Thanks for replying.. Here's from a notable greek lit. scholar.
"Some early Greek epic is 'genealogical', which is to say it constructs family trees for gods and heroes (see further chap. 10). Genealogical poetry is pretty boring to modern taste, but it serves a crucial role in a preliterate culture. Like the lists of 'begats' in the Pentateuch, these genealogies serve as records.."
It goes on to talk about Hesiod's "Theogony" (still not as extensive as the Pent.. but overdone).
a bit more extensive on the topic. But, honestly, who can debate that the Old Testament is openly immoral, barbaric, full of folklore and failed medical and cultural solutions all promulgated by an antiquated idea of the deity? Taking this and much, much, much more into consideration, the genealogies don't mean enough to make a difference.
I could write, "John was the son of Edith, and Edith bore the spaghetti god.. the spaghetti god says stone and burn witches. believe or die.." understand?
Another example of a redundant, unexplainable preliterate technique would be in Homer's Iliad. When he's naming the ships, men, and their immediate relatives who invade Troy.. many people nowadays would wonder what he's getting at. It seems to serve very little purpose outside of a fictional context.
Why did Tacitus, probably the greatest historian of his time, ardently disbelieve the story and miracles of Jesus?
Many of the histories in the bible could NEVER be confirmed.. like the story of Samson.
Regarding Samson.. his story was much more unbelievable than many of the tales of Greek mythology. Killing 1000 philistines with the jaw bone of an ass is something Homer would've blushed at.
Finally, ancient people often incorporated genealogies in their fictional lit. Yes, the bible is...
Tacitus wasn't anywhere near where these miracles were taking place. It's the same thing today, there are miracles happening, but you aren't there to see them, so you don't believe in them. However you're intelligent enough to believe the people are real. Tacitus knew Jesus existed, but didn't believe in the miracles because he wasn't there.
You're right that a lot of it can't be proven, because it's so long ago. However, a lot CAN be proven, like Pontius Pilate, even King David.
Religion is the greatest source of unhappiness, hate and destruction. Countries where a large number of the inhabitants have no "faith", show the greatest prosperity, social justice and tranquility.
Scandinavia, Czech Republic, Netherlands. The majority of people in these countries practice no religion. Yet, they are prosperous and content. They also have a much lower divorce rate. Coincidence?
If the meaning of life is to be happy, and there is no after life, and no God, and if what you say is actually true, then I suppose it would be logical. However, the meaning of life is not just selfish pursuit of happiness, there is an after life, and there is a God.
If you want an even greater source of unhappiness rather than religion in general, look up how many wars, deaths, and crimes are caused in the pursuit of money, political strength, land... etc.
Considering just one country in one historical context--medieval England.. I could turn your whole theory upside down.
In medieval wars, 10,000 people could easily die in one day (Agincourt). All or most of these wars were fought in the name of an ambitious king acting as the regent of God. The catholic church condoned most or all of this. Jesus is the reason and motive for the catholic church's existence. Thus, the idea of Jesus alone was the equivalent of Stalin or Pot in the middle ages.
Actually your view of this situation is a bit non-factual. Read some articles or books by Thomas Madden, he's considered an authority on the subject.
Your view is that the Catholic church ordered crusaders to go out and kill people to take their land, when in fact it was a defensive action against the muslim take over. They had already taken two third of the "Christian" world, and it was either fight back or die at that point.
You haven't read much medieval history.. Read Winston Churchill's "A history of the English Speaking Peoples" or David Hume's History, or even Hodgkins. Ever hear of John Badby or Joan of Arc? Ever consider that Agincourt, Poiters, and countless other wars (unrelated to the crusades) were fought only on the principle that the King was the "regent" of God (a biblical doctrine)? Thus the separation of Church and State to avoid this.
i think its retarted, its been thousands of years, and it shouldnt be accurate, i beleive barly any of it, like the god crap and jesus with powers is stupid, but i do believe he could have existed, but didnt come back to life or have any of these "mystical powers"
Yeah but there's a difference between just figuring things out the way you think they should be, and actually looking into it. There are copies of the New Testament from VERY few years after it was actually written, so close that people would have been alive who witnessed the events, that could have said something.
As far as God is concerned, why do you think believing in God is ridiculous?
so, y should i believe there is an invisible man in the sky.. that is strange, in my opinion, animals adapting and evolving over time makes more sense than some person created everything out of no where
i wanna know what you think of people that dont belief in god i think it is called athiest or something in english sorry not a english motherlanguage i like to know your standpoint ps im reliefed to see a normal chatolic guy who still beliefs in a healthy amound in God oooh and iff you do have a problem with my thinking i would like to know why (unless it is the cliche from your going to hell)hope to hear from you btw good video
If there is a personal God,then surely He would reveal a set of rulls as sure as He sets morality. So unless morality doesnt excist there must be a Scripture around,at least preventing us to transgress. Now what would be better then a personal example in Jesus Christ ,worthy is the Lamb.
You sound like you're giving a report for a school project! And you do it very well, too! Like i commented in BigAl's vid, i don't believe everything the Bible or rather what my religion says.
Thank you very much I appreciate that. If you want more information on stuff like this check out my other vids. There's one on evolution, the big bang, and evidence for Jesus. I try to make them clear too, hope you enjoy them.
This video was for someone who is a Christian, so obviously someone of another faith (or no faith) would disagree with it.
I've looked into this kind of thing quite a bit, and the info I gave is solid. If you have some reason to question it please tell me and I'll do my best to respond.
Well, off the top of my head, the validity claim of the Bible is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. You obviously "looked into this kind of thing" on christian websites only.
Actually no, I use both secular and Christian sources. I also use a lot of Athiestic evidence and research it.
Either way, it doesn't matter how you look at it, any ancient text with over 24'000 copies and the earliest copies found within 25 years of the events recorded is considered a RELIABLE text.
Also, every ancient copy of the NT has said exactly the same thing, somtimes only certain books or parts of books are located, but they never say somthing different than another copy.
That wouldn't make it a reliable text. There is no evidence for any of the supposedly historical events in the Bible. In fact, many are contradicted by the evidence.
I wasn't saying that it is my opinion that many copies and very early copies make is reliable, those things make it a reliable text by archeological standards.
Also theres tons of proof the events took place. Within the past century they've found many of the cities mentioned in the Bible, and different letters from Roman officials that verify the NTs claims.
Could you please mention some evidence that has contradicted the events in the Bible?
Why do people just say stuff like they know it's true when they 100% made the assumption? Tons of archeological, hostorical and scientific proof there is to confirm many events in the bible.
Using profanity is wrong according to the Bible, which makes BigAl2k6 a hypocrite. If he didn't claim to read the Bible and be a Christian, then he would not be a hypocrite.
I've seen some of BigAl's videos and he comes off as someone who talks the talk, but he does not walk the walk.
If you claim to be something or someone, act like it. It doesn't help your cause to act otherwise.
I agree with you that a lot of the things in his videos seem to be someone who does not exactly hold strong to righteousness, but that does not make him a hypocrite in my opinion. (we just differ I guess) I do see your reasoning though.
Also, cursing is not a sin according to the Bible, only cursing God's name (using it in vain) is.
Using profanity is apart of sin. It comes down to morals and how we think God would respond to or look at it.
It sounds corny, but you have to think... What would Jesus do? I don't believe he would use language such as f*ck and sh*t. These words were meant for extreme profanity.
The Bible does talk about using words for rightiousness, not evil. Again, it comes down to morals.
I never really liked the idea of being born into sin.
JonathanTopping 2 years ago
Thanks for replying.. Here's from a notable greek lit. scholar.
"Some early Greek epic is 'genealogical', which is to say it constructs family trees for gods and heroes (see further chap. 10). Genealogical poetry is pretty boring to modern taste, but it serves a crucial role in a preliterate culture. Like the lists of 'begats' in the Pentateuch, these genealogies serve as records.."
It goes on to talk about Hesiod's "Theogony" (still not as extensive as the Pent.. but overdone).
MrBlackwit 2 years ago
a bit more extensive on the topic. But, honestly, who can debate that the Old Testament is openly immoral, barbaric, full of folklore and failed medical and cultural solutions all promulgated by an antiquated idea of the deity? Taking this and much, much, much more into consideration, the genealogies don't mean enough to make a difference.
I could write, "John was the son of Edith, and Edith bore the spaghetti god.. the spaghetti god says stone and burn witches. believe or die.." understand?
MrBlackwit 2 years ago
There is a lot of immorality in the Bible, the truth of history is presented to you, and not candy coated.
I would like for you to give me genealogies in myths, I'm not saying I don't believe you, I've just never found them and would be interested.
From what I've seen, they'll list immediate relatives, but not give a genealogical record.
Really, the Bible is written as a historical narrative if you follow the formatting, where Greek mythology is written as such.
JonTopping 2 years ago
Another example of a redundant, unexplainable preliterate technique would be in Homer's Iliad. When he's naming the ships, men, and their immediate relatives who invade Troy.. many people nowadays would wonder what he's getting at. It seems to serve very little purpose outside of a fictional context.
MrBlackwit 2 years ago
Why did Tacitus, probably the greatest historian of his time, ardently disbelieve the story and miracles of Jesus?
Many of the histories in the bible could NEVER be confirmed.. like the story of Samson.
Regarding Samson.. his story was much more unbelievable than many of the tales of Greek mythology. Killing 1000 philistines with the jaw bone of an ass is something Homer would've blushed at.
Finally, ancient people often incorporated genealogies in their fictional lit. Yes, the bible is...
MrBlackwit 2 years ago
Tacitus wasn't anywhere near where these miracles were taking place. It's the same thing today, there are miracles happening, but you aren't there to see them, so you don't believe in them. However you're intelligent enough to believe the people are real. Tacitus knew Jesus existed, but didn't believe in the miracles because he wasn't there.
You're right that a lot of it can't be proven, because it's so long ago. However, a lot CAN be proven, like Pontius Pilate, even King David.
JonTopping 2 years ago
Religion is the greatest source of unhappiness, hate and destruction. Countries where a large number of the inhabitants have no "faith", show the greatest prosperity, social justice and tranquility.
Scandinavia, Czech Republic, Netherlands. The majority of people in these countries practice no religion. Yet, they are prosperous and content. They also have a much lower divorce rate. Coincidence?
thursdaysrecords 2 years ago
If the meaning of life is to be happy, and there is no after life, and no God, and if what you say is actually true, then I suppose it would be logical. However, the meaning of life is not just selfish pursuit of happiness, there is an after life, and there is a God.
If you want an even greater source of unhappiness rather than religion in general, look up how many wars, deaths, and crimes are caused in the pursuit of money, political strength, land... etc.
JonTopping 2 years ago
Considering just one country in one historical context--medieval England.. I could turn your whole theory upside down.
In medieval wars, 10,000 people could easily die in one day (Agincourt). All or most of these wars were fought in the name of an ambitious king acting as the regent of God. The catholic church condoned most or all of this. Jesus is the reason and motive for the catholic church's existence. Thus, the idea of Jesus alone was the equivalent of Stalin or Pot in the middle ages.
MrBlackwit 2 years ago
Actually your view of this situation is a bit non-factual. Read some articles or books by Thomas Madden, he's considered an authority on the subject.
Your view is that the Catholic church ordered crusaders to go out and kill people to take their land, when in fact it was a defensive action against the muslim take over. They had already taken two third of the "Christian" world, and it was either fight back or die at that point.
JonTopping 2 years ago
You haven't read much medieval history.. Read Winston Churchill's "A history of the English Speaking Peoples" or David Hume's History, or even Hodgkins. Ever hear of John Badby or Joan of Arc? Ever consider that Agincourt, Poiters, and countless other wars (unrelated to the crusades) were fought only on the principle that the King was the "regent" of God (a biblical doctrine)? Thus the separation of Church and State to avoid this.
MrBlackwit 2 years ago
the sound is realy high
blade5469 3 years ago
i think its retarted, its been thousands of years, and it shouldnt be accurate, i beleive barly any of it, like the god crap and jesus with powers is stupid, but i do believe he could have existed, but didnt come back to life or have any of these "mystical powers"
PkmnmanFtw 3 years ago
Yeah but there's a difference between just figuring things out the way you think they should be, and actually looking into it. There are copies of the New Testament from VERY few years after it was actually written, so close that people would have been alive who witnessed the events, that could have said something.
As far as God is concerned, why do you think believing in God is ridiculous?
JonTopping 3 years ago
so, y should i believe there is an invisible man in the sky.. that is strange, in my opinion, animals adapting and evolving over time makes more sense than some person created everything out of no where
PkmnmanFtw 3 years ago
i wanna know what you think of people that dont belief in god i think it is called athiest or something in english sorry not a english motherlanguage i like to know your standpoint ps im reliefed to see a normal chatolic guy who still beliefs in a healthy amound in God oooh and iff you do have a problem with my thinking i would like to know why (unless it is the cliche from your going to hell)hope to hear from you btw good video
scorpdevil 3 years ago
Great Video. It's great when people know when they are talking about
yerok 3 years ago
If there is a personal God,then surely He would reveal a set of rulls as sure as He sets morality. So unless morality doesnt excist there must be a Scripture around,at least preventing us to transgress. Now what would be better then a personal example in Jesus Christ ,worthy is the Lamb.
RoelGeurtsen 4 years ago
You sound like you're giving a report for a school project! And you do it very well, too! Like i commented in BigAl's vid, i don't believe everything the Bible or rather what my religion says.
UltimaKeyMaster 4 years ago
Thanks!
So just out of curiousity, how come you don't believe everything the Bible says?
JonTopping 4 years ago
Thank you very much I appreciate that. If you want more information on stuff like this check out my other vids. There's one on evolution, the big bang, and evidence for Jesus. I try to make them clear too, hope you enjoy them.
Thanks again!
JonTopping 4 years ago
90 % of this video is bullshit. Not an insult, just a statement. Sad.
EviTheFreak 4 years ago
This video was for someone who is a Christian, so obviously someone of another faith (or no faith) would disagree with it.
I've looked into this kind of thing quite a bit, and the info I gave is solid. If you have some reason to question it please tell me and I'll do my best to respond.
JonTopping 4 years ago
Well, off the top of my head, the validity claim of the Bible is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. You obviously "looked into this kind of thing" on christian websites only.
EviTheFreak 4 years ago
Actually no, I use both secular and Christian sources. I also use a lot of Athiestic evidence and research it.
Either way, it doesn't matter how you look at it, any ancient text with over 24'000 copies and the earliest copies found within 25 years of the events recorded is considered a RELIABLE text.
Also, every ancient copy of the NT has said exactly the same thing, somtimes only certain books or parts of books are located, but they never say somthing different than another copy.
JonTopping 4 years ago
That wouldn't make it a reliable text. There is no evidence for any of the supposedly historical events in the Bible. In fact, many are contradicted by the evidence.
EviTheFreak 4 years ago
I wasn't saying that it is my opinion that many copies and very early copies make is reliable, those things make it a reliable text by archeological standards.
Also theres tons of proof the events took place. Within the past century they've found many of the cities mentioned in the Bible, and different letters from Roman officials that verify the NTs claims.
Could you please mention some evidence that has contradicted the events in the Bible?
JonTopping 4 years ago
I don't have to. You have to name the evidence that supports it. Show me some of those letters, I'll found you a rebuttal. ;-)
EviTheFreak 4 years ago
youtube . com/watch?v=f1y7sIN5Y9g
There's some of the information I've gathered so far.
Could I please have some of the contradictory evidence you've found?
JonTopping 4 years ago
Why do people just say stuff like they know it's true when they 100% made the assumption? Tons of archeological, hostorical and scientific proof there is to confirm many events in the bible.
okebaram 4 years ago
Using profanity is wrong according to the Bible, which makes BigAl2k6 a hypocrite. If he didn't claim to read the Bible and be a Christian, then he would not be a hypocrite.
I've seen some of BigAl's videos and he comes off as someone who talks the talk, but he does not walk the walk.
If you claim to be something or someone, act like it. It doesn't help your cause to act otherwise.
MyPersonalVendetta 4 years ago
I agree with you that a lot of the things in his videos seem to be someone who does not exactly hold strong to righteousness, but that does not make him a hypocrite in my opinion. (we just differ I guess) I do see your reasoning though.
Also, cursing is not a sin according to the Bible, only cursing God's name (using it in vain) is.
JonTopping 4 years ago
Using profanity is apart of sin. It comes down to morals and how we think God would respond to or look at it.
It sounds corny, but you have to think... What would Jesus do? I don't believe he would use language such as f*ck and sh*t. These words were meant for extreme profanity.
The Bible does talk about using words for rightiousness, not evil. Again, it comes down to morals.
MyPersonalVendetta 4 years ago
As long as no one is hurt, what does it matter if someone swears?
Gicane 4 years ago
Accepting to be christian, means to accept Jesus to save from real death. and what is that real death in question that Jesus saves us from.
AMHelfgod 4 years ago
Hell is called the second death, personally I find an eternity of death not worth 70 years of living "free".
I also find living this life more enjoyable in the arms of God.
JonTopping 4 years ago
lol ur reading off the screen
jon1215 4 years ago
haha ya i am, i didnt wanna forget anything, i started with just notes, but then it turned into this lol
JonTopping 4 years ago