Is the bible Gospel

Any trial lawyer will that eyewitness evidence is the worst that you can have. Any two people, who witness an event, tell what they saw through a filter of what they wanted to see. Beyond that the Bible has been rewritten and revised, countless times, to reinforce the will of whoever was in power at the time. It is impossible to regard the bible we have now as a historical document.

I agree. Look at book reviews as an example. People have bias because of their culture, upbringing, socio-economic standing, and thier beliefs. Viewed through the filters of their own eyes and experience.

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and second hand accounts are unreliable, so on what do you base your intreptation of christian history? Or ANY history, for that matter? Prove to me that Emperor Constantine even actually existed. Oh, and you can't use historical documents, or histories compiled by later historians, or eyewitness testimony. It's easy to dismiss claims that you don't want to seriously consider, but if you dismiss the testimony of the New Testament, rationally, you must reject with equal force all history that you yourself were not present to witness. The New Testament is better established than nearly any other document in the entire history of the world. We have extant first and second century fragments and manuscripts that show that the modern text is significantly the same as the earliest copies. What pre-Christian greeks believed has no bearing on how we should interpret the Christian documents. The fact of the matter is, you can climb to the top of Olympus and factually disprove Greek mythology. But the claims of the Bible are significantly different, and must be interpretted as they themselves call for. If Christianity was a mystery religion from it's inception, the mystery element, the Gnostics, would have been the mainstream. However, the fact is that the Gnostic writings were never widely accepted, which is why they were eventually ruled to be heretical. Oh yeah, and the fact that they are not true. The fact that the earliest Christian writings, the Epistles of Paul and John CLEARLY oppose the gnostic heresy gives support to the mainstream in opposing those same follies centuries later. That they were opposed is not evidence of some conspiracy, just evidence that thy were judged to be not true and rejected by leaders seeking to know the truth.

I think you missed the point of my thread!!!! Is the bible an eyewitness account??? Did Jesus exist???? The second coming was to actually happen within the disciples lifetime and we are still waiting. No I don't believe the gospel to be gospel but blatant plagiarism. Who these days believes everything they read. Just look at the material which is on the internet for starters.

sorry I did miss it, and you are right about the content of the internet. Are the gospels eye witness accounts? Barbara Theirring wrote a series of books about this and came to the conclusion that much of the new destiment derives from the "new teachings" of the essense reforms of the jewish religion, making them contemporary with the characters in the stories. Its and interesting debate. Do check her work out. www.helium.com/tm/122872 try this link for a review of one of her books.

Yes I have read Barbara's work. As a theologist I agree with her findings. The gospel of Thomas does not appear in the Bible and miracles performed by Jesus were also performed by the Gnostic's and other Pagan God's in the Mediterranean region which are also documented. The Gnostics also had a inner circle which very few were privy to or their teachings. It is a very interesting debate which I think will continue for eternity. I suppose what I was looking for was why people believe in the Bible as I'm researching religous beliefs and convictions at the moment.

It is 2000 years of 'conditioning' by the church. The Bible says man has only been on earth for 6500 yrs. Then would some one please explain to me, Mungo man and woman and also Otsi.

Why do you reject the acounts of miracles in the Bible? What are the proofs that exist to show the Bible is wrong? I have faith, but not blind faith. If you can present some self-consistent set of proofs that render the Christian belief impossible, the I will consider abandoning those principles. However, if the best you can do is render those claims as improbable, I will agree, and point out that the improbable happens every day. Show me a system of belief - religious, scientific, philosophical, or whatever - that is internally consistent and requires absolutely no faith because it is proven beyond any possible doubt. Prove to me what you are saying. The thing is, people stand up and say "the Bible is wrong" and try to put the burden of proof on Christians. Let me turn the tables on you. I don't believe the US landed on the moon. The landing was staged in hollywood. You can not use any eyewitness accounts, and the footage of the landings are out, because I don't believe them. Prove that the moon landing actually happened. Do you see how absurd this can become?

E mail me at breewills@hotmail.com. Anyone else who wishes to have a very indepth private conversation is also welcome to email me. Thanks Domina