middle of the 1st Century who taught, without alterative motives, what they earnestly believed, there is no basis for a conspiracy.

The only basis for not believing the Gospel is the wonder of the story itself.

Since I am not asserting a conspiracy of any kind, you're going to an awful lot of trouble to disprove something that I haven't said.

People are capable of believing things to be true that aren't true in reality.  L. Ron Hubbard has successfully convinced thousands of people of the validity of Scientology.

Yes, people die all the time for things they believe to be true. however, no one dies for what they know to be a lie. All the apostles but one were maritred for their beliefs. They were the eyewitnesses. Even when under torture and impending execution, they never let that cat out of the bag. Why? Because that cat was never in the bag to begin with.

[Bono]

Yes, people die all the time for things they believe to be true. however, no one dies for what they know to be a lie. All the apostles but one were maritred for their beliefs. They were the eyewitnesses. Even when under torture and impending execution, they never let that cat out of the bag. Why? Because that cat was never in the bag to begin with.

I don't know why you two are trying to convince me that they did not purposefully lie, because I have never asserted that they did.

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition. Also, hallucinations don't eat, nor stick around for 40 days, nor appear separately to different people.

[Bono]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

But those people weren't eyewitnesses to any of the purported scientological events, while the Apostles were.

[Bono]

There are people who set themselves on fire because of their beliefs.  Doesn't mean they are right.  Just that they are unwavering in their beliefs.

Yes, I just said that above. Many people die for something they believe to be true. However, no one dies for what they know to be a lie.

[Bono]

Then what is your explanation? Hallucination? That won't work, because hallucinations require predisposition, and there was no predisposition.

I don't know; I don't know enough history of that time period surrounding Biblical events to form some sort of theory.  All I know is that "there were these people and they were really, really convinced that this is true" is not exactly conclusive evidence in favor of whatever it is.

Many people who believed in Scientology believed in it so much that they drew their bank accounts to zero and gave up their life savings for their belief.  This obviously isn't quite to the degree of getting tortured or killed, but it's a lot more than many people would do.  Doesn't make the belief any more or less correct.

But those people weren't eyewitnesses to any of the purported scientological events, while the Apostles were.

That wasn't my point.  The fact that they went through a lot of crap for their beliefs does not mean that their beliefs are more true.  It certainly makes it awfully likely that they felt that they were true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually true.

Do I know what they saw?  No.  Do I know why they were convinced of what they believed?  No.

None of this proves that what they believed was in fact the truth, however.

Well, there are only three possible alternatives. Either they made it up, which we covered, or they had an hallucination, which we also covered, or they were telling the truth. I don't see any other possible hypothesis, short of things like Jesus was really an alien or stuff like that.

[Bono]

No, what you did was argue modern TRANSLATION of the ancient Greek, not the EDITING of the original Greek text.

if you look back you will realise I said two things. The Bible has been 'edited' (a loose word to use I admit) 1. The books of the Bible have altered due to human choice; ie what books are considerd 'canon' and what are considered 'heretic' changed considerable right through to the Reformation.

Actually, none of the apocrypha was given full canon status widely until the council of trent, where the romanist church made them canon because it was using them against the reformation efforts. Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon. If anything, the books which are in canon present certain doubts, not the oposite.

[Bono]

Somehow I feel that those 25% have probably predicted the second coming of Jesus every single year since 2000 or so.

Since long before 2000. People have been believing the return of Christ was at hand since he left the first time.

I would've thought that you (a Jew) would've believed Christ never existed.

Probably was a person about 2000 years ago, although there is no way of knowing. Certainly don't believe any miracles or divinity associated with him. Generally amused at how twisted Jesus's words have been and continue to be convenienty twisted to suit political needs.

Well, there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty, given the natural limits of the historical method, but we have more than enough historical testimony for not having reasonable doubt.

[Bono]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

No, they were excluded because they didn't meet the criteria for canonicity,  namely because they were forgeries or lacked apostolic authority.