Any Decent Christian Scholar Attempting To Overcome His Own Bias Would Have Lost Faith

IF your god was really infalliable he would have made damn sure there was certainty, but there isn't. there's a million ways to translate your bible and any Decent Biblical scholar would have torn his or her hair out except that they suffer from what us SCIENTIST call SELECTIVE BIAS: they see ONLY the evidence that fits their conclusion, the conclusion they WANT and Pick it. "I'm a liar!" for calling attention to Armaic Translations? There are some SEVERE differences.

In Certain Armaic translations jesus didn't die for our sins but BECAUSE of them.

There's over 100 books that were just censored and left out of the book and we're left to trust the infalliabilty of the council of nicea which was EVEN DUMBER than we are today?

If you're a scholar and you still believe you are suffering from cognative bias. A good nuerologist should be able to educate you into what that means.
ManifestoOfThePhoenix ManifestoOfThePhoenix
31-35, M
1 Response Jan 5, 2013

It seems that in the synoptic gospels Jesus was teaching about god's kingdom, which was supposed to come to earth before many people died. There wasn't much, if any, teaching about being sacrificed for sins. Jesus was killed, according to some accounts, because he called himself "king" [of the Jews] which didn't set well with the actual King.

Later writings, after Jesus' death, such as the Gospel of John, then Paul and others, (1 Timothy is a forgery) added a lot of what Jesus didn't teach. Some of it to explain why, a century later, the kingdom of god hasn't arrived, as Jesus said it would during his generation. So, apologetics had an early start.

The more I study the Bible, the more difficult it is for me to believe it. But I enjoy studying religions because it teaches me a lot about people.