Funny Jesus site by "scholars"

[Zarathustra]

Have yoy like EVER seen such B.S: http://y-jesus.com/index.php
They appear to nuance everything by looking at all aspects, but if you read more closely.... Scary though, that it was an automatically generated google link, when I was looking at an article about atheism.

And by the way: What are the criteria for the term "scholar" in America? They wouldn't be called that in Europe

[PipeBox]

Zarathustra, it's good to see you posting again!  

On the topic, I'd assume they're quote mining but I only attempted to read the section on the validity of the Bible.  That site is painful to read and verify because they only give you small chunks of text and I don't want to spend an afternoon rummaging through 500 pages.

From what I read, even assuming all the ancient manuscripts were written by the apostles, it does nothing to prove the apostles were being truthful, nor that what they believed was actually the truth.  So I'll call it on ignoring some possibilities, but it looks like there is a huge amount of evidence backing the modern New Testament being identical to the ancient original.  That is to say, I'll never again make the argument that the Bible could have been changed or distorted over the ages.  I suppose it could all be fluff, but I haven't the initiative to verify all their sources.

Sorry if I missed something obvious.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ah yes ... "objective" is not the first word to spring to mind is it?

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra, it's good to see you posting again!    Although I enjoy this kind of debate as much as the next unbeliever, I find it hard to make the time. Sundays are a good day for godless thinking though  

From what I read, even assuming all the ancient manuscripts were written by the apostles, it does nothing to prove the apostles were being truthful, nor that what they believed was actually the truth.  So I'll call it on ignoring some possibilities

Good point! What's more; the ancient manuscripts are dated 118 - 174 A.C. So it's not actually first hand accounts of events.

but it looks like there is a huge amount of evidence backing the modern New Testament being identical to the ancient original.  That is to say, I'll never again make the argument that the Bible could have been changed or distorted over the ages.  I suppose it could all be fluff, but I haven't the initiative to verify all their sources.

From what I've read elsewhere, you should feel pretty safe to make that argument. To be sure, I've mailed a friend of mine who's a professor in religionsociology linking to the site. I'll be happy to provide you with his response.

[PipeBox]

Good point! What's more; the ancient manuscripts are dated 118 - 174 A.C. So it's not actually first hand accounts of events.

Oi! Thanks for calling that, I was taken in by all their speculation.  Though I reckon Paul's letters ought to cement that he at the very least believed what in Jesus as God and that there was an early church by that time.  Though so far as I can recall they don't cite the gospels, so things may have changed quite a bit in that first 100 years, and none of it points to the veracity of the Bible as the word of God.
 

From what I've read elsewhere, you should feel pretty safe to make that argument. To be sure, I've mailed a friend of mine who's a professor in religionsociology linking to the site. I'll be happy to provide you with his response.

Thanks, that'd be great.  

[Zarathustra]

From what I've read elsewhere, you should feel pretty safe to make that argument. To be sure, I've mailed a friend of mine who's a professor in religionsociology linking to the site. I'll be happy to provide you with his response.

Thanks, that'd be great.   :pop:

[PipeBox]

Good to know, since it isn't at all my area.

Thanks.