Quote Originally Posted by Billy Preston
The fact that Jesus and his disciples existed is irrelevant. I am an athiest but I believe he existed and that he was a great leader. I also believe he did not claim to be the son of god but was deified at a later date by man when the bible was written so that the respect and admiration he commanded as a person and as a teacher could be exploited.

Of course the Bible at its core is about good morals and being a good person but it is twisted into a web of fairy tales and lies that people get hung up on.

Lets not forget the fact that it is just a book, written by human beings just like Alice in wonderland or Fantasic Mr Fox. These books too have morals but we do not live our life by them. We take the lessons they can teach and apply it to our own lives unintrusively.

The very idea that all people should live in the same way, by the exact same set of morals is, to my mind, offensive. I have a feeling Jesus, the man would be disgusted by the way his teachings have been capitalised.

You say the christian scriptures will outlive us all. As will corruption, greed, liars and murderers. Longevity is no basis for worth.

You mention is the last paragraph that the first christians historically died for thier faith. We're you there? Did they exist? Is it true because it is written down or told to you?


If I come across as aggressive through any of this I assure you it's not my intention. It's an issue I feel very strongly about and I'm always willing to be proved wrong and to learn.
As to the Scriptures being changed after they were written, the evidence just doesn't support that conclusion. We have manuscripts (handwritten copies) dating back hundreds and over a thousand years, very close to when the originals were written. And these manuscripts are something like 99.5% accurate to eachother, with almost all of even thouse tiny amount of differences being copy errors with words like "a" and "the" and words that generally don't effect the meaning of particular passages.

Why does that matter? Well, it shows that the tradition of copying the Scriptures is one that involved *very much* attention to detail and to accurate copying. Historically speaking, we know that the Scriptures were extremely respected and revered by the church and those who dedicated their lives to Christ and to perserving the Scriptures. That is just a fact, my friend.

Now, you can say the manuscripts were changed and Christ was "deified" and all that in the first few hundred years (the time period from which we don't have any of the original manuscripts yet). However, again, from my perspective that makes no sense at all. The changes necessary to turn the Bible from the book it is (with all its claims of the diety of Christ, the importance of God and following him, etc.) into a book of general moral suggestions would be *massive*. It would take a serious fucking chop-job to change the Scriptures that much. And the fact is, in that time period you had Christians who were were so dedicated to the truth (including the disciples) that they were literally dying for what they had seen and beleived. Not only that, but (unlike other major religious leaders) they were not gaining many wives, large amounts of wealth, etc. Historically, the motives of these people was not to lie to and manipulate others for their own ends. These peoples lived and died to preserve the truth. That is just the historical record, period. It would take more faith for me to beleive what the "Scripture chop-job" sceptics say must have happened then for me to believe Christ is Lord.

The fact that Jesus and his disciples existed is not "irrelevant" as you say. In fact, it is central to the entire discussion of who he was. No, I wasn't there when he lived. But again, the history we have written down about people (be it George Washington, Napoleon, Augustine the church Father, or even the Apostles Peter and Paul) is not something we should just ignore just because were weren't there our selves. That would be foolish.

The Bible is an accurate representation of what Christ taught about himself, and what the Apostles who lived with him taught and wrote about him. Take it for what it is, believe it, or don't beleive it. But for God's sake don't try to water it down. In the book "Mere Christianity", Oxford Scholar and former atheist C.S. Lewis famously criticized the idea that Jesus was merely a human being, albeit a great moral teacher, writing:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: Iâ??m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I donâ??t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic â?? on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg â?? or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis 1952, pp. 43)