Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Were Adam and Eve merely fictional persons?
105 Answers
The Genesis account in the Bible tells us Adam was the first human creature and Eve, the first woman was his wife.
Answers
As it has often been said: “Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it.” Many politicians appear to agree with this, and, in the minds of many, politics is closely associated with lying.
So the event...
So the event...
16:11 Wed 17th Aug 2011
Butterflies61, your comparisons are quite hopelessly flawed. I believe in the historical figures you mention (and many others) because we have masses of evidence in support of their existence. In many cases they wrote about themselves; the writings of eye-and ear-witnesses are available to us; there is plenty of evidence on the ground in the form of buildings, paintings, battlefield sites, statues and so on.
None of this exists in Jesus' case. He wrote nothing; there is no sign of his existence during the time when he was supposed to be alive; there are no first-hand accounts of anything he said or did. He was first mentioned (by Paul who had never met him)) a generation after his supposed death; the stories of part of his life were written in the latter third of the 1st Century by four anonymous people who had never met him either and had nothing to base their accounts on. To compare Jesus with historical figures is absurd.
Your comparison of evolution with creationism is risible. Evolution was a very plausible theory when it was first mooted and has since been supported by masses of evidence over more than a century and a half with not one tiny piece of evidence counting against it. The Judaeo/Christian creation myth (one of a great number across the world's religions) is just a story written by some unknown Jew who claims, for a start, that the earth existed a least three days before the rest of the universe, and follows that with more and even dafter ideas.
Best to stick to your faith and not try to justify it with reason. You haven't a hope.
None of this exists in Jesus' case. He wrote nothing; there is no sign of his existence during the time when he was supposed to be alive; there are no first-hand accounts of anything he said or did. He was first mentioned (by Paul who had never met him)) a generation after his supposed death; the stories of part of his life were written in the latter third of the 1st Century by four anonymous people who had never met him either and had nothing to base their accounts on. To compare Jesus with historical figures is absurd.
Your comparison of evolution with creationism is risible. Evolution was a very plausible theory when it was first mooted and has since been supported by masses of evidence over more than a century and a half with not one tiny piece of evidence counting against it. The Judaeo/Christian creation myth (one of a great number across the world's religions) is just a story written by some unknown Jew who claims, for a start, that the earth existed a least three days before the rest of the universe, and follows that with more and even dafter ideas.
Best to stick to your faith and not try to justify it with reason. You haven't a hope.
Chakka35: I assume you are intelligent. B ut obviously with regard to the Bible you are not. Yes there were eye witness accounts and written by those witnesses. Matthew, Mark, and John were all with Jesus. John was a cousin of Jesus. True Paul did not meet Jesus personally, but he did hear him. Do you know the account of Thomas? Many people refer to it as Doubting Thomas. But Jesus words to him were, "You who have seen believe, but for those who have not seen but believe are blessed"|
Where are these eye-witness accounts!?!?
You are obviously privvy to some information denied to the rest of the world.
At best, the bible is a compendium of 'Chinese whispers' cobbled together centuries after the events it claims occured took place......at worst, it is a hand and cherry-picked collection of writings bound in one edition to reinforce the narrow viewpoint of an emerging theocracy.
You are obviously privvy to some information denied to the rest of the world.
At best, the bible is a compendium of 'Chinese whispers' cobbled together centuries after the events it claims occured took place......at worst, it is a hand and cherry-picked collection of writings bound in one edition to reinforce the narrow viewpoint of an emerging theocracy.
Butterflies61 - once again a Christian shows appalling ignorance of the origins of the New Testament. To say that Matthew, Mark and John were "with Jesus" is nonsense. They are names given quite arbitrarily to four of the three totally anonymous gospels late in the 2nd Century.
Any assumption by you that the evangelists "Matthew" and "John" were the disciples of that name indicates that you don't know the chronology of the matter.
"Matthew" was written about AD85-90 when any contemporary of Jesus would have been in his dotage (more probably dead). Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence to link the two, why would an eye-witness wait until after three people that no knowledgeable person claims were eye-witnesses (Paul, "Mark" and "Luke") had given their stories? And why would he copy whole chunks verbatim from the earlier "Mark"?
The same in spades goes for the apostle John and the gospel "John", which was written somewhere between AD90 and AD120. In that case we would have to assume that a horny-handed Galileean fisherman, whose native tongue was Aramaic, suddenly, nearly a century later, wrote in elegant Greek a gospel full of mysticism and Hellenism.
We don't know who wrote the gospels; I wish we did.
I suggest you read a few books about the structure of the NT and a few more about evolution - two subjects about which you plainly know little but are nevertheless happy to pontificate on.
Any assumption by you that the evangelists "Matthew" and "John" were the disciples of that name indicates that you don't know the chronology of the matter.
"Matthew" was written about AD85-90 when any contemporary of Jesus would have been in his dotage (more probably dead). Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence to link the two, why would an eye-witness wait until after three people that no knowledgeable person claims were eye-witnesses (Paul, "Mark" and "Luke") had given their stories? And why would he copy whole chunks verbatim from the earlier "Mark"?
The same in spades goes for the apostle John and the gospel "John", which was written somewhere between AD90 and AD120. In that case we would have to assume that a horny-handed Galileean fisherman, whose native tongue was Aramaic, suddenly, nearly a century later, wrote in elegant Greek a gospel full of mysticism and Hellenism.
We don't know who wrote the gospels; I wish we did.
I suggest you read a few books about the structure of the NT and a few more about evolution - two subjects about which you plainly know little but are nevertheless happy to pontificate on.
I am a student of the Bible, and especially the New Testament (or Greek Scriptures)
With regard to the Gospel of Matthew
Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 24:16).
Matthew, by the way, was the Tax Collector called by Jesus to be a disciple.
As for John -
He was the son of Zebedee and Salome (compare Mt 27:55, 56; Mr 15:40) and brother of the apostle James—likely James’ younger brother, as James is usually named first where both are mentioned. Zebedee married Salome of the house of David, the natural sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.
With regard to the Gospel of Matthew
Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew’s Gospel in numerous manuscripts (all being later than the tenth century C.E.), say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy respecting Jerusalem’s destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. (Mt 24:16).
Matthew, by the way, was the Tax Collector called by Jesus to be a disciple.
As for John -
He was the son of Zebedee and Salome (compare Mt 27:55, 56; Mr 15:40) and brother of the apostle James—likely James’ younger brother, as James is usually named first where both are mentioned. Zebedee married Salome of the house of David, the natural sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.
Lilith might be in the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.o...h#Lilith_in_the_Bible
Adam insisted on the missionary position in sex; Lilith thought this was demeaning to women, and left him.
http://en.wikipedia.o...h#Lilith_in_the_Bible
Adam insisted on the missionary position in sex; Lilith thought this was demeaning to women, and left him.
Truthabounds - we know that Levi (later called Matthew), the tax-collector or publican, was one of Jesus' alleged disciples. What I was talking about was the third anonymous gospel to be written which, about a century later, was given the name of "Matthew". The consensus of scholarship is that it was written sometime around AD85-90. In any case, there is no connection between it and the supposed life of Jesus.
We know about the disciple John as well. What has that got to do with the anonymous gospel later called "John"?
You are spreading a smokescreen for some reason or other.
We know about the disciple John as well. What has that got to do with the anonymous gospel later called "John"?
You are spreading a smokescreen for some reason or other.
Truthabounds - you had better give us the source of your extraordinary claims, unique to you by my knowledge. Also you might like to explain - just for a start - how a Galilean fisherman, almost certainly illiterate, came to write that erudite gospel, whatever its date is. And why it remained anonymous for a century or so until somebody decided to call it by the very common name of "John".
It would be a good idea for you to look at facts rather than peddle dogma.
It would be a good idea for you to look at facts rather than peddle dogma.
Who said they were illiterate? The Jews were a well educated people, they knew how to read and write. One of their commands was to read law. Just because they were fishermen did not mean they were uneducated. Actually, John came from a fairly successful business. His father owned a number of boats. It is obvious to me that you are not so well informed about the scriptures and Bible writers as you claim!! As mentioned earlier, I have studied the Bible for many years, attending a Theocractic school. Also, the writings were never anonymous. They have always been accredited to the writers. Where on earth do you get your erronous information? I admit to not be into science and all its intricate facets, but I am certainly uptodate and well informed on matters relating to the Bible!!
Truthabounds - I'm afraid it is your knowledge which is awry - possibly because you went to a theocratic school. My knowledge has been obtained purely objectively.
Anyway, as always the test is in thhe evidence. So just two questions for now:
1.How do you know that the apostle John's father owned a number of boats?
2.Where is your evidence that the four gospels had always been known by those names? Gosh, if you can answer that satisfactorily you'll have overturned much NT scholarship.
There are lots more, but they will do for now.
Anyway, as always the test is in thhe evidence. So just two questions for now:
1.How do you know that the apostle John's father owned a number of boats?
2.Where is your evidence that the four gospels had always been known by those names? Gosh, if you can answer that satisfactorily you'll have overturned much NT scholarship.
There are lots more, but they will do for now.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Football6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.