The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Do you believe in life after death?. Following being diagnosed with cancer my life was put on stop, my world changed instantly. I and my family were in shock but I was not mad or asked why me?. I was however mad at the system that allowed me to get in this situation because there was history in my case that appeared not to mean a thing. I then had experiences that only convinced me that there are stranger things in heaven than on earth. Not a stranger to mystical events in the past I started a mission to work with cancer
Page:
No they were not (told to him directly by God). Moses didn't hear an audible voice of God telling him what to write in the same way the writers of the new testament gospels didn't either. Its not a direct transcript of what God said. Obviously some parts are but they are the bits where is says "and the LORD said...."
On another note, I always thought the Torah was the entire old testament rather than just the five books of the law. What are the other books known as if they arent part of the Torah?
Edit:- Apparently the Tanakh is split into three section, the first being the torah. I thought the whole thing was called the torah and was split into sections. Well Ive learnt something new today.
On another note, I always thought the Torah was the entire old testament rather than just the five books of the law. What are the other books known as if they arent part of the Torah?
Edit:- Apparently the Tanakh is split into three section, the first being the torah. I thought the whole thing was called the torah and was split into sections. Well Ive learnt something new today.
So are there any people out there who would like to comment about the Torah
The five books are all ascribed to Moses, as told to him directly by God.
When the Torah was revealed to Moses is a matter of some debate. Some hold that all five books were given to Moses during his communion with God on Mount Sinai in 1280 BC
The five books are all ascribed to Moses, as told to him directly by God.
When the Torah was revealed to Moses is a matter of some debate. Some hold that all five books were given to Moses during his communion with God on Mount Sinai in 1280 BC
Ive noticed that actually. I think its because Im (as far as I know) the only Christian on here so everybody disagrees with me.
I love how every thread becomes Gefdoff vs World.
Well I did name three Romans and a Jewish guy who all apparently wrote about Jesus. But I'll admit defeat and say that I don't actually know what they wrote so without doing any further research there is little point in continuing this discussion.
To be concluded at a later date maybe...
To be concluded at a later date maybe...
Geffdof wrote:
> To be honest, I think that the bible itself is an historical
> document that explains in great detail the life of Jesus. Just
> because its a religious text doesnt mean it cant be used as a
> record of history. The amount of information in one gospel alone
> is more than sufficient to paint a picture of what Jesus was
> like.
And now you're just repeating yourself. We know you think its a historical document, you're a christian. Your belief was never the issue.
But back in the real world, to accept things as historical facts they need to be independently verifiable. Now you made the claim that there were historical records and roman documentation that provided all this. When I asked you what these were, you couldnt actually detail anything. In conclusion you're no closer to showing that the bible(gospels) is widely accepted as a historical document than when you started.
> To be honest, I think that the bible itself is an historical
> document that explains in great detail the life of Jesus. Just
> because its a religious text doesnt mean it cant be used as a
> record of history. The amount of information in one gospel alone
> is more than sufficient to paint a picture of what Jesus was
> like.
And now you're just repeating yourself. We know you think its a historical document, you're a christian. Your belief was never the issue.
But back in the real world, to accept things as historical facts they need to be independently verifiable. Now you made the claim that there were historical records and roman documentation that provided all this. When I asked you what these were, you couldnt actually detail anything. In conclusion you're no closer to showing that the bible(gospels) is widely accepted as a historical document than when you started.
On a different note, does anyone else think that Jesus' death is more of an assisted suicide than a murder?
To be honest, I think that the bible itself is an historical document that explains in great detail the life of Jesus. Just because its a religious text doesnt mean it cant be used as a record of history. The amount of information in one gospel alone is more than sufficient to paint a picture of what Jesus was like.
I was simply pointing out that Jesus was mentioned in non-biblical sources too, just in case you don't accept the bible as an historical source. I have no expert knowledge of such material so a quick look on wiki threw up a few suggestions that you could look into yourself, should you wish. Obviously Wiki isnt a definitive source but its at least a starting point.
Even without any Roman texts, the gospels tell us loads about Jesus.
I was simply pointing out that Jesus was mentioned in non-biblical sources too, just in case you don't accept the bible as an historical source. I have no expert knowledge of such material so a quick look on wiki threw up a few suggestions that you could look into yourself, should you wish. Obviously Wiki isnt a definitive source but its at least a starting point.
Even without any Roman texts, the gospels tell us loads about Jesus.
Geffdof wrote:
> Do you know when you go to a museum and you see Roman remains or
> Egyptian papyrus or any other such item, well stuff like that.
>
> If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an
> ISBN number then I cant help you.
You claim knowledge of something, I dont think its unreasonable for me to ask for specifics. So basically you want to say theres "roman documentation" and "historical records" proving all these things but you dont know what they are? :)
> Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing
> the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an
> historical account of his life?
My personal view is that Jesus probably existed. Yet there is a large gap between my own personal feeling on the matter and what is historical fact. The difference between me and you is that I dont have my faith wrapped up in it. So I can yes he probably existed but at the same time I dont think the sources of information are authoritative enough to claim his existence as fact.
And no I dont believe the Gospels are a historical account of his life. I think if I did, I'd be a christian. ;)
> Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was
> mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus,
> Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
See, here is my problem. You're claiming knowledge you clearly dont have and just make brief searches of the internet to back up your claims about the historical accuracy. For instance...
Pliny the Younger lived around 100 ad (if I remember correctly) and did not mention Jesus at all in his writings. He talked about christian worship practices and how the roman empire should deal with them. Basically this offers no credible validation of Jesus' existence or his role in christianity.
> Also,
> Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history
> agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was
> regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
> accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders
> of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by
> crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never
> existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or
> mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities
> and heroes.[3]
Quoting wikipedia doesnt help anything.
> Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do.
> There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few
> odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant
> expect everyone to believe in everything.
Belief in Jesus does not automatically mean everything ever written about him is true. By the same token its almost certain that King Arthur existed, but it doesnt mean he was given a sword by a lady in a lake and kept company with Merlin the magician.
> Do you know when you go to a museum and you see Roman remains or
> Egyptian papyrus or any other such item, well stuff like that.
>
> If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an
> ISBN number then I cant help you.
You claim knowledge of something, I dont think its unreasonable for me to ask for specifics. So basically you want to say theres "roman documentation" and "historical records" proving all these things but you dont know what they are? :)
> Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing
> the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an
> historical account of his life?
My personal view is that Jesus probably existed. Yet there is a large gap between my own personal feeling on the matter and what is historical fact. The difference between me and you is that I dont have my faith wrapped up in it. So I can yes he probably existed but at the same time I dont think the sources of information are authoritative enough to claim his existence as fact.
And no I dont believe the Gospels are a historical account of his life. I think if I did, I'd be a christian. ;)
> Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was
> mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus,
> Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
See, here is my problem. You're claiming knowledge you clearly dont have and just make brief searches of the internet to back up your claims about the historical accuracy. For instance...
Pliny the Younger lived around 100 ad (if I remember correctly) and did not mention Jesus at all in his writings. He talked about christian worship practices and how the roman empire should deal with them. Basically this offers no credible validation of Jesus' existence or his role in christianity.
> Also,
> Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history
> agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was
> regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
> accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders
> of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by
> crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never
> existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or
> mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities
> and heroes.[3]
Quoting wikipedia doesnt help anything.
> Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do.
> There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few
> odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant
> expect everyone to believe in everything.
Belief in Jesus does not automatically mean everything ever written about him is true. By the same token its almost certain that King Arthur existed, but it doesnt mean he was given a sword by a lady in a lake and kept company with Merlin the magician.
Do you know when you go to a museum and you see Roman remains or Egyptian papyrus or any other such item, well stuff like that.
If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an ISBN number then I cant help you.
Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an historical account of his life?
Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
Also,
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[3]
Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do. There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant expect everyone to believe in everything.
If you are expecting a full citation with title, author and an ISBN number then I cant help you.
Can I just ask to make things clear, are you actually disputing the fact that Jesus was real and that the gospels are an historical account of his life?
Edit:- a quick look on Wikipedia reveals that Jesus was mentioned in writings by the following four Romans: Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.
Also,
Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] A small minority[2] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but merely as a metaphorical or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[3]
Obviously not everyone believes in Jesus, but most scholars do. There are a few who dont, but you said yourself, there are a few odd scientists who dont believe in global warming so you cant expect everyone to believe in everything.
Page: