Quoting Jesus

[Gordon]

There is no evidence, which can be substantiated.

In which case, without going into the specifics of evidence in general or the take of anyone here, if someone believes something and rejects what others present to them as evidence to the contrary (however compelling this evidence seems to be) then you could justifiably say they were wrong but you couldn't presume they were lying, since to lie they'd have to say something they knew to be false.   

[floo]

In which case, without going into the specifics of evidence in general or the take of anyone here, if someone believes something and rejects what others present to them as evidence to the contrary (however compelling this evidence seems to be) then you could justifiably say they were wrong but you couldn't presume they were lying, since to lie they'd have to say something they knew to be false.

OK.

[Robbie]

Sassy isn't lying.

No I agree she isn't. To lie there has be intent. Reallyglad to see people come out and say as much as often people are accused of lying when they are stating what they believe but can't prove it. Lying isn't that.

[Owlswing]

Except the idea that it means you can never kill is incorrect in what the Hebrew means and in what was the intention of the writers of the KJV and others.

See link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

All well and good for a Christian who has studied the Bible in far more detail than most trying to back out of the argument or a pedant.

How many children going into Sunday School and being taught the Ten ever have this distinction, translation variable, explained to them?

It never was to me and, as far as I can see, still is not. It is taught -THOU SHALT NOT KILL - with no degree or other moderator applied.

To me your argument is fine for adults but it is not what is taught to anyone in any form of religious education that I have had either myself or  have heard of via school children, including my own.     

[ippy]

Just because I'm a non believer where all of these various beliefs seem so obviously man made to me, it doesn't mean I look on the religious minded as the enemy; I am the enemy of religious privillege.

Believers in any of these questionable beliefs are begining to be looked on as, well a bit eccentric and that will only be on the increase,  more so as time moves on.

Sass, isn't a liar and I feel sure is a really decent person, I would really miss seeing her elaborate postings, good on you Sass.

Regards ippy

[jeremyp]

I disagree, if you state something as a fact when it isn't, it is a lie, imo.

For much of human history, people genuinely believed the Sun went round the Earth. Were they lying when they said so?

[jeremyp]

Are you certain that proof is available in maths?

I certainly am.

If you assume Euclid's five axioms of plane geometry, then Pythagorus' theorem is definitely true.

The above statement is a true mathematical statement and it has been rigorously proven in any number of ways.

[Rhiannon]

I actually find it more troublesome when religious people dont state their beliefs, however full on they might be. It's one reason why I mistrust a politician who isn't open about his or her belief - now that's lying, and about something that is supposedly of great importance to them. It's why faith should never be just a private matter - it can tell you so much about a person.

[Nearly Sane]

All well and good for a Christian who has studied the Bible in far more detail than most trying to back out of the argument or a pedant.

How many children going into Sunday School and being taught the Ten ever have this distinction, translation variable, explained to them?

It never was to me and, as far as I can see, still is not. It is taught -THOU SHALT NOT KILL - with no degree or other moderator applied.

To me your argument is fine for adults but it is not what is taught to anyone in any form of religious education that I have had either myself or  have heard of via school children, including my own.     

If you mean the detailed understanding of the original Hebrew, then yes, absolutely, it's not common. But any reading of the OT can recognise that there is 'killing' that the OT god thinks is fine. And not surprisingly, imo, it was brought up by children being taught the 10 Commandments when I was being taught them at 6/7. And at that time without any of the whole 'this is what it says in Hebrew' the idea of illegal killing was covered. That something isn't taught well doesn't make the bad teaching correct.

[Owlswing]

If you mean the detailed understanding of the original Hebrew, then yes, absolutely, it's not common. But any reading of the OT can recognise that there is 'killing' that the OT god thinks is fine. And not surprisingly, imo, it was brought up by children being taught the 10 Commandments when I was being taught them at 6/7. And at that time without any of the whole 'this is what it says in Hebrew' the idea of illegal killing was covered. That something isn't taught well doesn't make the bad teaching correct.

I cannot see that the hypocricy of condemning ALL killing - the Sixth - and then preaching that God alone knows how many specific forms of  murder and the murder of specific groups are acceptable because God condones them makes them "right"!

Either the Sixth is God's (the Christian God's) law, Commandment, or it is not - I, for one, by a Google search, can find no reference to the Sixth being noted as being amended or replaced.

If 5 and 6 year old can see the inconsistancy why cannot adults - especially adult priests? Priests who are - effectively teaching that hypoicricy is OK as long as it is their God's hypocricy!     

[Owlswing]

N S

Reference the OP title - Where, if anywhere, can it be shown that Jesus, if, of course, he actually existed as described in Christian teaching, said one word of what is "quoted"?

[Robbie]

We can never prove what Jesus actually said, only go on what we believe he said based on writings.
In my work and life I have chosen the words that we (are reported) Jesus said, which make sense: love one another.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated, basis of Equal Opportunities statements& the like.
Whether we believe in the diviinity of Jesus or not, we can't argue with that.

[Owlswing]

We can never prove what Jesus actually said, only go on what we believe he said based on writings.
In my work and life I have chosen the words that we (are reported) Jesus said, which make sense: love one another.
Treat others as you would wish to be treated, basis of Equal Opportunities statements& the like.
Whether we believe in the diviinity of Jesus or not, we can't argue with that.

Agreed.

I would venture to suggest that you have already calculated the odss on you not being one of the targets of my ongoing abuse of the Christian religion and its claim to the Ultimate Truth of Life, the Universe and Everything.

Now, where in Hell have I heard that phrase before? (snigger)

[Robbie]

When you were hitchin' a ride!

[Owlswing]

When you were hitchin' a ride!

You got it in one, buddy!

[DaveM]

Agreed.

I would venture to suggest that you have already calculated the odss on you not being one of the targets of my ongoing abuse of the Christian religion and its claim to the Ultimate Truth of Life, the Universe and Everything.

Now, where in Hell have I heard that phrase before? (snigger)

What a sad post.  It would appear that your only intention on this forum is to verbally abuse and insult those of the Christian faith.  You clearly have no wish (and probably no ability) to enter into any form of sensible debate on this topic.

[floo]

What a sad post.  It would appear that your only intention on this forum is to verbally abuse and insult those of the Christian faith.  You clearly have no wish (and probably no ability) to enter into any form of sensible debate on this topic.

Some of your posts don't come over as well thought out, which is a polite way of putting it.

[Owlswing]

What a sad post.  It would appear that your only intention on this forum is to verbally abuse and insult those of the Christian faith.  You clearly have no wish (and probably no ability) to enter into any form of sensible debate on this topic.

Sensible debate?

If my post is sad, yours is a joke!

The Christians on this forum, for the most part, do NOT debate the topic.

They first of all make the statement that the Bible is the unquestioned historical truth in every single word, syllable and letter and anyone who dares to have the audacity to dispute that is allied directly to the anti-Christ or is too mentally deficient to see the TRUTH! Or their version of said truth!

Unless and until the Christians - every last one of them, not just those on this forum - can admit that the Bible is one of the most translated, edited, revised and re-written books ever published and, being 2,000 years old, is, for the most part, irrelevant to the 21st century and that their religion is, like every other religion on Earth, FAITH NOT FACT, I will continue to post as I do.

The words put into Jesus' mouth are fine as a guideline for life. No question of that, BUT, was Jesus the son of God? Probably not.

Is the Bible a factual historical record? Probably not.

Is the Bible an accurate translation into English of the original Hebrew writings? Probably not.

If you want to see what I mean about not debating take a look back over Sassy's voluminous postings.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the Bible an accurate translation into English of the original Hebrew writings? Probably not.

.     

The new testament was written in Greek.
You say 'probably not' several times in your post.....let's see the money. For my part Antitheists and antichristians show a poor grasp of some of the basic facts of ancient history....e.g. Only bit's of it survive. Also they demonstrate very little evidence of applying the same doubts on other works of the same or similar date,i.e. special pleading
Christianity stands out above similar grassroots movements probably as a movement as dedicated to preserving it's beliefs and history more than other non governmental bodies of the time.
Also evident is the wildly inaccurate and deliberately misleading caricature of Axial age writers as 'Bronze aged goat herders'.......so much for the New Atheism and the historical method.

[Gordon]

Christianity stands out above similar grassroots movements probably as a movement as dedicated to preserving it's beliefs and history more than other non governmental bodies of the time.

To what extent though do you think the survival and profile of Christianity was aided by its 'governmental' support, such as from the 4th century CE? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To what extent though do you think the survival and profile of Christianity was aided by its 'governmental' support, such as from the 4th century CE?

Bit of a double edged sword I think. Is a state Christianity linked to a personal religion and if so in what way?

I was not a church attender until after conversion and would argue that the state had no part in my conversion and get the feeling that the government of the time would rather had me worshipping at a Tesco on Sunday.

The whole point of Protestantism after all was that perhaps millions were lost in the midst of wholesale communal religion and both Protestant and orthodox Christianity are at least a stab at the preconstantinoan church.

Are you building up to the Christianity would not have survived without state support (How would that ride against that other New Atheist hobbyhorse namely Christianity has no merits and just got lucky because after all religion is a load of cobblers etc) theory?

[Gordon]

Bit of a double edged sword I think. Is a state Christianity linked to a personal religion and if so in what way?

I was not a church attender until after conversion and would argue that the state had no part in my conversion and get the feeling that the government of the time would rather had me worshipping at a Tesco on Sunday.

The whole point of Protestantism after all was that perhaps millions were lost in the midst of wholesale communal religion and both Protestant and orthodox Christianity are at least a stab at the preconstantinoan church.

Are you building up to the Christianity would not have survived without state support (How would that ride against that other New Atheist hobbyhorse namely Christianity has no merits and just got lucky because after all religion is a load of cobblers etc) theory?

As usual you over egg the pudding.

I was simply noting that survival of Christianity involves its role in power and politics from the 4th century CE onwards and that, as such, that it survived doesn't imply that that it's tenets are essentially true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was simply noting that survival of Christianity involves its role in power and politics from the 4th century CE onwards.

Does it indeed? assuming Christianity did become power and politics from the 4th century onwards, that would imply it became something different from what it had been for the three centuries prior, the success of which would have to be explained in some other way.

In the light of that I think that there is a case that Christianity could have survived itself.

[Gordon]

Does it indeed? assuming Christianity did become power and politics from the 4th century onwards, that would imply it became something different from what it had been for the three centuries prior, the success of which would have to be explained in some other way.

Nope - once it was adopted by the politically powerful in the Roman Empire, and even then there were theological differences, the role of the Christian church changed in terms of its influence: for example the situation involving Ambrose and Theodosius.

Contrast that with the treatment of Christians under Nero and it is clear that its social and political role did change by the 4th century as did the theology, since this was around this time that the likes of Arius had influence and where it was Constantine who sought to regularise matters, hence Nicea in 325. I'd say its adoption by the Romans was instrumental in both its theology and its survival, given the power and influence exercised by Christian clerics (like Ambrose and various Popes and Archbishops etc).

In the light of that I think that there is a case that Christianity could have survived itself.

What case?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - once it was adopted by the politically powerful in the Roman Empire, and even then there were theological differences, the role of the Christian church changed in terms of its influence: for example the situation involving Ambrose and Theodosius.

Contrast that with the treatment of Christians under Nero and it is clear that its social and political role did change by the 4th century as did the theology, since this was around this time that the likes of Arius had influence and where it was Constantine who sought to regularise matters, hence Nicea in 325. I'd say its adoption by the Romans was instrumental in both its theology and its survival, given the power and influence exercised by Christian clerics (like Ambrose and various Popes and Archbishops etc).

What case?

You continually ignore the first three hundred years of Christianity Gordon. Why do you keep doing this?
It looks suspiciously like it's inconvenient for your argument.