Now i am a Atheist but that is a believe as i see the false image put on god in the bible, there is quite a few good theory's on the creation of the planet and/or universe, one being in the bible. another 1 being the big bang. now lets get down into the real business. now if you Didn't know At the time of the bible getting written(which was about 100-200 years after things haven taken place) during this time Virgin Meant Young Women, And Have you ever try telling a Secret to someone and it come back to you completely different? ya imagine that but over 100-200 years. anything to add, add it please. i like to listen to everyone side of the story. if i had any information wrong, please send me a Legit Link to where i can Obtain the Correct Information. I DID NOT EDIT THIS AT ALL I DON'T CARE IF I HAVE BAD SPELLING.
:2thumbsup: I'm not really sure what you're asking but you could possibly add that the books of the new testament were not written contemporary to Jesus (if I'm not mistaken). There have been books removed and added, translated and re-translated...but I think the original content remains intact...unfortunately.
My house is visited by many a Jehovah witness. I just don't think the chronology of the bible is important enough to examine. And I don't think the preservation of the original text is in itself unfortunate. I just think its a piece of literature that people feel they should love. The opposite effect would be something similar to American citizens mocking Sara Palin or if your British--- the lugubrious prince Charles.
You aren't mistaken. The books of the New Testament that we have (and we don't have originals of any of them) were written decades after Jesus. Paul's epistles were the first. His only contact with Jesus was through a vision, and he seemed to be largely uninterested in the teachings and life of Jesus--possibly because he knew little about them. Mark was probably the first gospel (unless we include the non-canonical sayings Gospel of Thomas). Mark was written six or seven decades after Jesus, and focused on Jesus' adult life and death. Matthew and Luke came later, with details of the early life and bigger and better miracles. They both used Mark and one other lost source known as Q. Matthew was obviously written by a Jew for a Jewish audience, and Luke was written for a Greek audience. And then came John, with Jesus' full-fledged deification, co-existence with God the Father, and the "I am" statements. You can read about all this in the various publications of the Jesus Seminar and Bart Ehrman, and draw your own conclusions. If you want to be taken seriously as an atheist, I'd recommend them. I'm not sure I know what you mean by the "original context". Originally, there were wide variations of belief among people calling themselves Christians--some worshiping Yahweh, others rejecting Him and worshipping as many as 365--a god for each day of the year. There eventually came to be three broad, fiercely competitive perspectives: the Nazerene/Ebionite community in Jerusalem, led by Jesus' brother, James, who were essentially Jews accepting Jesus as the Jewish messiah, but following the letter of the Torah; the Marcion/Gnostic faction, who rejected Judaism and Yahweh, and were influenced by Greek and Mesopotamian thought; and the Paulist group who emphasized faith over works and pushed the notion of sacrificial atonement (Christ was the Paschal lamb who died for our sins). There was a struggle. The Paulist view won out, got the backing of the Roman Emperor, and the others were suppressed. This is evolution of a meme in action, by process of natural selection.
I think it would be ridiculous to dignify an ordinary racist with a formal debate about racial superiority.---That's what I mean. We are going into serious philosophical depth about why the chicken crossed the road. Naturally it would carry the same appeal as a joke; The funny part is usually how absurd it is.
