That's what's misunderstood by most, largely because it goes unanswered by most subscribers to the Christian faith because they don't study the text carefully. The fact is the Jews at large rejected most of what the prophets said while they lived, canonizing them only after they died (often by decree by their Jewish predecessors).

Most of what the Christian (sic) prophets, such as Isaiah had to say condemned the Jews at large, and pronounced blessing to a "remnant." And that tendency is very consistent.

So, whether the idea of a singular Jewish Savior is a "Jewish" concept or not is moot. The remnant saw it and concealed it among the followers of schools of prophets.

I doubt that any part of the Bible has single authorship, since it's been copied from one manuscript to another many times before the invention of printing, edited many times, and translated many times. But devout believers continue to ignore these facts.

Which, to me, has always seemed "perfectly silly." We know that many of these books come from oral histories. With regard to the 66-book "canonical" collection of documents that comprise The (Protestant) Bible, we know that there were committee meetings ... numerous versions of source texts ... entire sections that were omitted (some appear in The Apocrypha), and even books (e.g. The Gospel of Judas) that were considered by someone to be "heretical."

... and-d-d-d ... "here 'it' is." This is the undeniable provenance of this particular book that you say you "believe in." Well, if you do, then I'm sure that you "do," knowing all of this background information as to exactly how 'it' wound up in your hands. If, on the other hand, that bothers you, then perhaps you should pause and re-examine just what it is you do "believe," and why. If your personal foundation is built upon what is, to you, "shifting sands," then you need to know that. "... and lean not to your own understanding."

My own "take" is quite the opposite: I'm fascinated by the history of old books that have had such a prominent influence upon society. The variations of them that are known to exist; what got put in, what got left out, and why. And, the influences that they have upon society. "The quest for the historical Jesus." The historical Mohammad. The historical Buddha. The very, very different branches of "Christianity" that developed when the Roman Empire split east-to-west. (The Coptics.) The nationalization that occurred ... the Church of England ... and the argument that Christianity itself was born of Empire. All of these things fascinate me.

Christianity is still the most-recent of the mainstream religions, and yet, certainly influential. It's quite unique in some ways for having "bootstrapped" itself against the Judaic religion, of which it claims to be a natural extension yet with which it shares little common ground. The four published gospels are all different and sometimes contradictory (no surprise there ...), yet the majority of the "holy writ" consist of personal letters, ostensibly written by one man who at one moment calls himself "a Pharisee" (most improbable ... he doesn't speak or act like one), but who, when the chips were down, asserted himself to be a Roman Citizen, which in fact he was. And on-and-on and-on and-on and-ON it goes. Again, "this is 'it,' warts and all."

If you can know "all that" about the book or the religion that you say "you believe in," and you still do, then that indeed is "the faith that will move mountains," because it's not based in naiveté or self-delusion. It's based on what we actually know about this thing that we say we "believe in," and yet is unmoved by it. I believe that way myself.

Yes, you are. You CONTINUE to come here and post crap like this, time after time, DESPITE being asked not to. This thread started with YOU saying: "If it's generally accepted that the man Jesus preached prevalently in Galilee, it's very difficult, in light of Isaiah 9:1-7, to argue a plurality of human authorship of the book of Isaiah." Who here asked about it? When? You only posted it to start up YET ANOTHER troll thread, where you display an amazing lack of logical thinking, or acceptance of any reality-based historical facts.
Then please, tell us what it would take to make you NOT like us, and stay focused on the forum's subject?
First, you keep going on about how we 'fear' you...we don't. No one does. And who says that folks here DON'T go to other forums too?? Just because you don't THINK so, doesn't mean that it's true.

The 'logic' people like you display is typically:

• I'll post things on this forum, because I 'care' about everyone, and need to spread the good news!! It'll show what a great person I am!

  <..and when asked to stop..> "My beliefs are being attacked!!! Help!! Poor me!!!"

• ...then....

  <..someone posts something not religion-related on a religion forum..>

• "Hey!!! This is about HIS GLORY!! Stay focused and on topic! Get out of here!!"

Sound familiar?

You ignore everything that makes you uncomfortable. Like it or not, a good portion of the bible was written a LONG time after the events took place. The translations are iffy at times, and the entire book contents was voted on by a church council (look it up). That was done so the church could retain power and money over others, and remains so to this day. How many gospels were left out? Several. How much of Jesus childhood is in the bible, after his birth? None...he is born, then he's older; those things were omitted. This is not conjecture, it's historical fact. It's documented and verifiable, whether you like it or not.

It would appear that you are not interested in rational discourse or debate; you want to say whatever you want, and we should all be grateful to hear it. You employ circular logic, ignore what you don't like, and (entertainingly), contradict YOURSELF often times.

Um, based purely on numbers I don't see how you could decide Islam (~600 years more recent than Christianity) is not a mainstream religion. Perhaps you meant mainstream Western religions?

@TBone: Stop that. This is the non-*NIX/General forum, it is not at all bound to Linux or technical questions, discussing religion is allowed, when it is done in a mannered and civil way. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, especially in a thread with this topic.
If you are so bothered by bluegospel's post do the simple thing and put bluegospel on your ignore list.

You are right, and I have removed the offending part, my apologies.

The topic is not bothersome, but the posters general attitude towards doing this (repeatedly), is. While I agree this is the "General" forum where things such as this should go, the OP does not appear to be participating in a genuine conversation/debate, but appears to be trolling. Not only in this thread, but in several others as well.

Most interesting ... my mistake.

I reckon that any discussion of religion is bound to "start a fight" with at least someone. I'm reluctant to suggest that any intervention should be taken with regard either to this thread or this poster. I'm sorta kinda enjoying the talk ... and simply passing-over any obviously "sparking" posts. This is a section set-aside for "water cooler conversation," and as just-for-me, I'm cool with it so-far.

O My God... Whaaaat a Discussion...
A real hollywood movie like Religion, Anger, Rage, Regret, Forgiveness... every thing is here.

Looks like Another Crusade to me...

Periodically, the OP seems to return to this forum with a fresh post. Looks like he is being wound up as part of some new campaign somewhere else and has to show enough posts to earn respect (brownie points). Or maybe, it's a "YA GOTTA EAT" syndrome for him.

So if you don't like the topic, just don't post in this thread but keep enjoying the fun.

OK

Wrong, Islam is more recent than Christianity.

EDIT: I see you have been corrected already. Surprising for someone who is as educated in old books as you suggest that you made such a "blue".

The only thing I assume in giving more credence to the Scriptures themselves over the tomes of complaints against their authenticity/immutability is that the communities entrusted to preserve them for future generations and to translate them over the years did so with extreme care and mountainous deliberation, whereas skeptic historians and archeologists, though perhaps with some passion, are still casual, not to mention biased.

Sorry, you're absolutely wrong. They were not 'painstakingly translated'...they were written down, usually with only one (maybe) reference. If someone knew the equivalent word, it was used...if not, they may ask someone who THOUGHT it meant whatever...and in it went. This was not "mountainous deliberation", and those texts weren't treated with any more (or less) care than any other of the time. Again, this is historical FACT...you are free to look it up.
Oh? And WHY are they biased? Who is it who said the historians and archaeologists were skeptics? Many were (and are) devout....only someone who IS BIASED, would make blanket assumptions about people they've never met, based on their occupations.

This seems to be a recurrent theme with you, as in your "Friends and Fiends" thread, where you make the observation that 'they' (programmers), are somehow out to get you because of your beliefs. You made assumptions there, and do it here. This is the kind of bigotry and close-mindedness that causes problems.

Based on what you say, you have not studied the history of such things. It is readily available at any college/university/public library, and reliable references can also be found online. The answer "I know enough", based on ONE frame of reference, is NOT true knowledge. Such assumptions cause most of the problems in the world, because people with a singular viewpoint that is the 'only truth', tend to shun/hate others who don't follow that 'truth'. You claim to like everyone...yet call them 'fiends' because they disagree with you. 'Biased' and 'skeptics', because they say something that you don't agree with.

2 Qs:

1. What sorry source did that come from?
2. What possessed you to believe it?

On your other note, I did not say or intimate that all historians or archeologists are inordinately skeptic. These disciplines by definition require a degree of skepticism. Unfortunately, and quite often though skeptism gives way to bias.


The fact is neither you or me or historian can prove our views to anyone but ourselves. And we are going to be biased. The evidence, as I see it clearly proves the gospel. I prefer truth and joy. I subscribe to Christ. You have the free will (liberty and capacity) to subscribe to atheism, agnosticism or even alien life forms, whatever floats your boat.

When it's all said and done though truth prevails. All else burns relentlessly.