Either Yesho or Yeshua or Yehoshua. The latter name is the one that, after centuries of development and transferring through several languages, became Joshua.

Bear in mind that the oldest versions of the Gospels that we have are in Greek and not Aramaic/Hebrew. Things didn't always transliterate perfectly.

I always found it odd a bunch of white guys running about the Middle-East with names like Peter and John before the English crusade was even contemplated.

Ah, and the Jewish zombie.

But but John is a Hebrew name, and Peter was a name given to Simon after he died. It means Rock in Latin and Jesus gave Simon a name that means rock in Aramaic which I can't quite remember.

I recognize science is mostly based on fact, and everything that can be proven, or have strong evidence to suggest that it is true is most likely true, the only parts of science I disagree with is things that havn't or can't be proven. which in the case of science isn't much, however science has been wrong in the past ( the earth is flat, everything revolves around earth) granted those examples were because of a lack of knowledge that we have now, but we may not have every bit of information now and could make mistakes, I think that most of what science sais is true, just that god was behind it all making sure it went well

I just dont get why lack of answers by science always has to come down to there being a god. What's wrong with just keeping an open mind and just waiting for answers?

There are endless of possibilities of what things could be, so the probability of it being a god from a specific religion is very minimal.

What!? Galileo claimed that the earth revolved around the sun so the pope put him under house arrest.

that's true, and I am quite sure that religion is wrong more often than science, but science has been wrong in the past.

bit of a side note but does anyone know why some religious people thought we were in the centre of the universe?

Science is the progression of learning. It will always be less wrong than it was before.

Religion is the denial of learning. It will never ever be less wrong unless it is right.

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

Thank you, Tim Minchin.

Jesus, and a lot of other biblical figures, are actually one individual, an alien with a messiah complex. The Ark of the Covenant was the ship's escape pod with a built-in defense system. Judas was the only other surviving alien of the ship's crash-landing, the captain who wanted to end his crazy crewman's dreams of interfering with the native planet. The Spear of Destiny is a modified alien weapon which was the only thing capable of killing Jesus, Judas was the one who instigated it. Of course, he still failed, and wrote down his account of events in a book in his native language. This book is the Voynich Manuscript.

I can't speak for my whole religion but as for me personally I do not deny observation, there are many religious belifies that I dan't belive in because of scientific observation, such as the universe being only a few thousand years old and our galaxy being in the centre of the universe

But then how do you feel about a religion that is supposed to be the word of god, but which is essentially lying to you/giving you wrong info.
If it truly is the word of god, then I wouldn't excuse him, cos he's supposed to know everything.

'facts' such as the world is only 7000 years old aren't really up for interpretation imo... Aren't they supposed to be like.. factly facts?

So yea... despite you accepting science, how do you feel about the parts of the bible that are wrong or that science disputes?

Then you didn't preserve your beliefs and are not faithful.

the parts that are wrong I just see them as inaccurate, as for the parts that science disputes, it kinda depends on what it is and what evidence science and religion have to back up thier claims, in most cases science has good evidence and all religions evidence is from the bible somewere so in most cases I go with science rather than religion, the only science I disagree with is when science hasn't got the evidence which is rare.

my personal beliefs are not necissarily the beliefs of the religion I choose to go to, every religion will be partially wrong because of human error from the people representing said religion and quite possably from the people who write the bible in the first place, I myself have been in error a number of times during the last religious discussion that was on this forum and I try to do my best to correct any errors when I notice them, the best I can do is pick a religion that matches my personal beliefs the closest, and hope it is good.

Selective interpretation should mean that you're effectively creating your own religion, otherwise the religion merely becomes a label IMO.

possably, i'm just not gonna belive that there is no ice in a softdrink when I can see 4 cubes of ice floating on the surface

LDG... Essentially you are creating your own belief system, which may be unique to you and no others. I mean, if you were a pure religious person, youd do everything after your book(bible in your case)... But you at least seem to be able to figure out error by yourself, which means that you actually challenge the bible on some levels.

So, would you agree that you created your own belief system based on the bible?

I mean, in the end I really just think it comes to people believing in what makes them comfortable.


Anyway, what proof other than the bible do you take accept as your religion being true?

Also a last question(sorry :p)... Why christianity? Why not hinduism, islam or even voodoo?
What made you believe in the christian religion.

I would agree that I have developed my own belief system based on what I belive to be true

every now and then I se a small miracle (or coincidense that I view as a miracle) I shall not name any as naming one got me into alot of trouble in the last religious debate (one of my many errors in that debate)

as for why christianity, well I guess that was from how I grew up, I was raised as a member of the church of jesus christ of the latter day saints (mormons) as a child by my father (brainwashed really) then a few years ago my mother managed to convert me to christianity (mainly cause of a verse in the book of mormon were a guy faints from loss of blood, gets his head cut off and then gets up on his hands and knees and gasps for air before collapsing to the ground) and about 4 or 5 months ago I started seeing faults in some christian beliefs and became what I am now, I looked at other religions occasionally but they all seemed to me to be less accurate then christianity so I stayed with them

You have a similar perception to me LDG, I had a crisis of faith a month or two back and I'm still not sure if I'm non-denominational or Catholic, I mean how can you be a Catholic but not believe in some of the Old Testament? I think it was actual coming here that in time caused me to question my indoctrination which I suppose is a good thing but nevertheless it terrifies me.

It really is about this ^

About miracles... Both LDG and STM can answer this one :p

What about the miracles do you feel proves that exactly the god you believe in exist.
I mean, consider this. What if you guys believed in something so much that you in fact made it happen and not some deity. Have you ever heard of Law of Attraction? It may be a stretch... It's worth looking into.


Then there's also all those theories about infinite universes and infinite possibilities. This gives some people reason to believe that there may be a universe out there where miracles happen. Maybe this is the one.

Now I'm not saying I personally believe it, but there are so many things that could be the truth rather than the religion you believe in... Specially some religion that gets so far stuck up into a story. A story that probably isn't true anymore due to numerous edits of the bible anyway. I mean... it may have been true once. But it's been tainted by man, either from the beginning or somewhere along the history. What do you do when you consider this?

Like for example... what if the anti-gay thingy, someone just added that into the bible as an interpretation, and then people went along with it. How can you be sure your religion is actually opposed to homosexuality.

There's a fail safe in the Bible that should stop people from adding things into the Bible, it worked especially well in the earlier ages when the Church was more prone to doing so...anyway, basically it says anyone who adds unto the Bible will have a punishment added and anyone who takes away from the Bible will have Paradise taken away from them.

Personally I'm not a fan of the anti-homosexual dogma that is preached by the Church, I must admit at one point I was massively homophobic but I sort of just said to myself one day, is that because of religion or because of my moral code. While I still dislike the whole shoving your cock into another guys arse (to be blunt) I haven't really got anything against the people themselves. Perhaps what was originally construed got misinterpreted when translating from Hebrew to Latin. The thing is a lot of people don't listen to everything the Bible says, rather they pick and choose and it's universal in all religions...for example, women no longer are stoned to death for losing their virginity before marriage, they no longer have to cover their heads, people work on the Sabbath and...people are gay.

I hold the New-Testament dear as truth but the Old Testament is up for debate I say as do some Biblical scholars.

And on miracles...I won't do them justice so I'll let LDG explain. [runs away scared]

I would forsake Paradise and suffer in torment for all eternity to add some crap to the Bible that millions of people would believe.

Oh fuck off.

Sorry but really; Why is the old testament up for debate? Did any church official claim that it is no longer canon? Nope, Christians are rejecting it because it's convenient. Religious critics love to pick over the old testament because it's so full of bullshit. Even the most passionate Christians find it hard to defend all the fucked up morales. If you're blindly going to follow the new testament why is the old testament up for debate?

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/5581/downloadtq.png

I don't blindly follow it I just believe it's more likely accurate than Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve, I am confused about the Bible in general but all will be made clear when I die.

More likely accurate? From this discussion so far I didn't get the impression you were a big believer in what is most likely accurate. Can you explain how the existence of some Jewish zombie (who is the offspring of some magic man whose existence cannot be understood) who must be believed in (because his omnipotent father made non-believers just so he could condemn them to a life of pain and torture) so we can be forgiven for sins his father allowed us to commit (and the only evidence for all this is some guys a few millennia ago who wrote a book) is more likely accurate than the contrary?

This is late, but I'd just like to point out that these things were believed without ever testing them, and people who disagreed were locked up. That's not "science being wrong", that's science being held back by belief.

People believe in God because it's shoved down their throat at a young age and kids will believe anything, ala Santa Claus etc.

I find the story of Noah's Ark to be the most stupid of all. Two of every animal? Including thousands of species of insect or arachnid? I'm sure Noah had to travel to Africa, South America and Antarctica to gather these specimens.

Plus all the viruses and bacteria, and what about fresh water fish? What happened to those poor things? I think Noah's Ark has been ove rscaled, if it existed he probably took a few goats and sheep and stayed in a boat for forty days due to a possible flood in Hungary.

So what you're basically saying is that pretty much everything in the bible is greatly exaggerated at least, total bullshit at most, but a magical being in the sky that created everything is perfectly plausible?

Your parents did a good deal of brainwashing with you, I'll give them that.

Coming from a religious family.

I matured realized it was a load of nonsense

I would like for you to prove there is 100% zero possibility that a magical sky wizard exists.

I can't prove it 100%, but that wasn't the point. The point was that STM apparently realizes that some stories in the bible are either fabrications or exaggerated stories of real events, yet he still holds the most unlikely one of all to be true. I don't get that train of thought.

God existing isn't unlikely though. It's nonsensical to describe the existence of a creator in terms of possibility.

I'm going to name my son Jesus. The name is quite common in South America.

South America is more religious than the UK. It's acceptable there.

It's pronounced Hey-Zeus though not Jesus.

How is it unlikely, if you don't mind explaining? It's entirely possible that a deity exists that is beyond our knowledge and comprehension.

You don't have to take the entire Bible as gospel to believe in a God.

e:
"What? What do you want?"
__________________/
http://i53.tinypic.com/2w6tbtk.jpg