Slashdot Mirror

We have no original copies of any documents related to the NT, and the earliest copies were written centuries after the events.

So, odds are actually pretty good that Peter and Paul just made it up.

We can move beyond odds to absolute certainty that you don't know what you are talking about.

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity. ...

. . . . there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000. .....

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing (John Rylands Papyri A.D. 125). This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing, and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document. . . . .

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. ....

Hasn’t the New Testament Changed?

The New Testament was written from about A.D. 50 to A.D. 90. The earliest fragment (p. 52) dates about A.D. 120, with about fifty other fragments dating within 150–200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 350), a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar’s The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts (Catullus—three copies; the earliest one is 1,600 years after he wrote; Herodotus—eight copies and 1,300 years).

http://carm.org/questions/about-bible/where-did-cain-get-his-wife

If you wanted to have a serious discussion on this, you could google to find the huge number of (fairly simple) explanations for why that is.

Here, Ill even do the difficult work for you:
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=why+do+christians+follow+parts+of+the+old+testament+laws
http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

If you really wish for further clarification please let me know.

I wish that were true but too many fundamentalist have hijacked our religion and now we have people believing outrageous things. Natural Revelation coincides very well with science, the way you describe here, but there's the creationist museum which changes the very definition of the word

That's an awful lot of opinion that many on this site will agree with...but its just that, opinion.

The bible has more textual/historical evidence to prove it is accurate than any other historical work: http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability

If you disagree you will need more than opinion...

First, thanks for the first non-inflammatory comment of the thread (yes, mine included). Now, to be slightly rude to you and take your quote completely out of context to prove a point that you weren't even arguing (sorry!! Also, I won't bother to address your [citation needed] request, even though not addressing points when replying to posts is a personal pet-peeve of mine. Whoops. Google is your friend, though)

I have quite a few [pick a race] friends, but I don't consdier them to be [racial insult] because

This is the problem I have -- it seems many argue that it's OK to call Christians "religious nuts" since they exhibit behavior that they do not approve of. While these same people, in most cases, preach "tolerance" in every other instance (other races, homosexuality, gender equality... pick your issue), and even call Christians intolerant because they live with integrity to their believe system (yes, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Yes, the Bible says the man is the head of the household.).

But this is hypocritical in my opinion -- if I as a Christian *didn't* live according to the Bible, I expect many of these "same people" (now it's getting vague as to whom I'm referring to -- oh well) would condemn me similarly as they do *because* I believe what the Bible says. So why do these (who??) tolerance preachers have no tolerance themselves?

(wow -- not my best-worded or best-argued comment ever.. oh well, gotta run to a meeting -- flame on.)

First, thanks for the first non-inflammatory comment of the thread (yes, mine included). Now, to be slightly rude to you and take your quote completely out of context to prove a point that you weren't even arguing (sorry!! Also, I won't bother to address your [citation needed] request, even though not addressing points when replying to posts is a personal pet-peeve of mine. Whoops. Google is your friend, though)

I have quite a few [pick a race] friends, but I don't consdier them to be [racial insult] because

This is the problem I have -- it seems many argue that it's OK to call Christians "religious nuts" since they exhibit behavior that they do not approve of. While these same people, in most cases, preach "tolerance" in every other instance (other races, homosexuality, gender equality... pick your issue), and even call Christians intolerant because they live with integrity to their believe system (yes, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Yes, the Bible says the man is the head of the household.).

But this is hypocritical in my opinion -- if I as a Christian *didn't* live according to the Bible, I expect many of these "same people" (now it's getting vague as to whom I'm referring to -- oh well) would condemn me similarly as they do *because* I believe what the Bible says. So why do these (who??) tolerance preachers have no tolerance themselves?

(wow -- not my best-worded or best-argued comment ever.. oh well, gotta run to a meeting -- flame on.)

It should be noted that "Christian Science" (with capital letters) is the name of a religious sect. It is not really Christian and not especially science-minded.

Will people PLEASE quit linking stupid "contradictions" like this?
If you're going to post the "contradictions" maybe you should post the other side of the "contradictions" so people can see both sides of this.
Answer
Of course, this is slashdot, and anything pro religion is wrong, anything anti-religion is right.

I'm not aware of any group which denies Jesus was a real person. They may not all agree on "who" he was or the meaning of his teachings, but they agree he existed.

Here are a few resources for this
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

>>What other "myths" could be somewhat verified in this manner?

Like the day Jesus was crucified?

"... because with Kepler's equations we can determine exactly when historical eclipses occurred. Perhaps it will not surprise you to learn that only one Passover lunar eclipse was visible from Jerusalem while Pilate was in office (30). It occurred on April 3, 33 AD, the Day of the Cross...."

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

The earth quakes which occurred during Jesus's Crucifixion?

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/day/day.htm

"The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood..." The gospels do recount that the sun was darkened on the day of the crucifixion from noon until 3 in the afternoon (29). Ancient non-Biblical sources confirm this. Phlegon Trallianus records in his history, Olympiades (41):

        "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [AD 32-33], a failure of the Sun took place greater than any previously known, and night came on at the sixth hour of the day [noon], so that stars actually appeared in the sky; and a great earthquake took place in Bithynia and overthrew the greater part of Niceaea," obviously not a simple astronomical event. (42)

Or the Star of Bethlehem? A conjunction of Jupiter and the star Regulas in 2 BC which fulfills all 9 Biblical requirements of the star of Bethlehem?

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/dance/dance.htm

QUOTE
      1. It signified birth.
      2. It signified kingship.
      3. It had a connection with the Jewish nation.

      4. It rose in the east, like other stars.
      5. It appeared at a precise time.
      6. Herod didn't know when it appeared.
      7. It endured over time.
      8. It was ahead of the Magi as they went south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.
      9. It stopped over Bethlehem. (Retrograde motion)

One point in contention is when Herod died. This theory depends on Herod dying in 1 BC, but most historians believe he died 4 BC. There is evidence for this theory but it isn't widely accepted. See the link for more details.

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/stage/stage.htm

Actually... Mormons are not Christian. Although this is a common misconception. Please, give the bible a read. Just read the gospel if you like (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). It doesn't take all that long to get through them - and once you do, I think you'll realize the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

Please understand that I'm not trying to attack you; I'm just trying clarify something that's often misunderstood.

Nu-uh! They can be studied here!
No, wait... here!
Crap, that's still not it... maybe here?

I'm so confused...

taken from http://www.carm.org/atheism/noevidence.htm. I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God, That does not mean there is no God. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence. Therefore, it is possible that God exists. If it is possible, then faith has its place. If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.) It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? Does Christianity fit within that criteria? If not, why not? Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable? Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic? Do you want him to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up? If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent, which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because he would violate his own nature -- which he cannot do. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can? But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Do you define the miraculous out of existence? If so, on what basis do you do this? If you assume that science can explain all phenomena, then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.

You're baffled as to why some people keep saying that Mormons aren't Christians?

http://www.carm.org/lds/compare.htm

http://www.godandscience.org/cults/mormdiff.html

The last time I checked, Christianity was not founded on the Book of Mormon, nor was the Book of Mormon canonized! Last time I checked, the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost all referred to the triunal nature of God in Christianity, whereas in Mormonism they actually refer to three separate Gods. The last time I checked, Mormons believe in the existance of multiple Gods. In fact, Mormon men (never women, mind you) have a chance of becoming Gods in the after-life, and ruling over their own kingdom! You may want to believe that Mormons are Christian, but your belief is not founded on the plain-truth statements made by canonized Mormon literature, which includes the various bullshit prophecies revealed by the various LDS living prophets (equivalent to fortune-tellers for those of you not in-the-know).

I am completely baffled at how you could have studied the scriptures and came away with the impression that being good will get you to heaven. The murderer next to Jesus went to heaven! Obviously, not a good guy. The bible is filled with stories of horrible people that were God's annointed. Let's not forget the apostle Paul was running around prescuting Christians before he was blinded.

It's the whole "not by works, but faith" thing repeated OVER and OVER in the bible. Take a look at this list:

http://www.carm.org/catholic/faithalone.htm

Not true. The latest accepted date for any of the 27 canonical NT books is circa 90-100 AD, that being John's Revelation. The gospels were written in the 50's and 60's, Paul's books also around that time, and then John's come later. A quick Google search found this table of dates you might find informative.

This issue of both parties ignoring the facts .. I think that is why even "christians" who supposedly follow the same book ..can have diametrically opposing views.

Social conservatives think they are "moral" and that especially they like to think they are christian and follow the bible. Yet most of them actually do exactly the opposite of what the bible says.

Yet, on any given issue ... the "Social conservatives" don't follow the bible.

For one thing, social conservatives oppose immigration/immigrants .. when the Bible is extremely clear on this topic. They also want to build a wall on the southern border (bible says "if you build a high gate, you invite destruction") .. all of histories' walls are tourist attractions today (Great Wall, Hadrian's wall etc.)

http://www.churchworldservice.org/Immigration/bibl e-as-handbook.html

Yet most social conservatives would call for a halt to immigration (or at least non european immigration).

At one time a majority of them would have opposed interracial marriage .. yet the bible is clear on this question as well .. http://www.carm.org/questions/interracial_marriage .htm http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g003.htm l and http://www.tbm.org/whatinterrac.htm

Very strangely the Numbers 12:1 reference used to be quoted (out of context) as a reason not to have interracial marriages.

So, when Jesus was tempted by the devil who was quoting scriptures ..Jesus used objective logic against it. Maybe that's what people need to use .. objective logic versus blind "adherence" to scripture.

The meare presence of the words christian apoligist takes away any objective meaning to the article let alone explains why he would intentionaly misconstrue what he was talking about.

Myth.

Does that make you a Christian Apologetic?

(From http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm): "The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. (Morris, 63). In other words, the probability is 1 in 10^8 X 10^8 X 10^8 X 10^8 X 10^8, or 1 in 10^40. If one hundred trillion (10^14) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (10^17 seconds), the resulting population (10^31) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!"

old argument that is based on flaw. JEPD has no credibility.

good write up here http://www.carm.org/bible/jedp_b.htm

Didn't have the URL handy during my previous post. Please consider the following site: http://www.carm.org/catholic.htm

Good luck to you in your journey.

Though I have to admit it will sure be fun to see all the squirming and contorting that will take place from the religious establishment in trying to prove their point.

Why would Lot offer his daughters to the mob of men since it was a very bad thing to do? Quite simply, what Lot did was wrong. He was hypocritical and ungodly in his action. In that culture, it was extremely important to treat visitors very well since the host of a home in a city automatically represented that city to the visitors. It was a very big deal to make sure the visitors were well treated. This may have played a part in Lot's decision to honor his guests, but it makes no difference. Lot was very wrong to offer his own daughters to the mob.
          Some may think that Lot was a very godly man. But this is not the case in this instance. If he were, why was he living in Sodom in the first place? Why did he choose to go there? It is probably true that Lot was a God-fearing man to some extent, but he obviously was compromising his values and was probably being influenced by the sinfulness of the city. In his compromised position, he sinned by offering his daughters.
          Finally, we must look at 2 Pet. 2:6-7,

"and if He [God] condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men..."

        Even the righteous before God can do things that are wrong. Overall, Lott feared God and trusted in Him -- even though he did wrong by offering his daughters. God does not remember our sins (Isaiah 43:25), Therefore, Lot's sins were not remembered when Lot was described in Peter's account.

Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I still believe that if any religion has it right though, it is probably the JW's. They read the bible and do what it says.

http://www.carm.org/jw/nwt.htm

To start with, here are several other links that support the fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the world by number of adherents.

Next -- do we take dominant to mean most popular?

Since there are 800 million or so more Christians in the world than the second highest religion, (Islam), Christianity is both the most dominant and most popular.

I give you this awesome quote from the bottom of the page were they are backing up their spurious claims: AR [animal rights] is a religion, but for the majority of Animal Rights supporters, AR functions as a movement and/or lifestyle choice, not their primary religion. Emphasis is not my own. This admission leads to double counting.

You're assuming that there are at least 800 million double-counts, all of which list themselves as both Christian and something else. That's a pretty wild assumption. The article in the (grandparent) link gives no indication of anything of that nature or magnitude.

Christianity is obviously the dominant religion in America (as there are more Christians than not). Christianity is not the dominant religion in China (or India, or Iraq, the locale is irrelevant) as there are more non-Christians than not. If one agrees with these two claims, then Christianity is not the Earth's dominant religion.

See all the links at the top of this post, and do your own research. You'll find that it's simply a fact that there are more Christians than any other religion's adherents in the world. However one feels about Christianity, or any other religion, it doesn't change this fact.

Conversely, the requirements for bootstrapping to the level of the Almighty are laid out in Job 40:7-14
This is a good tidbit for those moments when we, regrettably, take ourselves too seriously.
See also Ecclesiates.
HTH,
Chris

For starters, 100 Prophecies is a pretty interesting web site but the internet can't replace good books.

If you choose to reject the reliability of manuscripts and their origin, make sure to throw out all of antiquity. The Gallic Wars are a good example.

Yeah, but it's not safe sex either, as anybody who has sex with an animal shall surely be put to death.

Not Christians - Christian Scientists. Huge difference.

Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb record on science. Christian Science, that is.

Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance.

Join the GNAA today!

Be a man - click here!

Ps; Jesus loves you

As an AC mentioned, I don't think they were a horrible people, but there was a lot of mutual animosity between them and the Jews. There had been a recent incident involving defacing a temple, and so Jews were actually praying that Samaritans would not get eternal life. You can read the parable itself at Luke 10:30 and a good analysis here. It mentions why the priest and Levite were reluctant to help, and why the Samaritan would be as well. Yet of course the despised Samaritan does what the others would not.

I'm an atheist, but I like this parable. And it seems that most people neither understand the historical details nor understand that they can be the good Samaritan in their daily lives.

The modern LDS Church prohibits polygamy, but most fundamentalist Mormons do practice it. It has been a staple of Mormonism since the religion's founding in 1830 by Joseph Smith, who is said to have had 27 wives. It seems that the LDS Church has less say about the behavior of Mormons (the Church has decided it hates that term) than the Vatican does about that of Roman Catholics, and we know how strictly obedient American Catholics are to the Pope. ;-)

You shouldn't have trusted your Sunday school teacher. Study for yourself! Obviously, you didn't check the information at the link I cited in my original message. The apparent contradiction you mention about Judas is shown to not be a contradiction after all.

Matthew 27:3

You proved the point I was making: study with the attitude that you're seeking to understand the Bible before you make bold statements about its veracity.

>Meanwhile, if you try to evaluate the Bible objectively by comparing it to what we know from history, archaeology, geology, etc., it is found often to be very, very wrong.

Back up your bold assertion with some facts! Come on - read a little archaeological history. Read about the Hittites. Before the 19th century, skeptics said that the Bible was wrong because the Bible mentioned Hittites, and yet they weren't found in archaelogical history. Years later, their existence was discovered and the critics ate crow. Google for it, or read "The Discovery of the Hittites" at this page.

Archaeology and the Old Testament

I would like to see some credible evidence before I'll believe that contradictions exist in the Bible. I would agree that apparent contradictions exist, but I haven't seen a legitimate one yet in any accurate translation (ASV, NASB, or NKJV are a few accurate ones that come to mind; New World Translation is an example of an purposefully mistranslated text.)

Refutations to many apparent contradictions can be read here:
Bible Difficulties

The original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible are preserved well. No translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Often, the English does not carry the full meaning of a verse. That is why it is good to examine several translations of the verse to try to get a better understanding.

It is easy to misuse or not interpret scripture accurately and come to the conclusion that it's all false. Jesus recognized that the best way to address Satan's lies and misuse of the truth was to respond with the truth of the scriptures. (Matthew 4)

In my experience, many folks pretend to know that the Bible is false, when in reality they never investigate it first. I hope that you will investigate it. The truths in the Bible have changed my life in many positive ways.

God or "non-God" can't be "proven." I boils down to evidence. There is lots of evidence for the existance of God. I don't have enough time to write it all. Check out Legislating Morality by Turek and Geisler and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and check out CARM.org. God is there if you want to look for him. We Christians (well, the ones that think) don't beling in God, "just because," and I'll defend that anyday.

-Gallamine

It's nice God wants to be friends. But He's got a mean streak a mile wide (see below). I want him to get some counseling (or Prozac prescription) before I get serious. I just can't see much of a joyfilled relationship in this:
Exodus 32

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

God

1. He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).
2. He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
3. He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
4. He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).
5. He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).
6. He knows all things (John 21:17).
7. He gives eternal life (John 10:28).
8. All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).

Man

1. He worshiped the Father (John 17).
2. He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
3. He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
4. He prayed to the Father (John 17).
5. He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
6. He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
7. He died (Rom. 5:8).
8. He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.

The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6).

Other verses to consider when examining His deity are, John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1.

1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.

Do men who believe in evolution worship what is created? Talk to any atheist and see if they don't worship themselves. Sagan referred to 'Cosmos' as his god and even said in His book 'Cosmos' that it is more accurate to worship the sun than God. Just a little research and you will see that many leading evolutionists worship creation even though they may not call it worship.

www.exchangedlife.com

www.carm.org

I was just skimming over this part of the thread and was excited to see somebody boldly standing up for Christians, because I saw myself in that description. But then you disappointed me. ;-) It's sad, but some Christians do have nothing more than a blind faith. I believe that is a sin based many verses of Scripture. The writer of Ecclesiastes says in 1:13, "I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!" Most Jewish children in Israel to this day memorize the entire Tanakh (Old Testament) early in life.

"Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. (Isaiah 1:18)

Our faith is founded on facts, which were recorded as any other history is recorded but with far more numerable and trustworthy records. Our faith is founded on the literal, living, interacting God (Y-H-W-H) who manifested himself as a literal, historical Man (Yeshua) to restore mankind from its fall from righteousness dating back to another literal, historical man (Adam) in the literal Garden of Eden. There is much to be learned and studied. You want details, I know, I know... So Go read a book. Or a website

The greatest commandment demands intellect:

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. (Matthew 22:36-38)

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" - John 4:14

Hey! You like the bible, right? Can you tell me why Jesus has gotta curse fig trees? I mean, whats up with that?

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! - Matthew 21:19

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:13

Jesus! Dude! The time of the figs was not yet! It wasn't fig season! You can't just go around cursing fig trees because they don't produce figs off-season. It's just not nice.

Also, by my source, you've got John 4:14 all wrong.
Isn't it "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."? Thats what it says here at least. It must be tough being christian with so many different bibles to choose from.

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" - John 4:14

Hey! You like the bible, right? Can you tell me why Jesus has gotta curse fig trees? I mean, whats up with that?

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! - Matthew 21:19

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:13

Jesus! Dude! The time of the figs was not yet! It wasn't fig season! You can't just go around cursing fig trees because they don't produce figs off-season. It's just not nice.

Also, by my source, you've got John 4:14 all wrong.
Isn't it "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."? Thats what it says here at least. It must be tough being christian with so many different bibles to choose from.

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" - John 4:14

Hey! You like the bible, right? Can you tell me why Jesus has gotta curse fig trees? I mean, whats up with that?

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! - Matthew 21:19

"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:13

Jesus! Dude! The time of the figs was not yet! It wasn't fig season! You can't just go around cursing fig trees because they don't produce figs off-season. It's just not nice.

Also, by my source, you've got John 4:14 all wrong.
Isn't it "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."? Thats what it says here at least. It must be tough being christian with so many different bibles to choose from.

A sadist, maybe.