What is Digg?467 Comments
- MJG2007, on 10/10/2007, -21/+167I was raised in a very strict Southern Baptist household and I think my first real crisis of faith was when my Grandmother pulled out her Great-Great Grandfather's bible that had been handed down to her and I discovered the Apocrypha.
When I asked her about those strange books of the bible I had never heard of like "Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, the Continuing Books of Esther, BEL AND THE DRAGON(?????)", she responded with some nonsense about how those books weren't considered part of the "REAL" bible.
That led to some speculation about the whole "biblical inerrancy" thing on my part since if the Bible was the literal word of God as I was taught, the notion of just yanking out a few books because they weren't really part of the Bible just didn't click.
Suffice it to say I am now pretty agnostic and don't trust organized religion very much. - PunkHop, on 10/10/2007, -71/+194What the Church doesn't want you to know:
1. How to think for yourself - Indyanna, on 10/10/2007, -26/+112Oh, one more thing. The author of this article cites the Catholic Encyclopedia multiple times to bolster his opinion. Since one of his primary references is an multi-volume encyclopedia written and published by the Catholic Church, how is it that Cosmikdebris submitted this with the title "What the Church Doesn't Want You to Know"? Unless, of course, he didn't read the article.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -62/+131The reason "Jesus" bones haven't been found yet is because they were never here to begin with. While it may come as a suprise to many, it has been known for centuries that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Instead, these are "traditional" names given to anonymously-written works over a hundred years after they were written. This much is not controversial among biblical scholars. What is controversial is the attempt to assign actual authorship to these anonymous works, and to place them in the proper historical, social, cultural, and theological context. The Gospels were not simply eyewitness accounts, or even second-hand accounts, of Jesus' time. Rather, they are products of complicated theological advocacy written generations after Jesus' time. Each Gospel is shown to reflect the author(s) own theological interests and agenda, as each sought to advance their own vision of the emerging religion.
Christianity as we have come to know it, is the historical product of a historically brief period between the traditional dates of Jesus' ministry and the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century. During the intervening centuries, Christianity began as a diverse and conflicting collection of religious associations and movements, passed through a period of competition and acrimony among sects, and ended in the triumph of one particular brand of Christianity which has come to be labeled "orthodox." The Gospels reflect the viewpoints, concerns and agendas of these anonymous early Christian writers during the period of competition between the various visions and interpretations of Christianity. In no way were these writers eyewitness to Jesus the Myth - chipwar, on 10/10/2007, -15/+79So the rest of the articles at Nexus concern crop circles, vaccine conspiracies, alien conspiracies, fluoride conspiracies, men in black, etc.
Awesome!
That's a perfect source to determine the veracity of a religious faith!
In related news, Shiva actually lives on a mountain on the moon!
Which means I'm going Hindu!
Dugg! - TradaPIB, on 10/10/2007, -22/+78"It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life." - Bullcrap. Anybody who bothers to do minimal research will find this false. Josephus is a well known Jewish hoistorian born in AD 37 and wrote his literary works including The Antiquities (a history of the Jews). In The Antiquities Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1 we read that the high priest "convened the judges of the Sandhedrin, and brough before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned." Notice that this reference to CHrist is definitely the Christ of the NT Gospels contrary to the claim of some atheists and skeptics. OOo, and earlier on in The Antiquities (book 18, chapter 3) we read:
"Now ther was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as recieve the truth with pleasure." it goes on to say: ".. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Research it fellas, it's all there. Please don't attempt to argue that Josephus was a biased Christian writer or whatever.. he was a Jew and most scholars believe this passage to be authentic (from his pen). You'll only make youself look ignorant.
It will be intersting to see whether this post is dugg up or down. Up because it is a valid point which proves that website is twisting the truth and probably down because.. heck, on Digg Majority rules.. and majority happens to be non Christian. ;)
(and don't take my word for it or this webpage's, research it yourself!) - Indyanna, on 10/10/2007, -75/+128So far, 37 diggs. Question 1: How many of these do you think actually took the time to read this before hitting "digg"? Question 2: How many do you think have ever done any research at all into why there are people (including both Jewish and non-Jewish scholars in the ancient languages, archeology) who are convinced of the veracity of the Bible?
Just askin'. - buddyw, on 10/10/2007, -11/+59Reading the bible is how I became an Atheist in the first place.
- plnegative1, on 10/10/2007, -22/+60I don't know about you guys, but I'm here for technology and gaming news... not sensationalist atheist propaganda
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -17/+50That life is more important than death.
- Indyanna, on 10/10/2007, -24/+55I second MadSquirrel's recommendation about Josh McDowell's books. They truly are informative, whether you end up agreeing with him or not. At least you will have given consideration to the other side of the debate.
- MadSquirrel, on 10/10/2007, -53/+83Why would someone waist so much time on this garbage?
Of more than 24,000 New Testament Manuscript copies dating back to 125 AD (CE), spread all over the Mediterranean, there are no works of antiquity that even come close to this, but why is this over educated person not deriding Homer's Iliad of which we only have 643 copies that were made 500 years after Homers death?
Luke was the finest historian of his time, or as Sir William Ramsey put it, "Luke is a historian of the first rank", and I would suggest anyone that is interested in this subject read Ramsey's "The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament".
Josh McDowell's "A Ready Defense" and "More than a Carpenter" are also good resources that do not get lost in the minutia, while missing the evidence that is easily accessible for those that are interested in the truth.
- paulrus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34How does this even become news? This is the same tired old argument that people keep trotting out over and over again. Learn real history people, not some nut jobs version of it, but from actual respected historians. The saddest part of the net is that any tin-foil hat wearing moron can publish their crackpot theory and people will buy it. We're raising an entire generation of ignoramuses who feed on this stuff.
Spend some time to read about the council of Nicea and actually learn what happened there kids. Believe it or not, this stuff has actually all been argued before. - NickMilne, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32As Benedict XVI actually addresses some of these claims and more in his recent book, 'Jesus of Nazareth,' it would seem to be a very odd assertion that these are things that the Church "doesn't want you to know."
It's also worth considering that the article was published in "Nexus Magazine" rather than, say, a peer-reviewed journal from Harvard, Cambridge, etc. Other articles published by Nexus include:
- "Circles of Power:" An extract from the new book by UFO disclosure advocate Dr Steven Greer, in which he recounts his brushes with the inner circles of a shadowy transnational cabal.
- Darwinism: A crumbling theory
- Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark
- African Avatars: Has Christ already returned?
- Healing Power of Full-Spectrum Light
- A Voyage into Afterlife Knowledge
And, the best of them all:
"Star Fire:" The Gold of the Gods, in which it is revealed that "the true Grail bloodline originated with the Anunnaki gods in southern Sumeria at least 6,000 years ago and was sustained by ingestion of an alchemical substance called 'Star Fire'."
People digging this article up should go smash a plate over their heads or something, maybe. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28A literary masterpiece? I don't agree but so what? What does a literary masterpiece means it makes its claims valid. The Greek stories are just as good if not better which would make the Odyssey's claims about gods and monsters true?
- BeefBaron, on 10/10/2007, -23/+44Whoever knew the bible was a load of ***** before they read this raise their hand.
*raises hand* - gameboyhippo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22The Apocrypha are not a part of the cannon because they contain things such as anachronisms and such. Just in case you were curious, the Bible does mention Dragons in other parts of the Bible including Job.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -19/+38Homer's ideals are neither widely worshipped nor quietly slipped into local, state, and federal law.
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28I'm an atheist, but I know something about religious history. This page is drivel. "Hesus Krishna"? Please. What's more, they use strongly biased anti-Catholic Protestant tractates as support, most of which were written in an age far more ignorant than our own.
- smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+22To be fair, you submitted the article, to expect not to get in an argument that includes someone else's ideology is a little crazy.
- felyduw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Amazing... three separated buildings forming a triangle. Who knew the church was this powerful.
- rblancarte, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19You want research. From the home page of that web site:
"NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups. "
Sounds like an extremely credible source. - CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -38/+55"What the Church doesn't want you to know" That it's all about power and money?
- phaed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16( Unchanged 1400 year old text ) != ( Final message from God )
- BeardDob, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24Just like every other religion on this planet.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -11/+27If you had read the article, you'd realize that misspellings aren't at issue here. It's the origin of the gospels that really catches the eye - and the article provides sources for its statements. Do you have sources for your claims?
- NickMilne, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Other articles published by Nexus Magazine include:
- "Circles of Power:" An extract from the new book by UFO disclosure advocate Dr Steven Greer, in which he recounts his brushes with the inner circles of a shadowy transnational cabal.
- Darwinism: A crumbling theory
- Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark
- African Avatars: Has Christ already returned?
- Healing Power of Full-Spectrum Light
- A Voyage into Afterlife Knowledge
And, the best of them all:
"Star Fire:" The Gold of the Gods, in which it is revealed that "the true Grail bloodline originated with the Anunnaki gods in southern Sumeria at least 6,000 years ago and was sustained by ingestion of an alchemical substance called 'Star Fire'."
People digging this article up should go smash a plate over their heads or something, maybe. Better yet, they could read Pope Benedict's recent book, 'Jesus of Nazareth,' in which some of these claims (and similar ones), far from being suppressed and ignored, are candidly discussed and addressed. - CBRoberts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16When reading about Homer's works in college, it was always noted that nobody knew who Homer was or if he even existed, and that the stories had been handed down for generations as part of an oral tradition before finally being committed to paper. Nobody has ever argued that The Iliad or The Odyssey are historically accurate accounts. We know now that there was a Troy and a Trojan War, but nobody assumed these facts until archaeological evidence was found.
And when archaeological evidence of Troy was found, nobody then assumed that the gods depicted in the stories had to have been real too. Just because there's an historical basis for the legends doesn't mean all the supernatural, magical elements of the story have to be true too. - CBRoberts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15So, Indyanna, does that mean every Hallmark greeting card is a literary masterpiece?
I've also read the Bible cover-to-cover. I'll agree there is some literary value to some of the books therein, and even some historical value, but let's face it: most of it is boring, backward, and silly.
And if you read the article linked by the OP, it suggests that quite a bit of the literary and moral value of the New Testament was borrowed from other sources. We know that most of the best stories in the Old Testament were lifted from other cultures and traditions (and the originals are almost always better - multiple gods make for much more interesting stories), but the author of the article is suggesting the NT is also a compilation of plagiarized ideas. - Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19The funny part of the "What the Church doesn't want you to know" is who do you think is doing a lot of the research into this topic to begin with? While I'm sure that there are some archaeologists, historians and anthropologists by and large most of this work is done by theologians and biblical scholars. This article certainly being overly sensationalist. For every small town church that 'doesn't want you to know' there's a scholar and Princeton or Harvard working in theology that would be thrilled that you were interested.
- MJG2007, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Not to put to fine a point on it, but it is not wise to read the bible piecemeal. The Old Testament is one of the most violent and bloody books I have read with many times God commanding "his people" to commit genocide and vicious war crimes against the enemies of God's "chosen people".
- iluvhatemail, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22this guy is right. Christianity is basically a continuation of worshiping the sun in the sky. We might as well go back to giving our praises to Horus.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21Hahahaha...bloody Pascal's Wager? Are you serious?
Are you sure that your religion is the right one? What if the Koran is right? Why don't you believe in the Koran? What if it Wiccan? Are you sure you won't burn in a Hindu hell?
You're making the arrogant assumption that people can just MAGIC themselves into believing your absurd claims.
You're making the assumption that wasting your time believing in something that is false is not harmful.
You're making an absurd claim about Jesus. You have no evidence to support your claims except for the Bible. - allan17, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17"I like your Christ, caring, forgiving, compassionate. I do not like your Christians, so unlike your Christ."
- Ghandi - jackkerouac, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Did you see the other 'stories' on this site? Crop circles, men in black helicopters, vaccine conspiracies, etc. That says it all.
- davodavo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19Again, nobody bases their life around the Iliad, the Canterbury Tales, Oedipus, etc. They exist today and are only ever studied as works of literature. Their authorship is certainly important, but it doesn't have the potential to undermine the stories themselves.
- phaed, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22Until you start questioning their answers and then they become bitter and resentful and throw you out of their youth group.
- michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13FTA: "British-born Flavius Constantinus"
Not true. Constantinus (or Constantine the Great) was a Roman soldier who eventually became emperor; the myth of his British origins spread with Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Brittaniae (which includes a few prophecies about Merlin as well as the "history" of King Arthur), who claims to have taken his history from "an old book" that he does not name. Monmouth makes Constantinus half-English, being the son of a Roman and a woman from Colchester (thus making the finder of the true cross English!). Most of his details come from Bede's Ecclesiastical history and a history by the 7th century Gildas, neither of whom are at all reliable. If I remember correctly, Monmouth is the first to offer this chestnut about Constantinus.
Considering that Geoffrey wrote his history to please King Stephen after the king attempted to reconcile Scotland and Wales with the English throne. Since Monmouth was Welsh, he must have had a personal motive to flatter the English and reconcile their cultural divisions (why else does he focus on the mythical Arthur and make him a Welshman?).
My point is: I can't trust this article because it's author doesn't know his stuff. Of course the Bible has been heavily edited and is unreliable, but this doesn't mean this author is any more reliable. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16And what about still reading the entire Bible and still coming to the same conclusion that God commanded Genocide, allowed slavery and murder? Are your interpretations more valid then mine?
- alacrity2005, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16The second someone starts using the Iliad or Oedipus to justify the persecution of homosexuals or as basis for which politicians should be elected we will absolutely start questioning the authorship and voracity of those works. Till then, guess we're stuck questioning that other work of fiction...
- fluoro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Why better agnostic than atheist? Just because you believe you have a chance of converting an agnostic? I find this type of attitude more than a little arrogant.
For all real intents and purposes, I don't see a discernible difference between atheists and agnostics. You seem to treat the term 'atheist' in the same way my Christian and Muslim friends treat it, as though it's a religion unto itself that people commit to. But it's just an absence of religion. Agnostics also have no religion, so however non-commital they are about their future beliefs they are still atheists. And just as a Christian may lose faith in the future and become atheist/agnostic, an agnostic or an atheist may change their mind in the future. I have a very good friend who was an atheist, but later in life became Christian. Nothing is ever written in stone where personal belief is concerned. As such, I think the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are mostly interchangeable.
That said, I prefer the term 'atheist'. I have no evidence to believe I am wrong, and I don't forsee myself changing my mind. But if some undeniable evidence were to somehow persuade me that there is a greater being, I wouldn't deny it. I'm not unshakably opposed to the concept of a greater entity, so I can conceive of the possibility of becoming a theist, but I am unable to consider the Bible a reliable source of information so I find it difficult to believe I could ever become a Christian (or a Jew or a Muslim, because I find the sources for their religions to be more or less equally unreliable). - BigTun4, on 10/10/2007, -13/+23Why am I not surprised at this, or the majority of the comments. It seems most Digg members love anything that is against some kind of religion and somehow "proves" that being an atheist is the way to be. I'm kinda sick of it..
- Amorrn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10From a Freethinker's essay on the existence of Jesus:
"Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay."
and
"To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the 'historicity' of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus...Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). " - Dexk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13"The Church" is the people, not a building.
- dpoon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Constantine being born in Britain? The word "savior" being derived from the Latin word for "to sow" instead of "salvare", to save? I can't verify the rest, but even these simple statements in the article don't check out.
- tesladoom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11 This is the Digg comment section. Not the copypaste two pages of stuff you found section.
- SimpleC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10This BBC special on the Lost Gospels sheds some light on the history behind how the gospels of the New Testament were formed, the early Christian sects like the Ebionites, why they didn't include certain books, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGUmcUS0e1E&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Einfidelguy%2Ecom%2F - Gerbil_Juice, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10The King James is not "the original source".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+19FYI - Thanks for the religious education, not that I needed it. All the Christian denominations you've quoted all broke away from under the banner of the Roman Catholic Church. "The Church" is where all Christians go to worship. Now do you really want to carry on a time wasting trivial argument?
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7arcthemonkey, you are rather misinformed if you think that most of the Bible was written in Greek. Perhaps you should do a bit more research on that and less us know what you discover. There's this little part of the Bible called the Old Testament that you might want to check into.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 446 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is