Its about the End of the World, so I apologise in advance if I offend anyone. I dont want people to think Christianity is all about doom and gloom. It's very interesting stuff to all the Christians I have shown so far.

I'm always searching the web looking for arguments on what Jesus return will be like. As well as how soon it will be and I ran into a site that explains it exactly the way the bible does, at least to me it did.

Basically it says a comet or asteriod will hit the earth. After reading it I did some research on asteriods and comets. I checked the NASA site as well as about 10 or so other informational sites regarding comets and asteriods.

Currently NASA has over 70 objects in space on watch which are considered to be on a collision course with Earth. The smallest of which is a mile in size. I would like to point out that each of these objects is said to have a very small chance of hitting the Earth. Generaly a collision course with Earth is referring more of objects passing through the Earths orbit and the Earth later passing through the debris left behind after the comet or asteriod has gone. However, it is also hard to predict the course of a comet. In some cases its impossible.
In all cases scientist agree that it isn't a matter of if the Earth will get hit, it's a matter of when.


Here is the link to the site where they talk about End Times. I suggest you start reading under the second picture to the top of the page, under the picture of the comet.
http://thereturnofthechrist.net/


Here are a few sites that talk about asteriods.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/16843141.htm
http://space.about.com/cs/asteroids/a/asteroidimpact.htm
http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets

This explains an Oort cloud, which is enlightening in itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

Basically it says a comet or asteroid will hit the earth. After reading it I did some research on asteroids and comets. I checked the NASA site as well as about 10 or so other informational sites regarding comets and asteroids.

These would not end the world, but could do a lot of damage, up to killing us all. I suppose from our perspective that would be the same.

I read the Bible passages often cited regarding this topic and I come away completely confused. I think different writers had different ideas, and it is not possible to reconcile them. Nevertheless, it is a divine, miraculous, not natural event, that they talk about.

Currently NASA has over 70 objects in space on watch which are considered to be on a collision course with Earth.

This is not accurate. No object detected so far is on a collision course with the earth, and at the moment all detected objects have known orbits. We can project their orbits out many hundreds of years, and no upcoming collisions have been detected.

Generally a collision course with Earth is referring more of objects passing through the Earths orbit and the Earth later passing through the debris left behind after the comet or asteroid has gone.

The definition you give is where you misinterpret things. A collision course means we can calculate its orbit and this orbit and that of the earth intersect, or come close enough that the earth's gravity will cause an intersection.

Only comets (often but not always) leave debris fields, which we observe as meteor showers, and the comet does not need to have come anywhere near the earth's orbit to have the earth, hundreds of years later, enter the debris field. It gets sprayed out all over the place.

However, it is also hard to predict the course of a comet. In some cases it's impossible.

Once a comet is detected it is easy to predict its course. If a new comet were to enter the Solar System from the other side of the sun, it conceivably could "sneak up" on us, but it would have to be quite small to achieve this. Comets are extremely rare in the inner solar system compared to asteroids, so most of the attention has been paid to asteroids. About the only comet that would be dangerous immediately would be a new one, and a direct aim is so unlikely as to be almost ludicrous. The danger comes from repeated orbits, but then we can know the orbit.

As you say, new comets are thought to originate in the Oort Cloud, from time to time one being perturbed in such a way that it enters the Solar System. They are in our epoch rare enough and the earth is a small object in a much larger space (even the inner Solar System is unbelievably large in human terms) that the chances of even one hitting the earth in all the history of life since the Cambrian is very close to zero.

This is not true of asteroids, which present a larger but still very small danger, and I am sorry that Congress has denied funds to continue looking for them. The risk is very small but I think this is offset by the horrible possible consequences (in risk management theory one balances these two, but in politics only immediate risk is considered important).

In all cases scientist agree that it isn't a matter of if the Earth will get hit, it's a matter of when.

This is true but entirely misleading. The "when," last time around, was sixty million years ago.


A comment on the size of the space around the earth. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, and 93,000,000 miles from the sun. Contemplate the difference between those two numbers awhile.

The formula for the volume of a sphere is 4/3 PI r^3, where "r" would be 93,000,000 miles. Note that in calculating the volume of the sphere the earth occupies, 93 million miles must be cubed. This is just the solar system interior to the earth's orbit, and most comets don't come anywhere near even that space. The earth really is a remakably small target. (Somebody stop me before I turn into Carl Sagan).

--Martin

A comment on the size of the space around the earth. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, and 93,000,000 miles from the sun. Contemplate the difference between those two numbers awhile.

The formula for the volume of a sphere is 4/3 PI r^3, where "r" would be 93,000,000 miles. Note that in calculating the volume of the sphere the earth occupies, 93 million miles must be cubed. This is just the solar system interior to the earth's orbit, and most comets don't come anywhere near even that space. The earth really is a remakably small target. (Somebody stop me before I turn into Carl Sagan).

--Martin


No doubts there, the earth does make for a small target.

A comment on the size of the space around the earth. The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, and 93,000,000 miles from the sun. Contemplate the difference between those two numbers awhile.

The formula for the volume of a sphere is 4/3 PI r^3, where "r" would be 93,000,000 miles. Note that in calculating the volume of the sphere the earth occupies, 93 million miles must be cubed. This is just the solar system interior to the earth's orbit, and most comets don't come anywhere near even that space. The earth really is a remakably small target. (Somebody stop me before I turn into Carl Sagan).

--Martin
:slap: snap out of it man!

If not destroyed by space stuff, the sun will turn into a big red thingy and burn earth to a crisp;just a matter of time.

I won't get to see it, darn it!

It’s The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine) by REM

That’s great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane -
Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn -
world serves its own needs, don’t misserve your own needs. Feed it up a knock,speed, grunt no, strength no. Ladder structure clatter with fear of height, down height. Wire in a fire, represent the seven games in a government for hire and a combat site. Left her, wasn’t coming in a hurry with the furies breathing down your neck. Team by team reporters baffled, trump, tethered crop. Look at that low plane! Fine then. Uh oh, overflow, population, common group, but it’ll do. Save yourself, serve yourself. World serves its own needs, listen to your heart bleed. Tell me with the rapture and the reverent in the right - right. You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright
light, feeling pretty psyched.

It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Six o’clock - TV hour. Don’t get caught in foreign tower. Slash and burn,
return, listen to yourself churn. Lock him in uniform and book burning,
blood letting. Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate. Light a candle,
light a motive. Step down, step down. Watch a heel crush, crush. Uh oh,
this means no fear - cavalier. Renegade and steer clear! A tournament,
a tournament, a tournament of lies. Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives
and I decline.

It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

The other night I tripped a nice continental drift divide. Mountains sit in a line.
Leonard Bernstein. Leonid Breshnev, Lenny Bruce and Lester Bangs.
Birthday party, cheesecake, jelly bean, boom! You symbiotic, patriotic,
slam, but neck, right? Right.

It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...fine...

(It’s time I had some time alone)

Reminds me of Independence Day.

The best end-of-the-world book I've ever read is Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Flat characters, predictable dialogue and (from today's standpoint) a bit anachronistic, but a great story.

Is there a comet named Wormwoood?

Jesus has already returned..He came once to die and shed blood...He came again in destruction on Jerusalem through the Roman army..

The best end-of-the-world book I've ever read is Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Flat characters, predictable dialogue and (from today's standpoint) a bit anachronistic, but a great story.

I loved that one, and have read it three times.

Even better though is *Alas, Babylon*, by Pat Frank.

I liked Farnham's Freehold when I read it, but I was young. I thought Heinlein was the greatest SF master of them all when I was 12. I went back 25 years later and tried to re-read it, and couldn't finish it.

*The Stand* was also a very good read.

If not destroyed by space stuff, the sun will turn into a big red thingy and burn earth to a crisp;just a matter of time.

I won't get to see it, darn it!

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Robert Frost

I loved that one, and have read it three times.

Even better though is *Alas, Babylon*, by Pat Frank.

I liked Farnham's Freehold when I read it, but I was young. I thought Heinlein was the greatest SF master of them all when I was 12. I went back 25 years later and tried to re-read it, and couldn't finish it.

*The Stand* was also a very good read.
I loved The Stand. Pretty good movie also, although I missed the last half hour or so. That was the worst part of the book anyways.

If the world must end I hope it does so in a fun way. The scariest thing about global warming, peak oil, middle-east instability and the economic rise of China as the possible shapes of things to come would be the dreary and gradual worsening of quality of life and scarcity of resources.

But a big, apocolyptic crunch to end it all would be more my cup of tea. A zombie plague, a meteor strike, Biblical armegeddon, alien invasion... Humanity should go with a bang, not a whimper.

Even better though is *Alas, Babylon*, by Pat Frank.
I found that sitting on my brother's shelf years ago and decided to read it. Glad I did.

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

9"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

14"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation'[a]standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 17How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. 20If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ[c]!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. 23So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

( 24"But in those days, following that distress, )
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
( 25the stars will fall from the sky, )
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[d]

26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

This thread led me on an afternoon surfing wikipedia reading about all kinds of astronomy articles. Fun! The odds of some kind of asteroid impact is too small compared to the numerous hazards my normal, everyday life poses, so as interesting as it is to think about, it lacks a sense of realism to me. I'm much more likely to suffer grave injury from walking, driving, be poisoned, become critically ill, murdered...etc than being killed by an asteroid. I've done no calculation but it might be even more likely that I'll be hit by lightning, drowned by tsunami (or in a swimming pool by a combination of unlikely factors), fall off a cliff, scraped by tornato, and possibly infected by zombie epidemic outbreak...than the chance that in my lifetime and many years after that an asteroid destroys the earth. Worry about what's more likely to happen is what I say.

Oh, I'm not worried about it but then again, I'm a Christian. According to what the Bible says, I have nothing to worry about.
I'm throwing it out there, so when it does happen you can reflect.

According to what the Bible says, I have nothing to worry about.


Or do you? Only God can judge you.
You don't get to decide whether you are worthy.

Oh, I'm not worried about it but then again, I'm a Christian. According to what the Bible says, I have nothing to worry about.
I'm throwing it out there, so when it does happen you can reflect.

Yea--it is obvious you are whistling past the graveyard, in steep denial. Stop lying to yourself. "Me thinkest thou dost protest too much." You wouldn't post such bragging if you were really so sure.

I'm much more likely to suffer grave injury from walking, driving, be poisoned, become critically ill, murdered...etc than being killed by an asteroid. I've done no calculation but it might be even more likely that I'll be hit by lightning, drowned by tsunami (or in a swimming pool by a combination of unlikely factors),

There is a flaw in your thinking. To calculate the chances of death you need to combined the odds of the event with the consequences of the event.

For example, someone being killed by lightning is a fairly common event on the planet--it happens a few times every day--but only to one person at a time, so the odds of YOU being killed are very small.

On the other hand, the chances of a large object hitting the earth are much, much smaller than a lightning bolt hitting someone--it happens to the earth only once every hundred million years or so. Offsetting this, however, are the catastrophic consequences--not just to one person but to billions of people. In one case you multiply the odds by one, in the other by billions. The net risk that you will die from one, then, becomes roughly equivalent to the other.

To my mind, for this reason, the survey of space for threats should take a much larger priority than it does--not because catastrophe is imminent, but because the consequences are the complete annihilation of the human race and almost all trace it ever existed.

Yea--it is obvious you are whistling past the graveyard, in steep denial. Stop lying to yourself. "Me thinkest thou dost protest too much." You wouldn't post such bragging if you were really so sure.


Why wouldnt I? If I wanted other people to share in it.

Or do you? Only God can judge you.
You don't get to decide whether you are worthy.


Thats true, I dont. For the most part. I did make a decision and God kept his word.

But that doesnt mean I wouldnt know.

I will take your expression of compassion at face value.

There is a flaw in your thinking. To calculate the chances of death you need to combined the odds of the event with the consequences of the event.

For example, someone being killed by lightning is a fairly common event on the planet--it happens a few times every day--but only to one person at a time, so the odds of YOU being killed are very small.

On the other hand, the chances of a large object hitting the earth are much, much smaller than a lightning bolt hitting someone--it happens to the earth only once every hundred million years or so. Offsetting this, however, are the catastrophic consequences--not just to one person but to billions of people. In one case you multiply the odds by one, in the other by billions. The net risk that you will die from one, then, becomes roughly equivalent to the other.

To my mind, for this reason, the survey of space for threats should take a much larger priority than it does--not because catastrophe is imminent, but because the consequences are the complete annihilation of the human race and almost all trace it ever existed.
Googled around a bit:
ODDS OF BECOMING A LIGHTNING VICTIM
U.S. 2000 Census population 280,000,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (reported deaths + injuries) 1/700,000
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year (estimated total deaths + injuries) 1/240,000
Odds of being struck in your lifetime (Est. 80 years) 1/3000
Odds you will be affected by someone being struck (Ten people affected for every one struck) 1/300

These are not very exact, but probably no more so than the meteor estimates.

The odds of becoming a victim of more conventional disasters such as car wreck, heart attack, cancer, murder...etc should be higher. And if you add these odds all up the chance of someone currently living to die from earth's destruction by meteor must be vastly smaller than from some other cause.

It appears deaths from lightning strikes, then, are about an order of magnitude less likely than I guessed.

I will take your expression of compassion at face value.


Good point, maybe being a little nicer would be helpful.
Then again, people often take advantage of nice.

The odds of being hit by lightning probably change with your location on the planet.
Say Florida vs. an Artic region.

But that doesnt mean I wouldnt know.

Actually, yes it does.

Actually, yes it does.


No it doesn't.

No one is "worthy" regardless. The only way to God is through Jesus. You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I can safely say I know I have a relationship with Jesus.

Are you Catholic by chance?

The only way to God is through Jesus.

I don't believe in that. I believe that good works are also judged.


Are you Catholic by chance?

I was raised Catholic, like most Americans.

But a big, apocolyptic crunch to end it all would be more my cup of tea. A zombie plague, a meteor strike, Biblical armegeddon, alien invasion... Humanity should go with a bang, not a whimper.

Damn straight. I'd love a good fight before we all turned into mindless automations. The real version of 28 days later.

I don't believe in that. I believe that good works are also judged.
I was raised Catholic, like most Americans.


To a point good works are, but its not for entry into Heaven. Protestants believe that you dont have to work at Salvation, if you did there would be no need for Jesus to have paid for our sins on the cross.
We do good works to be blessed. Our good works bring us closer to God and the closer we are to God the more we are blessed.

To believe as you do is standard Catholic thinking, nothing wrong with it. It's just not what I believe.

Oh, I'm not worried about it but then again, I'm a Christian. According to what the Bible says, I have nothing to worry about.

We know that man is flawed, and therefore the works of man will often reflect those flaws (the bible in this case). Why would you take the bible at it's word then?

We know that man is flawed, and therefore the works of man will often reflect those flaws (the bible in this case). Why would you take the bible at it's word then?

Why wouldnt I?

The dictionary was writen by man and I dont see any complaints about people using it.

Why wouldnt I?

The dictionary was writen by man and I dont see any complaints about people using it.

I wouldn't trust a dictionary to tell me what happens when I die. I trust a dictionary to get 'most' words spelled correctly, but I wouldn't bet my life on the spelling of any of them.

I wouldn't trust a dictionary to tell me what happens when I die. I trust a dictionary to get 'most' words spelled correctly, but I wouldn't bet my life on the spelling of any of them.


Anything you read thats going to influence your thoughts on the subject was writen by man.

was it called worm wood

Anything you read thats going to influence your thoughts on the subject was writen by man.
That's exactly the point.

More truth comes from The Holy Bible than the lying fairy tale called evolution. Nothing went bang haha where are all the changing life forms going from one kind to an other, they have had millions of yr to do it so where are they. They should be every where but they aren't are they.



One nation made in a day
gathering of the Jews from all the nations
increase of knowledge
wars, rumor of wars famine diease
Jews will make the desert bloom again which they have done. ( they are the only ones to make Israel bloom)
The only dead language to be revived is Hebrew.
All of the items to be put into the new temple when it is built have been made and are waiting
Sanhedrin court has been brought back to life after 1600 yrs

Anything you read thats going to influence your thoughts on the subject was writen by man.

I can be influenced by writings, however my thoughts and my logic are my own. I don't take anyone's writings as absolute fact.

More truth comes from The Holy Bible than the lying fairy tale called evolution. Nothing went bang haha
Nothing went bang? wtf are you talking about. I sure hope that you don't think that the Big Bang and Evolution are the same thing.
where are all the changing life forms going from one kind to an other, they have had millions of yr to do it so where are they. They should be every where but they aren't are they.
Um. They are everywhere... look outside.

We know that man is flawed, and therefore the works of man will often reflect those flaws (the bible in this case). Why would you take the bible at it's word then?

Each major religion believes it holds a book(s) written by god.
Each book seems to be believed 100% correct by the followers.
The books seem to have variations.
Seldom, are the books recognized by competing religions; each religion considers his book the only book written by god.
The others are written by men.
Each has various "proof" his book is correct.

What a situation!

Each major religion believes it holds a book(s) written by god.
Each book seems to be believed 100% correct by the followers.
The books seem to have variations.
Seldom, are the books recognized by competing religions; each religion considers his book the only book written by god.
The others are written by men.
Each has various "proof" his book is correct.

What a situation!
I don't think you are correct. Only religions modeled after Christianity have a "Bible," and only Protestant Christians treat the Bible as you describe. The only other major religion that has such a book is modeled after Christianity--Islam with its Q'uran.

Buddhism has a tremendous literature, which is often quoted, but they are seen as worth because of the quality of the men who wrote them, not because of some supernatural concept. The same applies to the writings of Confucius and Lao Tsu

The Bhavagad Gita as of late, under Christian influence, has begun to play a similar role in Hinduism, but it is not there quite yet, and now I think a reaction has set in and it will never be.

"More truth comes from The Holy Bible than the lying fairy tale called evolution." --Janrich

You remind me of a man told by his doctors that he has cancer and will die. The man rejects the experts and wastes his family's money on quack remedies, believing anyone who will tell hem what he wants to hear.

If you only understood how ridiculous you are to someone who is informed, mocking those who spend years studying nature and are the experts. This is natural enough, but you only waste your time and your honor.

I don't think you are correct. Only religions modeled after Christianity have a "Bible," and only Protestant Christians treat the Bible as you describe. The only other major religion that has such a book is modeled after Christianity--Islam with its Q'uran.

Buddhism has a tremendous literature, which is often quoted, but they are seen as worth because of the quality of the men who wrote them, not because of some supernatural concept. The same applies to the writings of Confucius and Lao Tsu

The Bhavagad Gita as of late, under Christian influence, has begun to play a similar role in Hinduism, but it is not there quite yet, and now I think a reaction has set in and it will never be.
Forgetting Judaism, the basis of Christianity itself?

Forgetting Judaism, the basis of Christianity itself?
There was no "Bible" in Christianity until Constantine, as part of his determination to unite Christianity so as to form the religious basis of his rule, decided it was necesssary to eliminate competing books. This was in the fourth century.

Even then the Church did not teach that the Bible was the final arbiter. They used (and Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still use) the teaching of Apostolic Succession--so that the Church, through the line of anointed bishops--not someone's reading of the Bible--has final say.

Martin Luther had to find a teaching to undermine that, so he developed the idea of individuals interpreting the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, replacing Apostolic Succession.

Since anyone can claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, Protestant Christianity quickly split into the myriad of factions and sects we see today.

Perhaps no Bible as we know it but The Torah was around and there were the writtings of the NT.
YAHSHUA taught The Torah.

There was no "Bible" in Christianity until Constantine, as part of his determination to unite Christianity so as to form the religious basis of his rule, decided it was necesssary to eliminate competing books. This was in the fourth century.

Even then the Church did not teach that the Bible was the final arbiter. They used (and Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox still use) the teaching of Apostolic Succession--so that the Church, through the line of anointed bishops--not someone's reading of the Bible--has final say.

Martin Luther had to find a teaching to undermine that, so he developed the idea of individuals interpreting the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, replacing Apostolic Succession.

Since anyone can claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit, Protestant Christianity quickly split into the myriad of factions and sects we see today.


Well, there was no Vulgate, there were forms of the bible in Latin as well as an Old Testamnet version in Greek, the Septuagint. Which were still widely used by those in the know. Nothing actualy known as formal, but they were still there, in use and it is suggested that these types of books influenced Saint Jerome's compilation of the Vulgate.
While the books of the New Testament were compiled by Athanasius, there was still an unformal list in play, recognised by Pope Damasus before he even laid eyes on Athanasius copy of the list.
The King James version was made by Protestants, Angelicans to be more exact. Even though the man who started it wasnt actualy Angelican himself and was burned at the stake for it. William Tyndale. More precisely he was burned at the stake for being a Protestant and rejecting the Catholic Church.
At any rate, the King James wasnt the formal bible used by the Catholic Church, in fact it was rejected by it.

All Martin Luther really did was embrace an idea that came about in roughly the 2nd century by a man known as Tertullian. Tertullian was also the first person to coin the phrase, New Testament or "Novum Testamentum".
While Martin Luther did change other things about the Christian religion Tertullian formed the foundation. Tertullian's ideas were around in one form or another for the first 800 years of Christianity.

I can be influenced by writings, however my thoughts and my logic are my own. I don't take anyone's writings as absolute fact.

While I do take the Bible as fact.
Thats not what I'm talking about, absolute fact, regardless of how you "take" something when you read it, you can be influenced by it one way or the other. I didnt say "will be" I said "can be" influenced and thats anything you read.

So while I can say I am morally influenced by the Bible, a lot of people have no idea where their morals come from and they blindly accept whatever sounds good.
In the end, its all just blind faith.

Well, there was no Vulgate, there were forms of the bible in Latin as well as an Old Testamnet version in Greek, the Septuagint. Which were still widely used by those in the know. Nothing actualy known as formal, but they were still there, in use and it is suggested that these types of books influenced Saint Jerome's compilation of the Vulgate.
While the books of the New Testament were compiled by Athanasius, there was still an unformal list in play, recognised by Pope Damasus before he even laid eyes on Athanasius copy of the list.
The King James version was made by Protestants, Angelicans to be more exact. Even though the man who started it wasnt actualy Angelican himself and was burned at the stake for it. William Tyndale. More precisely he was burned at the stake for being a Protestant and rejecting the Catholic Church.
At any rate, the King James wasnt the formal bible used by the Catholic Church, in fact it was rejected by it.

All Martin Luther really did was embrace an idea that came about in roughly the 2nd century by a man known as Tertullian. Tertullian was also the first person to coin the phrase, New Testament or "Novum Testamentum".
While Martin Luther did change other things about the Christian religion Tertullian formed the foundation. Tertullian's ideas were around in one form or another for the first 800 years of Christianity.
The Vulgate was two centuries later. That has nothing to do with my point.

I would like to see evidence that the Church during the middle ages used individual Bible interpretation as its authority, or, for that matter, any scriptural support for the idea. I would also like to see your passages from Tertullian that you thin support this. No--the idea of the Bible as something independent of church authority was a Protestant invention.

Forgetting Judaism, the basis of Christianity itself?
Judaism adopted a significant literature, and it seems that part of this literature, the Torah, is seen somewhat the way some Christians see the Bible. I think, however, that this is a more recent development under Christian influence.

The Q'uran, too, came to be viewed the way it is today under Christian influence. I have seen similar things happening in some Buddhist sects, and, as I already mention, regarding the Bhavad Gita in Hinduism.

The point I am making is that most of the world's religious literature is taken as things written by holy and wise and worthy men, but not as a miracle from God.

The Vulgate was two centuries later. That has nothing to do with my point.

I would like to see evidence that the Church during the middle ages used individual Bible interpretation as its authority, or, for that matter, any scriptural support for the idea. I would also like to see your passages from Tertullian that you thin support this. No--the idea of the Bible as something independent of church authority was a Protestant invention.

I didnt say Tertullian had anything to do with the Orthodox or Catholic Church, the Church wasnt even my point. While the Catholic Church was dominent, there were other influences outside of the Church. That was my point.
You think Luther was looking to the Church as a guide?
Doubt it, sense he considered the Pope to be the anti christ.
I'd say he was influenced by outside teachings, such has Tertullian.
Tertullian teachings remained known to quite a few people for roughly 800 years, the church he chose over the Catholic church even rivaled the Orthodox, Catholic Church for nearly 200 years.
You cant tell me everyone on the planet who considered themselves to be a Christian did so has a Catholic for the first thousand years of Christianity.

Forgetting Judaism, the basis of Christianity itself?
If Judaism wasn't the basis of Christianity they'd be seen as insignificant.

What of the Sikhs? The Ba'hai'? Cao Dai? They have millions of adherents and Western cultures know nothing about them, mostly because they don't even know they exist.

If Judaism wasn't the basis of Christianity they'd be seen as insignificant.

What of the Sikhs? The Ba'hai'? Cao Dai? They have millions of adherents and Western cultures know nothing about them, mostly because they don't even know they exist.
There are millions of Jews in Western countries, which is why I'd say people know about Judaism.

There are millions of Jews in Western countries, which is why I'd say people know about Judaism.
Yes, but as a world religion, Judaism is quite small. Only about 14 million worldwide.

If Judaism wasn't the basis of Christianity they'd be seen as insignificant.

What of the Sikhs? The Ba'hai'? Cao Dai? They have millions of adherents and Western cultures know nothing about them, mostly because they don't even know they exist.
It is an interesting question whether Judaism is really the "basis" of Christianity. It is more likely, I think, that Mithraism is the real basis, but that instead of Mithra, the Christians took the Hebrew Messianic concept for their betrayed/killed/ressurrected salvationist focus.

The idea, for example, of drinking blood (even if just symbolic), is horrific to Jewish thinking. So also the Trinity. So, also, the idea of a human sacrifice. Also, while Jews had ablutions in certain ritual situations, they never had a ceremony like baptism for initiation into the cult.

I could go on, but the point is that there are so many un-Jewish aspects of Christianity, all of which are mirrored in Greek mystery cults (especially Mithraism), that one can imagine that Christianity didn't even begin in Palestine (all early Christian writings are Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew), but began as a breakoff from Mithraism, where "Jesus of Nazareth" (a Greek LXX mistranslation of Hebrew that really meant "Of the Branch of Jesse")--the Messianic prophesy--was put in place of Mithra.

The absence of either a Jesus of Nazareth nor even of a Nazareth from secular history reinforces this.

If Judaism wasn't the basis of Christianity they'd be seen as insignificant.

What of the Sikhs? The Ba'hai'? Cao Dai? They have millions of adherents and Western cultures know nothing about them, mostly because they don't even know they exist.
You know about CaoDaism? We must talk. I made a bit of a study of it while I was in Vietnam (we have returned to the states for a few months). I am intrigued that you mention it in that context. I would guess it has maybe ten million adherents in Vietnam and maybe up to a million elsewhere (Vietque).

It is an interesting question whether Judaism is really the "basis" of Christianity.
Reading the Old Testament (half the Christian holy book) which is Jewish in origin, I don't really feel a strong need to question Christianity's beginnings. Especially when the founders were Jews, living among Jews, until they traveled Europe and the Meditteranean later in their ministries after Christ's passing.Judaism and other religions of the region, have very questionable upcomings however.

And yes, I know about Cao Dai. Religions are always interesting, and people know little about them. Try questioning an American about the Druze.

Reading the Old Testament (half the Christian holy book) which is Jewish in origin, I don't really feel a strong need to question Christianity's beginnings. Especially when the founders were Jews, living among Jews, until they traveled Europe and the Mediterranean later in their ministries after Christ's passing. Judaism and other religions of the region, have very questionable upcomings however.

And yes, I know about Cao Dai. Religions are always interesting, and people know little about them. Try questioning an American about the Druze.

There is no question that the early Christians adopted the LXX (not the Hebrew Bible but a Greek translation) as their basis. This was inevitable if they were to take up the Hebrew Messianic prophesies for their salvation focus. They then poured over it and were influenced by it.

Still, the basis remains Greek, not Hebrew and certainly not Jewish (we can see traces of the reaction of the synagogue to their thinking they were "spiritual Jews."

The stories of the "early Christians" as found in the Gospels and Acts are all myth. They meet every test of myth--they are inconsistent with themselves and with known geography and history (they reflect a limited knowledge of Palestine), they are full of the miraculous and with a lot of stories that just do not hang together, and they are from unknown authors writing at an unknown time (which scholars guess is toward the end of the first century). They are not Palestinians, but Greeks--they use idiomatic "koine" Greek, not Aramaic, and the little Aramaic they use is not even completely accurate.

Judaism as a religion is believed to have begun with the "return" of the Hebrews to Palestine under the Persians (as reflected in Ezra). The "priestly" parts of the Bible were probably written then, and combined with earlier traditional material that had developed in Babylon and maybe in earlier Israel. The objective of the literature that was produced at this time was to secure the Hebrews in the good graces of the Persians and to create a "glorious" history for these exiles.

The Caodai represent to me a fascinating case study of how new religions appear and syncretize with earlier belief systems. Probably my best friend in Vietnam is a high Caodai official, although he is hard to get information from since the authorities in Vietnam allow freedom of belief and religious practice but prohibit any proselytizing.

Evakian
Dr. Yes Join Date: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 5,896


If Judaism wasn't the basis of Christianity they'd be seen as insignificant.


YAHSHUA taught from The Torah, The first Christians taught from The Torah.

Evakian
Dr. Yes Join Date: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 5,896


If Judaism wasn't the basis of Christianity they'd be seen as insignificant.


YAHSHUA taught from The Torah, The first Christians taught from The Torah.
His name was "Jesus," a Greek name. That you have tried to find an Aramaic equivalent indicates you buy the myth.

His name was "Jesus," a Greek name. That you have tried to find an Aramaic equivalent indicates you buy the myth.

Maybe you should show proof he didn't exist, before you start talking about myths, Gondy.

Maybe you should show proof he didn't exist, before you start talking about myths, Gondy.
Where is he called anything but "Jesus?" Show me the MSS. All the MSS are in Greek and they invented this man "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Greek style--like "Thales of Miletus." This is not Aramaic or Hebrew. It is Greek. In Aramaic important people are not "of" somewhere--that is the Greek style, but are "son of" someone.

The expression "Jesus Nazareth" appears in the LXX in the Messiah passages of Isaiah, as a translation of Hebrew meaning "The Branch of Jesse." The Greeks who first invented the cult of the savior Messiah (after Mithraic and other Greek cultic practice) that, over a century or so, became Christianity misunderstood this as a proper name rather than a title, and misinterpreted it to read the way Greeks would have read it. No Jew would ever have used "Jesus of Nazareth."

Maybe you should show proof he didn't exist, before you start talking about myths, Gondy.

Oh, yes, tell me how to prove someone didn't exist? That doesn't mean he did.

Here is your problem--neither "Jesus" nor "Nazareth" are mentioned anywhere except in the NT for a couple of centuries.

Some of the historical sources that should have mentioned the "city" of Nazareth are the OT, the Talmud, Josephus. Josephus mentions over fifty communities in Galilee (an area smaller than Rhode Island), but no Nazareth.

The place does not exist in history until several hundred years later when Constantine's mother toured Palestine and was astonished no one could find a Nazareth--so she picked a place, had a church built, and declared that was Nazareth. A town subsequently built up off the pilgrimage business that this created. (She did the same thing with most of the sites mentioned in the Gospels, since there were no local traditions on these things).

The only mention of Jesus in secular history (of Jesus, not of Christians) is a fraudulent passage inserted into Josephus. Not convincing. There were about fifty known classical authors who wrote about first century Palestine, and none of them mention a miracle worker who attracted "great multitudes."

The earliest real Christian writing are some letters that actually were from an early Christian known as Paul. If one reads them with an open eye, one sees that even he does not testify to an earthly Jesus. He seems to know nothing of the stories told in the Gospels. His "Jesus of Nazareth" is long dead and resurrected (in "mythic" time) and now about to return (early Christianity that that then was the End Time, just as so many of this sort think today).

So it seems Christianity started as a Greek Mystery Cult and was present all over Asia Minor and Greece proper in Paul's day, the heavenly "Jesus of Nazareth" playing the role in this cult that various other "foreign" (to the Greeks) demiurges (sort of half-man half-god) played in other Greek salvationist cults--including the wine/blood and bread/body symbolism that really is as Greek as it gets.

Later a myth of this Jesus evolved (as seen in "Quelle") that was then elaborated on separately by Luke and Matthew (especially by Matthew), designing the life to try to fit it as well as possible into the prophesies (this is known as "pious fraud," and there are always a few in any movement willing to commit it. Matthew seems to have been particularly eager to do so. John, much later, may have been written to try to harmonize the Gospel with Greek philosophy, so it takes a rather different tack about a generation later.

People can't see this because they are so use to thinking of the Gospels as actual accounts, rather than as myths, but anyone with any common sense and without prejudice can see that they are completely mythical, just reading them. They are contrived, tell things that a novelist might know, but that the people who supposedly wrote them could not, contain contradictions and errors (especially of geography), and in many places are confused (as happens when one tries to put oral material down on paper).

Oh, yes, tell me how to prove someone didn't exist? That doesn't mean he did.

Exactly, doesnt mean he didnt either.


Here is your problem--neither "Jesus" nor "Nazareth" are mentioned anywhere except in the NT for a couple of centuries.

Some of the historical sources that should have mentioned the "city" of Nazareth are the OT, the Talmud, Josephus. Josephus mentions over fifty communities in Galilee (an area smaller than Rhode Island), but no Nazareth.

The place does not exist in history until several hundred years later when Constantine's mother toured Palestine and was astonished no one could find a Nazareth--so she picked a place, had a church built, and declared that was Nazareth. A town subsequently built up off the pilgrimage business that this created. (She did the same thing with most of the sites mentioned in the Gospels, since there were no local traditions on these things).

The only mention of Jesus in secular history (of Jesus, not of Christians) is a fraudulent passage inserted into Josephus. Not convincing. There were about fifty known classical authors who wrote about first century Palestine, and none of them mention a miracle worker who attracted "great multitudes."

The earliest real Christian writing are some letters that actually were from an early Christian known as Paul. If one reads them with an open eye, one sees that even he does not testify to an earthly Jesus. He seems to know nothing of the stories told in the Gospels. His "Jesus of Nazareth" is long dead and resurrected (in "mythic" time) and now about to return (early Christianity that that then was the End Time, just as so many of this sort think today).

So it seems Christianity started as a Greek Mystery Cult and was present all over Asia Minor and Greece proper in Paul's day, the heavenly "Jesus of Nazareth" playing the role in this cult that various other "foreign" (to the Greeks) demiurges (sort of half-man half-god) played in other Greek salvationist cults--including the wine/blood and bread/body symbolism that really is as Greek as it gets.

Later a myth of this Jesus evolved (as seen in "Quelle") that was then elaborated on separately by Luke and Matthew (especially by Matthew), designing the life to try to fit it as well as possible into the prophesies (this is known as "pious fraud," and there are always a few in any movement willing to commit it. Matthew seems to have been particularly eager to do so. John, much later, may have been written to try to harmonize the Gospel with Greek philosophy, so it takes a rather different tack about a generation later.

People can't see this because they are so use to thinking of the Gospels as actual accounts, rather than as myths, but anyone with any common sense and without prejudice can see that they are completely mythical, just reading them. They are contrived, tell things that a novelist might know, but that the people who supposedly wrote them could not, contain contradictions and errors (especially of geography), and in many places are confused (as happens when one tries to put oral material down on paper).

Tell me Bob Price didnt take the time to come to all forums to debate.
And I use to think Bob Price was a nice guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Exactly, doesnt mean he didnt either.


I see you engage in the sly but dishonest procedure of posting web citations that don't refute what I say while you leave the implication they do. Why don't you post your own arguments the way I do? Could it be that you don't want people to realize how empty your case is?

We can only know about an ancient figure from the documents (and sometimes an inscription or a coin), but detail only from the documents.

There are far more documents about Heracles (Roman Hercules) than about Jesus, but, in spite of this, we understand that Heracles was a mythical figure. How do we conclude this? Because the documents that tell us about him are full of supernatural and superhuman stuff.

The same is applicable to Jesus. There is nothing outside the Gospels (except the fraud in Josephus) that is about Jesus. There is no testimony except four books filled with supernatural and superhuman stuff.

In other words, your argument for believing in Jesus is the same as for believing in Heracles, or Osiris (Egyptian) or Mithra (Persian). All three of these come from Greek mystery cults, and Christianity prevailed via politics, not holiness, followed by persecution of non-Christians (read any history of Constantine).

I see you engage in the sly but dishonest procedure of posting web citations that don't refute what I say while you leave the implication they do.


No, the implication was for people to educate themselves on it and see that only a moron would use what you have in debate.

No, the implication was for people to educate themselves on it and see that only a moron would use what you have in debate.
Your responses to what I have posted have contained no substance, just nastiness and hatefulness.

Oh, yes, tell me how to prove someone didn't exist? That doesn't mean he did.

Oh how I have waited to hear that from you. Makes me feel all warm inside.

I think you already know where I'm going with this. Lets see if you can guess it.

Oh how I have waited to hear that from you. Makes me feel all warm inside.

I think you already know where I'm going with this. Lets see if you can guess it.


:flowers:

:flowers:
I think you would not smile if you knew the snideness behind that.

I had earlier made the argument that comparing belief in God with belief in the Tooth Fairy was an error because there is no credible evidence for the Tooth Fairy, while there is credible evidence (although to me not persuasive) for the existence of God.

He now twists this to apply (inappropriately) to the complete absence of credible evidence for the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth."

The difference he does not understand is that there really is no evidence for Jesus, but there is for God.

I think you would not smile if you knew the snideness behind that.

I had earlier made the argument that comparing belief in God with belief in the Tooth Fairy was an error because there is no credible evidence for the Tooth Fairy, while there is credible evidence (although to me not persuasive) for the existence of God.

He now twists this to apply (inappropriately) to the complete absence of credible evidence for the existence of "Jesus of Nazareth."

The difference he does not understand is that there really is no evidence for Jesus, but there is for God.

Its not a smile, its flowers... Dont you know what flowers are for?

Its not a smile, its flowers... Dont you know what flowers are for?
Ah, I stand corrected.

Its not a smile, its flowers... Dont you know what flowers are for?
They're for saying, "Honey, I'm sorry I left the toilet seat up again!" :slap:

No His name given to Him by The Father is YAHSHUA and it is hebrew.
There is no J in hebrew it translates to YA . For that matter the english language didn't have a J till around 1626

Matt 1:19-21
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."
NKJV


NT:2424 Iesous (ee-ay-sooce'); of Hebrew origin [OT:3091]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)