The Bible: fact or fiction?

The Bible: fact or fiction?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings
ignatius.com/Products/IBL2-P/ignatius-bible-rsv-2nd-edition--leather.aspx
youtube.com/watch?v=8TuIwi6JbN8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Fact.

some of the stories in the bible are treu others are likly fabrications and others could be taken with a grain of salt.

Fiction

meaningful fiction.

Both, it's history

I assume some liberties with the truth have been taken.

Fiction, but not without it's redeeming moments.

opinion

Complete bullshit but its useful for controlling retards, same with the quran

The Bible is only 100% true or 100% false. You cannot pick and choose.

It was literally written by kikes.

or

>worshipping a jew

I wonder why (((they))) would want that

the bible and the quran all have their roots in ancient judaism.

A lil bit of both

People who believe in Christianity these days are often retarded or doing severe mental gymnastics.

It's fact. Millions of people have read it. Stupid question.

You're either educated or american. You cannot be both.

Both

neither, only Zuul.

Truth.

>It's fact. Millions of people have read it. Stupid question.


millions of people have also read the communist manifesto and other commie books does that make them treu or even simi treu?

just becuase alot of people read it doesnt make it treu.

Both obviously

Written by a man based off the stories of another man.

I would label it as Pseudo-Fiction

You're lying. The Qur'an is Arab crap

The Bible is 100% true. They called all the current events 2000 years ago currectly. Read the last page to see what happens if you add or change the Bible. The King is returning and he is angry.

>You're lying. The Qur'an is Arab crap


it states directly in the quran that muhamed was the last of the line of ((profeths)).his bloodline has been traced back to the noble house of ismael the son of ((abraham)).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham


Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם, Modern Avraham, Tiberian ʾAḇrāhām), originally Avram or Abram, is the common patriarch of the three Abrahamic religions. In Judaism he is the founding father of the Covenant, the special relationship between the Jewish people and God; in Christianity, he is the prototype of all believers, Jewish or Gentile; and in Islam he is seen as a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Muhammad.

Give me some examples.

Any examples of current events called out in the bible that aren't allegorical, or vague enough to apply anywhere, anytime like "war and rumors or war"?

Fact

These

So which do we take as fact, which are fiction, and which should we take with a grain of salt?

Best Fantasy book i've ever read.

Still waiting for part 2 ...

100% fact

realer than reality

Proofs?

>So which do we take as fact, which are fiction, and which should we take with a grain of salt?


the story of moses should be taken with a grain of salt.

the crucifiction of chris is accurate as the romans did crucify him.

the others are more about the story's of christ and his believers so should be taken with a grain of salt.

This.

Speaking of Christ, what about Genesis? That story is pretty important to Christians because it's the reason for sin (what Christ died for)

It is the Word of the Living God. Once you stop hating it and fighting against it and force yourself to read it fairly, you can't help but grow fond of it.

in all likely hood coomplete fiction as modern "science " debunks alot of the claims that it puts foward like the earth being created in 7 days and the theory of evolution conflicts with the creation story.

Why do Christians never substantiate their claims?

CHECKED

The Old Testament is fiction based on the Jewish adventures, being expelled from one country to another and all of that. The Genesis story and Exodus never happened, but it sounded cool so they put it in.

The New Testament is based on the story of a narcissistic Jew named Yeshua ben Yosef who thought he was a god and got crucified by the other Jews. The miracle stuff is fiction made to show that the new Christ god had power over the Greek-Roman gods (walk on water and calming storms showed power over Poseidon, overcoming death over Hades, multiplying food over Demeter, turning water into wine over Dionysus, and so on).

Old Testament is blood-stained myths that belong in the trash
>in before *tip*
New Testament has some worthwhile moral lessons here and there

Practically applicable

/thread

>who thought he was a god

king of the jews not god.

In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of the King of Kings") came to be used as a name of God,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings

Same shit.

He thought he was "the son of the living God" and his followers fed his illusions.

Many, many more people have read Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter from cover to cover.

Hmm. I'm not a Christian (Atheist) but this one seems pretty big if you ask me. I of course don't believe in the story of Genesis at all.

Sounds about right.

swap "Read" for "Lived" and theres the answer

Seriously, answer me. You make a giant claim like "everything in the Bible is true" and then scurry away when asked about it or give some mental gymnastics.

it was some junk written during antiquity to control a certain type of civilization sorry to spill the beans like this for ya buddy but its true but it does contain the useful nugget of information or two in there

Fucking read it you spiritual dumpster

I've read the Bible. What now?

Facts that have been embellished and diluted with mythology and oral tradition, in the case of the NT it's a set of guidelines for life whereas the OT was more a rulebook for control.

How did an illiterate little twerp from Judea become a top-notch philosopher?

A series of widely believed facts

How do you know anything Jesus said in the Bible was true?

>Many, many more people have read Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter from cover to cover.
Those are also real books. He didn't ask if the message was true.

What is truth?

Something you can prove. Or at least provide suggestive evidence.

How many rival tribes have you genocided in God's name?

How would you prove an illiterate person from 2000 years said the things people claim he did?

Radical skepticism is a mental disease and you should off yourself

>Both, it's history
This. Humans fuck up everything. Even if the source was perfect, the people who wrote it down aren't.

>It was literally written by kikes.
No, the kikes you and I know and despise were never the Hebrews of the bible. This is their LARPing approach to pretending they were God's favorites instead of his enemies.

They kill Jesus, for fucks sake. How much more obvious can it be whose side they are on?

>How would you prove
Thanks for reinforcing my point. Burden on proof is on you, and you can't prove anything.
>not believing in something nobody can prove is "radical scepticism"
>"You should off yourself"
Doesn't sound like anything your God said in the Bible.

Fact disguised as fiction.

>Burden on proof is on you
No it's not.

>How would you prove an illiterate person from 2000 years said the things people claim he did?
Suppose that person did something so amazing, so utterly unprecedented that the people who saw it were willing to persecuted by the dominant powers of the time just so they could tell others what they saw?

Christianity didn't start like Islam. The Muslims were violent, murderers and thieves, spreading their religion by force. The early Christians were persecuted constantly, despised, killed, and still they wouldn't stop telling others what they saw.

Well, it is. Why dedicate your entire life to something and look down on others for not doing so when you don't even know it's true?
As you've said, you have no way of proving it, so why on Earth would you believe in it? Isn't that a bit stupid?

Fact. Magic is totally real and niggers are just like us and if you think otherwise you're a fedora degenerate etc.

>Suppose that person did something so amazing, so utterly unprecedented that the people who saw it were willing to persecuted by the dominant powers of the time just so they could tell others what they saw?
That's called zealotry, user.

People who were born decades after Jesus was executed still showed the same zealotry, even though the persecutions didn't stop.

And when they rose to power they immediately started persecuting their former persecutors.

Liar.

>fiction
A lot of the stuff in the bible were actual daily livings of the people living at the time.

That is merely suggestive. Atheists want scientific proof.
No its not.
>As you've said, you have no way of proving it
according to you
>give me proof!
here and here
>not enough! I want scientific and conclusive proof!
not possible. your mental illness would cause the world to deny the existence of Alexander the Great and Socrates etc etc if it were to be allowed to spread.
>See?! no proof! skydaddy lel

there is a reason why atheists are so universally hated.

I'm a christian, But I recognize that the stories in the Bible were written by god to teach us lessons and morals. I don't believe the more fantastical parts, because I recognize that it was never intended to be a history book.

I would say lunatic, but definitely not lord.

>Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by arguing that the only alternatives were that he was evil or deluded.[1] (Strictly speaking, Lewis is not trying to prove the divinity of Christ but is merely arguing that one cannot simultaneously affirm that Jesus was a great moral teacher and not divine.) One version was popularised by University of Oxford literary scholar and writer C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio talk and in his writings. It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept.

its true

You yourself have said you have no way of proving it right here: >here and here
What?
>skydaddy
Never said that. Stop using strawmen and actually confront my argument. That's all you Christians seem to do: when you aren't ignoring opponents you're insulting them and posting strawmen.

>using larper as insult
>that flag
u have to go back

>People who were born decades after Jesus was executed still showed the same zealotry, even though the persecutions didn't stop.
Not the same thing and you know it.

If you started walking around your neighborhood and claimed you were God while pretending to do miracles, no one would die for you, including your followers who really knew who you were.

But 200 years later, people might die for you.

That is a question, which you avoided.

Is this a nice edition to purchase, Sup Forums? I've heard good things about Ignatius Press.
ignatius.com/Products/IBL2-P/ignatius-bible-rsv-2nd-edition--leather.aspx

...

How do you prove it? I'm not making the claim: you are. I'm asking YOU to at least JUSTIFY your beliefs. You say it's the same as denying Alexander the Great, but, with that logic, where does it end? Am I an idiot for denying the existence of Vishnu and Shiva or for the holiness of Muhammad?

>Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

John 2:22.

>Judea
Galilee*

The miracles were invented after, as I said here .

Convincing goat herders shouldn't be too difficult for someone charismatic and eloquent enough. You also underestimate the power of hearsay and having loyal followers to do it for you after you get nailed to a wooden cross.

>they were already calling out haters beforehand
>that proves the Jew guy was a god

>I'm not making the claim: you are.
Yes you are. A negative claim have a burden of proof.

You have a weird understanding of burden of proof if you think it's just a means for you to get eveyrone you want to hold your hand and guide you through everything.
>You say it's the same as denying Alexander the Great, but, with that logic, where does it end?
Nowhere. Which is my point.
>Am I an idiot for denying the existence of Vishnu and Shiva or for the holiness of Muhammad?
You're an idiot for denying the existence of Muhammad, yes. And if you deny his existence then YOU'RE the one making the claim of non-existence and the burden of proof is on you.

>That's called zealotry, user.
"Zealotry" because they saw a guy come back from the dead and it changed their lives?

Here you are with your faggot commie flag dedicating your life to trolling people who hand you your ass every single day. You do it on behalf of a sociopolitical theory that fails over and over every times it's tried. Go ahead and tell us all about "zealotry," you retard.

>Atheists want scientific proof.
No, atheists hold a religious belief about an unanswerable question, pretending their opinion on that question is right simply because they wish it to be.

AGNOSTICS want proof. Atheists want everyone who disagrees with them to be mocked, silenced, or destroyed.

>as I said here .
yeah thanks for those opinions.
>Convincing goat herders shouldn't be too difficult for someone charismatic and eloquent enough.
Yes it should.

>u have to go back
Fuck you kike. You have to go back to the ovens.

>I have no clue what a theist is.

I'm denying the existence of Muhammad as a prophet, not the existence of Muhammad as a person, and, if you could read, you would know that very well, since I said, "the holiness of Muhammad," not just "Muhammad".
I'm not trying to disprove God. This entire "argument" began when I asked somebody to substantiate their claims about the Bible. Do you want this to be a burden of proof competition? Go back to the original posts and you'll see I responded to somebody who made a claim and asked for proof. I did not make the initial claim.

>The miracles were invented after. I don't have to offer any proof of my assertion because I'm a faggot.

>The Bible: fact or fiction?
magi: fact or fiction?

>Atheism
>Not Jewish in of itself

Jesus wasn't a Jew either (Jew =/= Hebrew, don't read NIV or Scofield) , that's kike revisionism.

Yep that's why they hate Christianity s omuch, insult Christ at any chance they get. That's why in Protocol XIV of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, they outright say " WE WILL FORBID CHRIST". Protocol IV say s they'll replace God of the "Gentiles" with hedonism and love of money. They have a history of hating Christ/Christianity (look in the Talmud Sanhedrin 106a, they mock Virgin Mary and often Jesus by giving him the nickname "Balaam").

They have a history of Host/Eucharist desecration as well as using the blood of Christians (usually children) for their "holidays".

youtube.com/watch?v=8TuIwi6JbN8

Here's a documentary on "blood libel", murder of Christians by Jews throughout the ages.

...