-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion
- Thread starter Mars Man
- Start date
Deist usually has a very different meaning, actually, could you please define that for me? I am grateful for your clearly pointing that factor out, your 'stance', if you will, and then just wonder, do you think that would prevent you from being able to use common sense when applying reason to what we humans, otherwise know to be self-evident?
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
Maciamo said:
Wow! I agree with Maciamo about something!
I would believe it if it said Jonah swallowed a whale(big fish) instead of the other way around, because God is able to do ANYTHING.contradictions
Mars Man writes:
Now what if J told me that a jogger had come running by just where you all had been sitting, and you had said to the runner "Can you tell me what time it is?" and he answered, " My clock says just before six." whereas M happened to tell me that two runners had come running by and you had said to them "Do you all have the time?" and they replied, " Our clocks say just before six." In this case, I think you'd agree, there is a contradiction; right? I mean it isn't realistic for a third party to claim that one runner came by, and you had asked and he had answered, and then two more runners had come by, and you had asked them--in plural--and they had answered--in plural. Nevertheless, assuming that the general event had taken place, either J's report is historically truer, or M's report is--that the acts and words spoken have become history is no doubt at all; would'nt you agree?
My (Overcomer's) response is:
Your scenario of the runners does NOT prove that the Bible is not accurate. Why? Because you insist that it is a contradiction but what you have written is NOT a contradiction.
One problem I see in discussions like this is the simple fact that a lot of people do not understand the Law of Non-contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction simply states that something cannot be true and its EXACT OPPOSITE cannot be true at the same time.
Therefore, an example of a contradiction would be the following: John is a man. John is NOT a man.
Another one is: The dress is red. The dress is NOT red. These are contradictions.
Obviously, John cannot be a man and NOT be a man at the same time. A dress cannot be red and NOT red at the same time either although it could include other colours, mentioned or unmentioned.
Given your scenario of the runners, it would be a contradiction if and only if one person reported that a runner or runners said that my clock is just before six and another reported that his clock is NOT before six. That and that alone would be a contradiction! Do you see that?
Therefore, your story about the runners does not prove that the Gospels contain errors. In fact, it supports just what I said, that one person can mention one thing that happened while another omits that and mentions something else that happened. Neither one is wrong. They are merely different. One person could chose to quote one runner while someone else could choose to quote two or six or nine.
The important thing is this: No matter how many runners you quote or somebody else sitting beside you quotes, THE FACT THAT THE CLOCK SAYS IT'S BEFORE SIX DOES NOT CHANGE AT ALL!
And the same is true of the Gospels. Two writers can choose to highlight different things but the FACT that Jesus the Son of God came to earth, died on the cross and was resurrected does not change at all because they ALL agree on that, whether they mention one, two or 100 people watching in the crowd. That's why your argument is invalid.
Let me use an example of the signs over the cross of Christ to further illustrate this. Atheists often point to the fact that the Gospels say something different about it and they insist this proves that the Bible is not reliable. But their argument is invalid. The different interpretations in each Gospel do NOT contradict each other, but complement each other and -- and this is important -- IT IS AIMED AT THE AUDIENCE FOR WHICH THE BOOK IS WRITTEN!
Consider the following:
First of all, we need to understand that it was the custom of Rome to affix a sign above the person being crucified stating what his crime was.
Secondly, it is imperative to recognize the fact that the words on the cross were written in three language as it states in the passage from Luke. Why were three languages used?
The official language of Rome, used by the government, was Latin so it is not surprising that, since it was Rome that condemned him, Latin was used on the sign. But Greek was the international language of the culture of that day. Hebrew was the language of the Jews and Jesus was a Jew. Therefore, it is not surprising that the so-called crime of Christ was written in three languages. Pilate would have dictated what was to be put on the sign on the cross. A Roman Centurion at the site of the cross would have been responsible for writing it on the sign.
The three inscriptions were noted in the Gospels as follows:
This is Jesus the king of the Jews (Matt. 27:37).
The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26).
This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:28).
Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews (John 19:19).
John is the only one to mention Pilate in his writing about the crucifixion. He is also the only one to mention Nazareth. Pilate mocked Jesus about his so-called kingship. It is not hard to see that Pilate was taunting Christ by calling him King of the Jews from lowly Nazareth (a place of little renown at that time).
Also, John refers to the words as a title as in the Latin titulus. Therefore, he is translating the Latin words in his telling of the event.
Further evidence that supports this argument comes from the early church fathers. The Latin inscription read: IESUS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM. The Early Church adopted as a symbol the Latin letters INRI the first letters of the inscription) which appeared on many early paintings of the crucifixion. Therefore, there really is no valid argument against John quoting the inscription as it was written in Latin.
Now look at Luke. He was a physician, highly-educated and writing in Greek (for example, he addresses his Gospel to Theophilus, a Greek nobleman). As I said in an earlier post, Luke was writing to a Gentile audience, not a Jewish one.
The same goes for Mark. He was writing to Gentiles, too. Notice how Mark goes for brevity throughout the entire Gospel. He tells everyone what Jesus did. He doesn稚 spend any time talking about genealogy or the birth of Christ (which Matthew does because he痴 writing to a Jewish audience to show them that Jesus really was the fulfillment of prophecy re: the Messiah). He omits the Sermon on the Mount and many of the sayings of Christ that appear in the other Gospels. In his brevity, he chooses to present the words on the cross as the five words that are common to all three inscriptions in all three languages. Stylistically, this is proven and is perfectly logical and valid.
And, finally, because Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, he would have translated what was written in Hebrew on the cross for his audience.
Now look at the board on which these things were written. The Latin inscription, being the official one, would have taken precedence over the others and appeared first. It read: IESUS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM. In those days, they did not use spaces between the words. Therefore, there would have been 26 characters across the top of the sign. The length of that inscription would have dictated the size of the board and how many characters the following inscriptions could consist of.
Translated into Greek, the inscription would have consisted of 30 characters. But that is too many characters for the sign, especially if written in lettering about the size of the Latin one. Therefore, it is easy to see that there would not be room in Greek for the extra 16 letters of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, it is logical to assume that they were not written on the sign in Greek and Luke was quoting the Greek sentence accurately. The ever-brief Mark chose to cite it only as king of the Jewsbecause the words this is are superfluous.
Then we come to Matthew writing to the Jews. In Hebrew, the inscription would be OUTOS ESTIN O BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN. Of course, they did not use vowels in Hebrew so that would make the inscription shorter than either the Greek or Latin rendition. To the Jews, there would have been no crime in coming from Nazareth and there would be no reason for Matthew to include that in his citation of the inscription.
It is important to study the Bible looking at the culture and the times in which the various books of it were written and at how things were done in the Roman Empire, etc.. It is also important to look at the audience for each of the Gospels, with Matthew writing for the Jews, Mark and Luke being for a Gentile audience and John for all believers be they Jew or Gentile.
I must point out that the fact that four different people chose to tell the same story highlighting different elements of it throughout their Gospels does NOT present a contradiction of any kind. Nor does it suggest that one or all of them are wrong. Therefore, any attempt to discredit the Bible by saying the four different translations of the words on the sign over the cross present a serious problem is invalid.
To be valid, the argument would have to be that one inscription in one Gospel said Jesus king of the Jews while another said Jesus king of Rome but not of the Jews. If the Gospels each presented those kinds of statements which offer contradictory information, the critic of the Bible would have a case. But the statements do NOT contradict each other according to the Law of Non-contradition and therefore they do not cast aspersions on the validity of the text.
Mars Man writes:
Now what if J told me that a jogger had come running by just where you all had been sitting, and you had said to the runner "Can you tell me what time it is?" and he answered, " My clock says just before six." whereas M happened to tell me that two runners had come running by and you had said to them "Do you all have the time?" and they replied, " Our clocks say just before six." In this case, I think you'd agree, there is a contradiction; right? I mean it isn't realistic for a third party to claim that one runner came by, and you had asked and he had answered, and then two more runners had come by, and you had asked them--in plural--and they had answered--in plural. Nevertheless, assuming that the general event had taken place, either J's report is historically truer, or M's report is--that the acts and words spoken have become history is no doubt at all; would'nt you agree?
My (Overcomer's) response is:
Your scenario of the runners does NOT prove that the Bible is not accurate. Why? Because you insist that it is a contradiction but what you have written is NOT a contradiction.
One problem I see in discussions like this is the simple fact that a lot of people do not understand the Law of Non-contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction simply states that something cannot be true and its EXACT OPPOSITE cannot be true at the same time.
Therefore, an example of a contradiction would be the following: John is a man. John is NOT a man.
Another one is: The dress is red. The dress is NOT red. These are contradictions.
Obviously, John cannot be a man and NOT be a man at the same time. A dress cannot be red and NOT red at the same time either although it could include other colours, mentioned or unmentioned.
Given your scenario of the runners, it would be a contradiction if and only if one person reported that a runner or runners said that my clock is just before six and another reported that his clock is NOT before six. That and that alone would be a contradiction! Do you see that?
Therefore, your story about the runners does not prove that the Gospels contain errors. In fact, it supports just what I said, that one person can mention one thing that happened while another omits that and mentions something else that happened. Neither one is wrong. They are merely different. One person could chose to quote one runner while someone else could choose to quote two or six or nine.
The important thing is this: No matter how many runners you quote or somebody else sitting beside you quotes, THE FACT THAT THE CLOCK SAYS IT'S BEFORE SIX DOES NOT CHANGE AT ALL!
And the same is true of the Gospels. Two writers can choose to highlight different things but the FACT that Jesus the Son of God came to earth, died on the cross and was resurrected does not change at all because they ALL agree on that, whether they mention one, two or 100 people watching in the crowd. That's why your argument is invalid.
Let me use an example of the signs over the cross of Christ to further illustrate this. Atheists often point to the fact that the Gospels say something different about it and they insist this proves that the Bible is not reliable. But their argument is invalid. The different interpretations in each Gospel do NOT contradict each other, but complement each other and -- and this is important -- IT IS AIMED AT THE AUDIENCE FOR WHICH THE BOOK IS WRITTEN!
Consider the following:
First of all, we need to understand that it was the custom of Rome to affix a sign above the person being crucified stating what his crime was.
Secondly, it is imperative to recognize the fact that the words on the cross were written in three language as it states in the passage from Luke. Why were three languages used?
The official language of Rome, used by the government, was Latin so it is not surprising that, since it was Rome that condemned him, Latin was used on the sign. But Greek was the international language of the culture of that day. Hebrew was the language of the Jews and Jesus was a Jew. Therefore, it is not surprising that the so-called crime of Christ was written in three languages. Pilate would have dictated what was to be put on the sign on the cross. A Roman Centurion at the site of the cross would have been responsible for writing it on the sign.
The three inscriptions were noted in the Gospels as follows:
This is Jesus the king of the Jews (Matt. 27:37).
The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26).
This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:28).
Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews (John 19:19).
John is the only one to mention Pilate in his writing about the crucifixion. He is also the only one to mention Nazareth. Pilate mocked Jesus about his so-called kingship. It is not hard to see that Pilate was taunting Christ by calling him King of the Jews from lowly Nazareth (a place of little renown at that time).
Also, John refers to the words as a title as in the Latin titulus. Therefore, he is translating the Latin words in his telling of the event.
Further evidence that supports this argument comes from the early church fathers. The Latin inscription read: IESUS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM. The Early Church adopted as a symbol the Latin letters INRI the first letters of the inscription) which appeared on many early paintings of the crucifixion. Therefore, there really is no valid argument against John quoting the inscription as it was written in Latin.
Now look at Luke. He was a physician, highly-educated and writing in Greek (for example, he addresses his Gospel to Theophilus, a Greek nobleman). As I said in an earlier post, Luke was writing to a Gentile audience, not a Jewish one.
The same goes for Mark. He was writing to Gentiles, too. Notice how Mark goes for brevity throughout the entire Gospel. He tells everyone what Jesus did. He doesn稚 spend any time talking about genealogy or the birth of Christ (which Matthew does because he痴 writing to a Jewish audience to show them that Jesus really was the fulfillment of prophecy re: the Messiah). He omits the Sermon on the Mount and many of the sayings of Christ that appear in the other Gospels. In his brevity, he chooses to present the words on the cross as the five words that are common to all three inscriptions in all three languages. Stylistically, this is proven and is perfectly logical and valid.
And, finally, because Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, he would have translated what was written in Hebrew on the cross for his audience.
Now look at the board on which these things were written. The Latin inscription, being the official one, would have taken precedence over the others and appeared first. It read: IESUS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM. In those days, they did not use spaces between the words. Therefore, there would have been 26 characters across the top of the sign. The length of that inscription would have dictated the size of the board and how many characters the following inscriptions could consist of.
Translated into Greek, the inscription would have consisted of 30 characters. But that is too many characters for the sign, especially if written in lettering about the size of the Latin one. Therefore, it is easy to see that there would not be room in Greek for the extra 16 letters of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, it is logical to assume that they were not written on the sign in Greek and Luke was quoting the Greek sentence accurately. The ever-brief Mark chose to cite it only as king of the Jewsbecause the words this is are superfluous.
Then we come to Matthew writing to the Jews. In Hebrew, the inscription would be OUTOS ESTIN O BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN. Of course, they did not use vowels in Hebrew so that would make the inscription shorter than either the Greek or Latin rendition. To the Jews, there would have been no crime in coming from Nazareth and there would be no reason for Matthew to include that in his citation of the inscription.
It is important to study the Bible looking at the culture and the times in which the various books of it were written and at how things were done in the Roman Empire, etc.. It is also important to look at the audience for each of the Gospels, with Matthew writing for the Jews, Mark and Luke being for a Gentile audience and John for all believers be they Jew or Gentile.
I must point out that the fact that four different people chose to tell the same story highlighting different elements of it throughout their Gospels does NOT present a contradiction of any kind. Nor does it suggest that one or all of them are wrong. Therefore, any attempt to discredit the Bible by saying the four different translations of the words on the sign over the cross present a serious problem is invalid.
To be valid, the argument would have to be that one inscription in one Gospel said Jesus king of the Jews while another said Jesus king of Rome but not of the Jews. If the Gospels each presented those kinds of statements which offer contradictory information, the critic of the Bible would have a case. But the statements do NOT contradict each other according to the Law of Non-contradition and therefore they do not cast aspersions on the validity of the text.
responsibility
Marciamo wrote:
My response is:
Actually, translators of the Bible have stated that English is a very poor language compared to Hebrew and Greek and that it fails to cover all the many connotations of the words in their original languages. Take for example, the simple word love which, in Greek, uses four words to translate it, carrying four different connotations, all of which the English language inadequately translates as the same word love.
In fact, Greek and Hebrew are amazingly rich languages with a variety of nuances that was not matched by other languages at that time and, to my knowledge, still isn稚 by most languages today. Therefore, scholars have declared that God chose to communicate in the best languages possible.
There is no excuse for your or I to NOT do the research, study the languages, read what the scholars wrote, etc., to get at the truth of God.
And, truly, it isn't necessary to do all the study to arrive at the truth of God because the Holy Spirit will instruct anybody who asks, be they a child, be they illiterate, be they a person with a Ph.D. in physics. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is so easy to understand that a small child can grasp it so there is really no excuse for those who say it is not fair that God did not speak to them in their language.
And, in truth, God DOES speak to people in their own language. You have only to ask Christians from around the world and they will tell you that. Language is no barrier for the Holy Spirit.
Marciamo wrote:
My response:
This is a myth. We have more knowledge and information today than ever before, but people themselves have not changed. They have been and always will be a mixed bag of good and bad. They have not improved in tolerance, patience, unselfishness, love, wickedness, generosity, etc. They have remained what they have always been, imperfect sinners who cannot make themselves any better no matter how hard they try.
Historians have remarked upon the fact that there has never been a century of evil and bloodshed like the 20th-century. What has man learned over the centuries? He has learned how to kill and destroy in greater magnitude, that is all.
It is also a myth to think that we have improved in terms of our mental ability. Socrates was just as great a thinker as any thinker of today. Newton was just as great a scientist as any scientist today. Alexander the Great was just as great a soldier as any general today. Do not sell our forefathers short by assuming they were more stupid than we are. They were not.
Marciamo wrote:
My response:
God created this world and gave his message to the very first human beings. His message did not come late. It was just ignored by many people not so different from you who refuse to acknowledge him.
Marciamo wrote:
I see this from so many atheists. They try to put the blame for the ills of this world on God instead of placing it where it really belongs, that is, with humankind. God made this world perfect. He made human beings out of love. He wanted to be in a loving relationship with each and every one of us.
However, true love must be a matter of choice. If God were to program all of us to love him, then we would be little more than automatons who had to love him but did not choose to love him.
Obviously, if God gives us the choice to love him, it follows naturally that he gives us the choice to NOT love him. That choice leads men away from him, doing what they think is best, being influenced and led by the devil, not by God. The problems of this world were caused by flawed men, not by a perfect God.
When you understand that love is a choice and that sin entered by humankind choosing NOT to love God, then you will understand you and I are responsible for ourselves and for the way the world turned out, not God. We have free will. Let us take responsibility for our own choices and actions, shall we?
Marciamo wrote:
My response is:
Actually, translators of the Bible have stated that English is a very poor language compared to Hebrew and Greek and that it fails to cover all the many connotations of the words in their original languages. Take for example, the simple word love which, in Greek, uses four words to translate it, carrying four different connotations, all of which the English language inadequately translates as the same word love.
In fact, Greek and Hebrew are amazingly rich languages with a variety of nuances that was not matched by other languages at that time and, to my knowledge, still isn稚 by most languages today. Therefore, scholars have declared that God chose to communicate in the best languages possible.
There is no excuse for your or I to NOT do the research, study the languages, read what the scholars wrote, etc., to get at the truth of God.
And, truly, it isn't necessary to do all the study to arrive at the truth of God because the Holy Spirit will instruct anybody who asks, be they a child, be they illiterate, be they a person with a Ph.D. in physics. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is so easy to understand that a small child can grasp it so there is really no excuse for those who say it is not fair that God did not speak to them in their language.
And, in truth, God DOES speak to people in their own language. You have only to ask Christians from around the world and they will tell you that. Language is no barrier for the Holy Spirit.
Marciamo wrote:
My response:
This is a myth. We have more knowledge and information today than ever before, but people themselves have not changed. They have been and always will be a mixed bag of good and bad. They have not improved in tolerance, patience, unselfishness, love, wickedness, generosity, etc. They have remained what they have always been, imperfect sinners who cannot make themselves any better no matter how hard they try.
Historians have remarked upon the fact that there has never been a century of evil and bloodshed like the 20th-century. What has man learned over the centuries? He has learned how to kill and destroy in greater magnitude, that is all.
It is also a myth to think that we have improved in terms of our mental ability. Socrates was just as great a thinker as any thinker of today. Newton was just as great a scientist as any scientist today. Alexander the Great was just as great a soldier as any general today. Do not sell our forefathers short by assuming they were more stupid than we are. They were not.
Marciamo wrote:
My response:
God created this world and gave his message to the very first human beings. His message did not come late. It was just ignored by many people not so different from you who refuse to acknowledge him.
Marciamo wrote:
My response:
I see this from so many atheists. They try to put the blame for the ills of this world on God instead of placing it where it really belongs, that is, with humankind. God made this world perfect. He made human beings out of love. He wanted to be in a loving relationship with each and every one of us.
However, true love must be a matter of choice. If God were to program all of us to love him, then we would be little more than automatons who had to love him but did not choose to love him.
Obviously, if God gives us the choice to love him, it follows naturally that he gives us the choice to NOT love him. That choice leads men away from him, doing what they think is best, being influenced and led by the devil, not by God. The problems of this world were caused by flawed men, not by a perfect God.
When you understand that love is a choice and that sin entered by humankind choosing NOT to love God, then you will understand you and I are responsible for ourselves and for the way the world turned out, not God. We have free will. Let us take responsibility for our own choices and actions, shall we?
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
On the geneology front. Making Jesus a descendent from the house of David isn't really that difficult. Consider this, the scripture mention that a Messiah will come. It lists various critrea that the Messiah must fit. As Jesus disciples saw him as the Mesiah they would make sure that all prophecy would fit. If you want to martyr someone you can add details later that cover prophecy. After all if it was true and he was the Messiah, then all Jews would have recognised this, but they didn't. This leads me to the conclusion that parts of the messiah prophecy was made to fit with the life and death of Jesus. IMHO each of the gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, as they date much later after the death of Christ. Unless they were passed on by word of mouth by eyewitnesses and then made to fit the prophecy of the Messiah.
Back to the house of David. The Jewish nation, of which David ruled finally collapsed about 700BC. Consider this: You are a product of two family names, your mothers and fathers. In turn they are each a product of two more families. By the time we are 5 generations back, your family tree covers 16 different families. Keep going back and it rises expontentially. With the Jews being a group that kept within themselves it isn't hard to trace a family back to a certain house. If you had the records, you could probably trace the disciples back to David. Given that record keeping was exactly accurate, especially after the destruction of the first temple and the Jews were scattered, Jeses's geneology could be made to fit quite easily and no-one could really check on the accuracy of this. In other words he might or might not have been a descendent of David. People made the facts fit the prophecy of the Messiah. Even Herod Aggripa claimed that he was descended from David. Probably more likely, as he was of a royal line.
Back to the house of David. The Jewish nation, of which David ruled finally collapsed about 700BC. Consider this: You are a product of two family names, your mothers and fathers. In turn they are each a product of two more families. By the time we are 5 generations back, your family tree covers 16 different families. Keep going back and it rises expontentially. With the Jews being a group that kept within themselves it isn't hard to trace a family back to a certain house. If you had the records, you could probably trace the disciples back to David. Given that record keeping was exactly accurate, especially after the destruction of the first temple and the Jews were scattered, Jeses's geneology could be made to fit quite easily and no-one could really check on the accuracy of this. In other words he might or might not have been a descendent of David. People made the facts fit the prophecy of the Messiah. Even Herod Aggripa claimed that he was descended from David. Probably more likely, as he was of a royal line.
On being a Christian
Revenant wrote:
If an atheist says Jesus exists, then he would not be an atheist, he would be an agnostic. By definition, an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God and Jesus is God Incarnate. Therefore, you are changing the definition of the word for your own purpose and that's an invalid form of argument.
Secondly, no one is in a relationship with someone who does not exist. You cannot, again, by definition, be in a relationship with someone who does not exist. It takes two real people or one real person and one real God. You cannot change the definitions of words to make them fit your argument. That is what you are doing here and it is an invalid manner of refuting an argument.
Revennat wrote:
But again, you are ignoring the definition of what it means to be a Christian. Being a Muslim only means following the five pillars of Islam, reading the Koran, etc. Being a Hindu means only following the tenets of that religions. No religion other than Christianity offers a personal relationship with God because no other religion is OF God! Being a Christian is being in a relationship with Christ and you cannot be in a relationship with him and then decide he is not real any more than you can believe in a relationship with your brother and then at some point in time decide he is not real. However, a Muslim or a Hindu could walk away from a belief system since beliefs can change and be replaced. That was my whole point, that Christianity was NOT just a belief system.
Again, you are trying to re-define words to suit your argument and that isn't allowed anywhere, not in your dealing with Christians about Christianity and not in your dealing with non-Christians about business, history, science or whatever! It's an invalid approach to the world that would not be accepted even in secular circles talking about secular matters.
Atheism is an untenable position. To be able to state with certainty that God does not exist a person would have to have know EVERYTHING there is to know in this world. Since no atheist does, then he cannot state with certainty that God cannot exist. At best, he can say that he does not think God exists but he cannot be sure. Therefore, he is really an agnostic because, as I said, atheism is an indefensible and, therefore, an illogical position, not a reasonable one at all. In fact, it is less reasonable than Christianity.
Faith in Christ is most reasonable. Consider the following:
Everybody has faith in something. We have faith that the pills the doctor prescribes are going to make us better. We have faith as we stand at the bus stop that the bus will come and take us where we want to go. We have faith that the sun will rise every morning.
Some people have chosen to put their faith in science. Science is only as good as the scientists behind it and, being human, scientists make mistakes and fail. History records many examples of scientific facts that everyone believed that turned out to be totally false. Science is unreliable.
Some people, atheists in particular, put their faith in their own intelligence and in what they refer to as logic and reason. And yet, their intelligence is flawed and therefore they can misapply logic and reason and come up with the wrong answers.
There are some people who think that, when it comes to faith, it stands in opposition to reason. In some cases, it may. There are people who say, in faith, that
the Holocaust never took place. This is unreasonable given the valid evidence to the contrary.
There are some people who think that Christian faith is unreasonable. This, too, is completely false. Christian faith is based on knowledge and reason. Here is how the Christian understands faith:
Hebrews 11:1 reads: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (New Revised Standard Version).
Notice the words used here -- assurance and conviction. We are not just talking about blind faith or wishful thinking. Nor are we talking about faith that demands that our brains not be involved. In fact, the opposite is true. There is evidence to believe, evidence that satisfies the mind as well as the heart. We are talking about being certain about Christ.
If you start with the wrong premise, you end up with the wrong conclusion. Because atheists start with the wrong understanding of what it is to be a Christian, they end up with the wrong conclusion about faith in Christ. When you understand that being a Christian is all about being in a relationship with the living God, that puts a whole new perspective on the issue of faith.
It is like this: when you meet someone for the first time and you do not know him well, you are not like to trust him. But if you get to know someone better and better over time and see that he follows through on his promises and is honest and trustworthy, your faith in his ability to do what he says he is going to do grows and grows and grows.
That is the way it is for Christians. The longer I walk with Jesus the better I get to know him and the more I see him acting in my life and in the lives of others. I read his promises in the Bible and I see him fulfill them in my life. That means that my faith is not based on a bunch of ideas from a book but on personal experience with the living Christ.
Just as it is reasonable to trust a person who has proved himself worthy of your trust, so too is it reasonable to trust Jesus when he continues to prove himself over and over and over to be just who he says he I and able to do all the things he says he can do.
It is interesting to look at the original Greek of the New Testament to see the nuances of the words used to talk about knowing Christ and believing in him. In the Gospel of John we read that he who believes also knows (John 5:24, John 6:60) and he who knows believes (John 10:38). The word ginosko, meaning to know refers to an acquired knowledge. In other words, we learn about Christ by interacting with him thereby acquiring knowledge of him.
In other words, we are talking about faith being based on experience, not faith in some pie-in-the-sky fantasy or unproven theory. Consider 1 John 3:23 which speaks of believing in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ. In Jewish society, a name is more than just what somebody is called. It means the whole nature and character of the person bearing it as he is known to us. Again, we are talking about knowing and therefore having faith in what we know to be certain and real, not just imagining or hoping without any evidence to justify that hope.
One last verse with its Greek word origins -- in Matt. 7:23, Jesus says that there will be people who call him Lord who never really knew him. As he puts it, I will profess I never knew you. The word newin the original Greek is means never came to observe you as having experienced me.
So were talking about experiential truth here backed up by the Word of God and the testimony of millions of Christians down through the ages. I hope that gives you a better understanding of Christians and the issue of faith.
I know that you believe that experiential knowledge of Christ is not valid. Yet you are basing your non-belief in God in a lack of experience with him. I find THAT invalid! You cannot prove God does not exist, but you are willing to believe that based on the fact that you do not personally know him. Your faith that he does not exist is not based on anything real at all! You have made your decision based on something that you cannot prove. That takes faith! And unreasonable faith at that!
I agree that reason is needed when approaching everything. But the atheist himself is unreasonable in many ways. Christianity is NOT unreasonable at all. It is just misunderstood by atheists because they are NOT informed by the Holy Spirit.
Re: your statement that God hates gays. That is a complete and utter lie! God LOVES all of humankind, every single person who has lived, is living and ever will live, no matter what their sexual proclivities. He sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for all of us, you, me, homosexuals, heterosexuals, liars, thieves, murderers, the proud, the selfish, the cowardly, the weak, the dying -- everybody! He did not have to do that. He did that voluntarily, sacrificing Christ for one reason and one reason alone -- love!
As a Christian, I do not hate gays any more than God does. But God defines what is sin and what is not. God cannot have sin in his presence. Therefore, we all have to be cleansed of sin before we can enter heaven to spend eternity with him.
God defines homosexuality as a sin just as he defines fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, etc. as sins. Homosexuality is NOT any more vile than any sin that a heterosexual person commits. God points out sin so that we can recognize it, come to him and confess it, repent of it, and stop committing that sin.
And why does God hate sin? Because it hurts us and he loves us and he doesn't want us to be hurt.
I speak out about homosexuality out of love, not hate. I speak out because I want everyone, including homosexuals, to get to know Christ and they can稚 do that if they insist on elevating their sins above him and pursue them instead of a relationship with Jesus. If I hated homosexuals, I would not say a word about homosexuality being a sin, I would just let them die and spent eternity separated from God. THAT would be hatred!
If you would like to understand more about reason and truth from a Christian perspective, I would suggest looking at the following links:
Stand To Reason at http://www.str.org/
The Christian Thinktank is another excellent source of information. It is here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Being a Christian does not involve shutting off the intellect. In fact, your intellect can be applied to Christianity and be totally excited and fulfilled by it!
Too many atheists only read what other atheists write about God and Christianity. That is like asking a blind man to describe a sunset for you! If you want to know about God and Christianity, read what people who actually know God personally write.
After all, if you wanted to learn about Queen Elizabeth, you would learn more from people who knew her personally than from people who have never met her, right? So talk to Christians about Christ, not atheists, eh? Talk to people who actually know him personally!
Revenant wrote:
If an atheist says Jesus exists, then he would not be an atheist, he would be an agnostic. By definition, an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God and Jesus is God Incarnate. Therefore, you are changing the definition of the word for your own purpose and that's an invalid form of argument.
Secondly, no one is in a relationship with someone who does not exist. You cannot, again, by definition, be in a relationship with someone who does not exist. It takes two real people or one real person and one real God. You cannot change the definitions of words to make them fit your argument. That is what you are doing here and it is an invalid manner of refuting an argument.
Revennat wrote:
But again, you are ignoring the definition of what it means to be a Christian. Being a Muslim only means following the five pillars of Islam, reading the Koran, etc. Being a Hindu means only following the tenets of that religions. No religion other than Christianity offers a personal relationship with God because no other religion is OF God! Being a Christian is being in a relationship with Christ and you cannot be in a relationship with him and then decide he is not real any more than you can believe in a relationship with your brother and then at some point in time decide he is not real. However, a Muslim or a Hindu could walk away from a belief system since beliefs can change and be replaced. That was my whole point, that Christianity was NOT just a belief system.
Again, you are trying to re-define words to suit your argument and that isn't allowed anywhere, not in your dealing with Christians about Christianity and not in your dealing with non-Christians about business, history, science or whatever! It's an invalid approach to the world that would not be accepted even in secular circles talking about secular matters.
Atheism is an untenable position. To be able to state with certainty that God does not exist a person would have to have know EVERYTHING there is to know in this world. Since no atheist does, then he cannot state with certainty that God cannot exist. At best, he can say that he does not think God exists but he cannot be sure. Therefore, he is really an agnostic because, as I said, atheism is an indefensible and, therefore, an illogical position, not a reasonable one at all. In fact, it is less reasonable than Christianity.
Faith in Christ is most reasonable. Consider the following:
Everybody has faith in something. We have faith that the pills the doctor prescribes are going to make us better. We have faith as we stand at the bus stop that the bus will come and take us where we want to go. We have faith that the sun will rise every morning.
Some people have chosen to put their faith in science. Science is only as good as the scientists behind it and, being human, scientists make mistakes and fail. History records many examples of scientific facts that everyone believed that turned out to be totally false. Science is unreliable.
Some people, atheists in particular, put their faith in their own intelligence and in what they refer to as logic and reason. And yet, their intelligence is flawed and therefore they can misapply logic and reason and come up with the wrong answers.
There are some people who think that, when it comes to faith, it stands in opposition to reason. In some cases, it may. There are people who say, in faith, that
the Holocaust never took place. This is unreasonable given the valid evidence to the contrary.
There are some people who think that Christian faith is unreasonable. This, too, is completely false. Christian faith is based on knowledge and reason. Here is how the Christian understands faith:
Hebrews 11:1 reads: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (New Revised Standard Version).
Notice the words used here -- assurance and conviction. We are not just talking about blind faith or wishful thinking. Nor are we talking about faith that demands that our brains not be involved. In fact, the opposite is true. There is evidence to believe, evidence that satisfies the mind as well as the heart. We are talking about being certain about Christ.
If you start with the wrong premise, you end up with the wrong conclusion. Because atheists start with the wrong understanding of what it is to be a Christian, they end up with the wrong conclusion about faith in Christ. When you understand that being a Christian is all about being in a relationship with the living God, that puts a whole new perspective on the issue of faith.
It is like this: when you meet someone for the first time and you do not know him well, you are not like to trust him. But if you get to know someone better and better over time and see that he follows through on his promises and is honest and trustworthy, your faith in his ability to do what he says he is going to do grows and grows and grows.
That is the way it is for Christians. The longer I walk with Jesus the better I get to know him and the more I see him acting in my life and in the lives of others. I read his promises in the Bible and I see him fulfill them in my life. That means that my faith is not based on a bunch of ideas from a book but on personal experience with the living Christ.
Just as it is reasonable to trust a person who has proved himself worthy of your trust, so too is it reasonable to trust Jesus when he continues to prove himself over and over and over to be just who he says he I and able to do all the things he says he can do.
It is interesting to look at the original Greek of the New Testament to see the nuances of the words used to talk about knowing Christ and believing in him. In the Gospel of John we read that he who believes also knows (John 5:24, John 6:60) and he who knows believes (John 10:38). The word ginosko, meaning to know refers to an acquired knowledge. In other words, we learn about Christ by interacting with him thereby acquiring knowledge of him.
In other words, we are talking about faith being based on experience, not faith in some pie-in-the-sky fantasy or unproven theory. Consider 1 John 3:23 which speaks of believing in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ. In Jewish society, a name is more than just what somebody is called. It means the whole nature and character of the person bearing it as he is known to us. Again, we are talking about knowing and therefore having faith in what we know to be certain and real, not just imagining or hoping without any evidence to justify that hope.
One last verse with its Greek word origins -- in Matt. 7:23, Jesus says that there will be people who call him Lord who never really knew him. As he puts it, I will profess I never knew you. The word newin the original Greek is means never came to observe you as having experienced me.
So were talking about experiential truth here backed up by the Word of God and the testimony of millions of Christians down through the ages. I hope that gives you a better understanding of Christians and the issue of faith.
I know that you believe that experiential knowledge of Christ is not valid. Yet you are basing your non-belief in God in a lack of experience with him. I find THAT invalid! You cannot prove God does not exist, but you are willing to believe that based on the fact that you do not personally know him. Your faith that he does not exist is not based on anything real at all! You have made your decision based on something that you cannot prove. That takes faith! And unreasonable faith at that!
I agree that reason is needed when approaching everything. But the atheist himself is unreasonable in many ways. Christianity is NOT unreasonable at all. It is just misunderstood by atheists because they are NOT informed by the Holy Spirit.
Re: your statement that God hates gays. That is a complete and utter lie! God LOVES all of humankind, every single person who has lived, is living and ever will live, no matter what their sexual proclivities. He sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for all of us, you, me, homosexuals, heterosexuals, liars, thieves, murderers, the proud, the selfish, the cowardly, the weak, the dying -- everybody! He did not have to do that. He did that voluntarily, sacrificing Christ for one reason and one reason alone -- love!
As a Christian, I do not hate gays any more than God does. But God defines what is sin and what is not. God cannot have sin in his presence. Therefore, we all have to be cleansed of sin before we can enter heaven to spend eternity with him.
God defines homosexuality as a sin just as he defines fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, etc. as sins. Homosexuality is NOT any more vile than any sin that a heterosexual person commits. God points out sin so that we can recognize it, come to him and confess it, repent of it, and stop committing that sin.
And why does God hate sin? Because it hurts us and he loves us and he doesn't want us to be hurt.
I speak out about homosexuality out of love, not hate. I speak out because I want everyone, including homosexuals, to get to know Christ and they can稚 do that if they insist on elevating their sins above him and pursue them instead of a relationship with Jesus. If I hated homosexuals, I would not say a word about homosexuality being a sin, I would just let them die and spent eternity separated from God. THAT would be hatred!
If you would like to understand more about reason and truth from a Christian perspective, I would suggest looking at the following links:
Stand To Reason at http://www.str.org/
The Christian Thinktank is another excellent source of information. It is here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
Being a Christian does not involve shutting off the intellect. In fact, your intellect can be applied to Christianity and be totally excited and fulfilled by it!
Too many atheists only read what other atheists write about God and Christianity. That is like asking a blind man to describe a sunset for you! If you want to know about God and Christianity, read what people who actually know God personally write.
After all, if you wanted to learn about Queen Elizabeth, you would learn more from people who knew her personally than from people who have never met her, right? So talk to Christians about Christ, not atheists, eh? Talk to people who actually know him personally!
missionaries
I'm sorry. I can't remember who said this. But it shows a very limited understanding of Christian history and its advancement throughout the world. Missionaries were NOT backed by powerful armies! It is true that the countries from which they came would send armies to harvest from the new lands the riches that they wanted, but these armies did NOT go to spread Christianity. They went for entirely mercenary reasons. God had nothing to do with it!
Read, for example, what Bartolome de Las Casas wrote in his The Tears of the Indians about the Spanish coming to the New World, something that he was there to witness. The invaders enslaved the native peoples. The missionaries stood up for the Indians, telling the mercenaries that they were wrong to treat them so poorly, that the natives were God痴 children and should be treated with compassion and respect. Those missionaries were slaughtered right alongside the many Indians who resisted the invasion of the Spanish armies.
Were there missionaries who did NOT represent God well and who did damage where they went? I知 sure there were as people are human and therefore fallible, including Christians. As well, there are plenty of people who say they are acting in the name of God who do not know God and who God doesn稚 approve of let alone guide in their ungodly actions.
Many atheists refuse to see the many blessings that have come through Christians. One of the myths they believe has to do with Christian missionaries. They insist that Christian missionaries have ruined perfectly fine civilizations. However, in reality, Christians preserve and improve those cultures by:
a) preserving a culture's language: missionaries always learn to speak the language of the people to whom they are witnessing. Where a language is preserved, culture is preserved. In truth, what happens in countries is this: non-Christians who want to make money out of that country come in and destroy it.
b) bring education and health-care for the masses
c) bring democracy and a concern for human rights, elevating the status of both women and children so that their rights are considered and implemented where they had none
d) work to help decrease poverty by teaching people farming and skills so that they can help themselves
Anyone who states that missionaries bring armies to kill people needs to expand his reading and acknowledge the good that true Christians, that is, people in relationship with God and FOLLOWING HIS WILL, have done throughout the world. The fact that there are nominal Christians who do NOT follow God's and do ill in his name should NOT lead all non-Christians to believe that God and those who truly follow him are all bad!
I'm sorry. I can't remember who said this. But it shows a very limited understanding of Christian history and its advancement throughout the world. Missionaries were NOT backed by powerful armies! It is true that the countries from which they came would send armies to harvest from the new lands the riches that they wanted, but these armies did NOT go to spread Christianity. They went for entirely mercenary reasons. God had nothing to do with it!
Read, for example, what Bartolome de Las Casas wrote in his The Tears of the Indians about the Spanish coming to the New World, something that he was there to witness. The invaders enslaved the native peoples. The missionaries stood up for the Indians, telling the mercenaries that they were wrong to treat them so poorly, that the natives were God痴 children and should be treated with compassion and respect. Those missionaries were slaughtered right alongside the many Indians who resisted the invasion of the Spanish armies.
Were there missionaries who did NOT represent God well and who did damage where they went? I知 sure there were as people are human and therefore fallible, including Christians. As well, there are plenty of people who say they are acting in the name of God who do not know God and who God doesn稚 approve of let alone guide in their ungodly actions.
Many atheists refuse to see the many blessings that have come through Christians. One of the myths they believe has to do with Christian missionaries. They insist that Christian missionaries have ruined perfectly fine civilizations. However, in reality, Christians preserve and improve those cultures by:
a) preserving a culture's language: missionaries always learn to speak the language of the people to whom they are witnessing. Where a language is preserved, culture is preserved. In truth, what happens in countries is this: non-Christians who want to make money out of that country come in and destroy it.
b) bring education and health-care for the masses
c) bring democracy and a concern for human rights, elevating the status of both women and children so that their rights are considered and implemented where they had none
d) work to help decrease poverty by teaching people farming and skills so that they can help themselves
Anyone who states that missionaries bring armies to kill people needs to expand his reading and acknowledge the good that true Christians, that is, people in relationship with God and FOLLOWING HIS WILL, have done throughout the world. The fact that there are nominal Christians who do NOT follow God's and do ill in his name should NOT lead all non-Christians to believe that God and those who truly follow him are all bad!
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
Overcomer said:
I'm sorry, but I find this statement absolute drivel. I can quite happily say Jesus existed, as a normal human being. Same as you or I. I don't believe in God, therefore Jesus is not God incarnate, Just a man with an idea that paid for it with his life. I don't need a God for that.
To make God exist you need one man. As far as I am concerned, God is a creation of man, made in his image, and his morals. Made to explain away things he can't understand. Made as a comforter and someone to turn to when life gets to much. It has helped a lot of people get over bad times. Whether you consider this good or bad is open to debate. And it is used to justify some of the greatest slaughters in human history.
You can walk away from a relationship with Christ as you could walk away from any other relationship. Being a Muslim means having a relationship with Allah, not just reading the Koran and living to the 5 pillars of Islam. Jews have a relationship with YHWH, they show it in there dress. Every religion has a relationship with its Gods, just as Christians do.[/QUOTE]
Could use exactly the same argument against you.
You just use blind faith and do not question anything then? Are you so certain God does exist?
Faith in Christ is most reasonable. Consider the following:
Everybody has faith in something. We have faith that the pills the doctor prescribes are going to make us better. We have faith as we stand at the bus stop that the bus will come and take us where we want to go. We have faith that the sun will rise every morning.
Theology is just as unrealible. Humans interpret what they see to their beliefs and morals. If they think there God wants this, then they do it. The Incas believed their Gods wanted Human sacrifice. Christians said it was wrong. Why? To the Incas it was right, and they had followed it for hundreds of years. Along comes white man and says "It is wrong. If you continue to do it you will be punished". They continue and white man punishes them, because their God says so. Who was right? Who has the right to destroy and entire civilisation, because thier God is stronger? What would have happened if they had developed first and come to Europe and the Middle East? Christianity would only exist in textbooks and mythology.
And you don't? You use your faith in your own intelligence to reason the Bible and your faith in God. I could just as easily say you logic in God is flawed. Who's to say your right?
I thought it was based on how people interpret the Bible. A book written by several people over a thousand years. Each one with his own view and morals.
But a lot of Christians are about blind faith. And if you say to them they are not true Christians they will quote from the Bible. At no point will the use their brain, intelligence or own logic. Blind faith takes over, and they think if they say the same thing again and again then they must be right.
And you cannot prove that it does exist. It is as reasonable as you argument!
I'm sorry I find this quote arrogant. Most atheists use reason and logic to define their arguments. They have to, because Christians, Muslims, Jews will always fall back to the book, which is full of mistakes and ideas that belong to a past generation.
I have spoken to a lot of Christians. How they view Christ and God. In my view they are happy with that. I also read about other religions. Why are they wrong and you are right? Can you say that Christianity is the absolute correct religion? If so, which denomination?
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
Sorry, missed this post while answering another. Just a few thingas to say on this
The spread of Christianity throughtout Europe was not only done by peaceful missionaires, but also the power of the sword. I think you'll find that Missionaries condemned various tribes to death because of "foul, pagan practices that offend the Lord." There might have been good men doing good work, but there were those that use fear for the same thing. "If don't follow the teachings of God, you will be eternally punished." A tenent of the Christian faith. Follow me or be punished! Fear!Overcomer said:
These are modern day missionaries. Where are the cultures of the tribes on Cuba and ones lost in the Americas? They were not preserved. Destroyed by 17th and 18th century dogma.
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
Actually it was me that said that, not Revenant. FYI, if you use the 'quote' button at the bottom of the post it automatically includes the name of the person who made the post. Hope that helps!Overcomer said:
As for my argument being invalid, I beg to differ. For an argument to be valid it is only necessary that the conclusion follows from the premises - whether the premises are actually true has no bearing on the validity of the argument - see here. As Mycernius has already said, it's perfectly OK for an atheist to accept that Jesus existed as a man, his being a god is your definition. So the argument is valid, you just disagree with my premise.
Again, the second part of my statement is a perfectly valid argument, you just disagree with my understanding of the word 'relationship'. I could just as easily argue that it is imposssible for you to have a relationship with God, as I don't believe that the Judeo-Christian god exists! My understanding of the word 'relationship' allows me to see that your relationship with God is genuine, even if I don't accept that God exists. I understand your objection though - a relationship with someone who doesn't really exist is going to be one-sided, and I did think quite a bit about whether this really constitutes a relationship. But then I realised that many people are in real-world relationships that are to all purposes one-sided, so I decided it was OK. As long as you are getting something back, it's a relationship. Believe me, I got plenty back from Raskolnikov, and of course he doesn't really exist!
BTW, sorry for getting offtopic Onii-san. :gomen: I'm sure you'll drag it back somehow!
Pararousia
Banned
- Messages
- 104
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Heinz 57
Mycernius said:
It would have been hard for them(the disciples) to make Him be born where He was born(Micah 5:2) or determine when He would die(Daniel 10:24-27).
The Jewish religious rulers refused acknowledge Him as Messiah because it would have messed up their power trip. Some of them did trust Him, however, and hundreds of the Jewish people trusted Him also.
It would have been hard for them(the disciples) to make Him be born where He was born(Micah 5:2) or determine when He would die(Daniel 10:24-27).
The Jewish religious rulers refused acknowledge Him as Messiah because it would have messed up their power trip. Some of them did trust Him, however, and hundreds of the Jewish people trusted Him also.
Revenant
No Longer a Member
I believe a Muslim and a Jew would both also say they had a personal relationship with their God. For someone with real convictions, their faith is of course the only faith. A Buddhist would absolutely see Dharma gradually being unveiled before him, and a Muslim would feel Allah working in his life. It is like looking for anything in the room that is blue, and including blueish green, and purplish blue, and anything that might be on the edge of looking blue as evidence that blue is everywhere! I don't know if that is a good analogy.Overcomer said:
I'm not an atheist, but I have no reason to believe in the Christian God over any other. To me, it all seems irrelevant, as it is simply something that we can never know, like everyone knows that the law of gravity works. In the end, all religions come down to same core values, and it really is all about being compassionate. What of the verse in Revelations, wherein Christ says, 'Away from me! I never knew you! I was hungry, and you never gave me anything to eat, I was thirsty, yet you gave me no water, I was in prison, yet you never visited me.......'Overcomer said:
But you haven't experienced Dharma. Come to the Zen center and experience it. Of course you have to seek the Dharma, just as you would put forth one has to seek God.Overcomer said:
But then, were I not predestined to seek for God, meaning I have an implanted desire to find Him, then I would have already been predestined to be judged and thrown into the lake of fire. If free will exists, it is certainly very limited, when one takes into consideration genetics, preconceptions, and other stuff, a lot of which we aren't even aware of. But Romans 9 certainly fits Calvanism very well, as God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and not that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. That's certainly not free will.
I never said God hates gays, I said that the fundamentalists that cry God's hatred of gays lack a certain amount of reason in my opinion.Overcomer said:
Now, if we're talking about foreknowing, and omnipresence, then God would've already known that Christ would rise from the dead. It wouldn't have been a true loss, but more along the lines of Christ simply sleeping. It is a romantic story, but I see it as just that.
I was a Christian, and I attempted to make apologetics for all issues brought up. There remained a few questions that I could never answer. Looking within the definition of compassion, how could a compassionate God have a chosen people, and not offer salvation to the Native Americans and Japanese in the time preceeding Christ? How could he judge people and send them to their deaths for not coming to Him, when He never allowed them to come in the first place?Overcomer said:
You would claim a personal God, but others, after events like the holocaust, simply couldn't believe that anymore. They then believed that God set the Universe in motion, but then would do no more. Even the theology of God has gone through multiple changes, wherein one concept is objected to, and so another concept of God is born, and it yet also brings about objections that are also valid.
I think truth has got to be simpler than the multiple and ever changing theologies of Christianity. And none of these theologies answer all questions satisfactorily.
Tsuyoiko
DON'T PANIC!
- Messages
- 961
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 0
Science works by probabilities. An atheist's statement that god does not exist is based on the balance of evidence, just as any scientific argument is. That is the beauty of science as I see it - it doesn't claim to know anything, but simply states that the balance of evidence overwhelmingly suggests that such-and-such is so. Given enough evidence we can act as if we know it to be true, whilst recognising the possibility (usually a neglible probability) that we may be wrong. IMO there is an honesty and integrity in the scientific method that I admire much more than any individual's claim to know the truth.Overcomer said:
Tsuyoiko- you are absolutely correct about science and the scientific method. As a person of faith- belief was the starting point to which all the evidence of my life became organized. It is the antithesis of the scientific method-- even when it parallels the type and manner of questioning. In all areas of my life I seek to apply faith and science.
My use of the word diest in a previous post may have been not only confusing, but contradictory. I meant in contrast to atheism, I believed in God- a belief which may render some arguments circular.
My use of the word diest in a previous post may have been not only confusing, but contradictory. I meant in contrast to atheism, I believed in God- a belief which may render some arguments circular.
Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #6b
I reconsidered and decided to list this one as #6b since in reality it is still the 'Mount of Olives' scene. I would first like to go back and correct an error of mine, in my #60, p 3; paragraph four. It was the Mark that was a cousin of Barnabas who possibly penned the work attributed to 'Mark' and there is a possibility that Luke may have seen what is theorized to be a pre-edited edition of that gospel account. That makes it possible that the likely writer of that work may have seen a few letters of Paul, or may have helped in delivering them.
There still seems to be a gap in understanding just what history is, but I'll let that go.
RECAP
That the three writers who present this story are going in a linear, chronological order, for the greater part, is very clear. Each leads into the 'Mount of Olives' scene by telling us that Jeshua and his troupe were leaving the temple during the days of that last trip up to Jerusalem, when the buildings of the temple were pointed out. There was a response, and then that fact was to have lead to some disciples asking a question about when that would occur--that starts what I have titled the 'Mount of Olives' scene. In #6 (the previous of the 'Historical Errors' line) there were at least 8 counts of historical error. That portion had taken us up to Luke 21:19, which is the order-of-theme equivalant of Matthew 24:13, Mark 21:13b.
Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #6b
We are looking at a discourse which the writers are claiming Jeshua had told his followers on that day, in the Jewish month of Nisan, just a couple of days or so before the 14th-- it has been thought to be. It is in a single, continuing flow of thought development through words and sentences, as any speech would naturally be. It is a report on the history of what had been said by Jeshua.
>Luke 21 (again, these bold headings are the chapters of the document)
20 has 'Jerusalem being encircled by encamped armies, know that the desolation of her has drawn near.'
.....Mt 24
. 15 has 'the disgusting thing of desolation, that spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in a holy place.'
..........Mk 13
. 14 has 'the disgusting thing of the disolation having stood where it ought not to (stand)'
This is one count of historical error. In the span of the idea developed which concurs fairly enough, it is only reasonable and realistic to conclude that two of the full claims cannot be true history, therefore an error has occured, and it is historical in nature; a historical error.
>Lk 21
21, 22 has 'the ones in the midst of her let (them) depart out and the (ones) in the regions (cultivation areas) not let (them) enter into her because days of vengence are these, to the fulfillment of all things written'.
.....Mt 24
. 15,16 has ' the one on the housetop not let (him) come down nor let (him) enter to lift up anything [belongings] out of the house of him and the (one) in the field not let (him) return into [for] the (things) behind to lift up the garment of him'.
..........Mk 13
. 17,18 has almost the same thing as Matthew--we can let it slide.
This is one count of historical error. The idea development runs parallel in the discourse accounts provided by the three, but the wording of Luke cannot overlap the others--the word choice is very different and the attached conclusion in Luke which cannot be broken from the sentence cannot be considered a possibility in any of the other claims.
>Lk 21
23b,24,25 This entire run of speech, in the same manner as the above examples cannot fit into the development of the other historical flows presented.
.....Mt 24
. 20-30a differs in wording and thought development within an intended-to-be-communicated referent which is generally the same as Luke's and Mark's. Luke's cannot fit into this.
..........Mk 13
. 18-25b is almost a mirror image of Matthew's but omits 'the flight of you (plural)' and 'nor sabbath' in the end of verse 20 which Matthew has, but which Mark could just as easily have had.
This is one count of historical error. The writer of Luke claims that Jeshua had used wording and thought development which cannot be fit into what the others claim Jeshua had spoken on that day at that particular moment. The fact that the author of Mark left out those words in such a tight fitting syntax is without mistake, historical error. Here is the outlay, for those who do not have a copy of the Bible to compare:
Mt 24:20,21--"be praying [second person plural] however in order (that) not should occur the flight of you (plural) of winter nor sabbath, will be, because. . ."
Mk 13:18,19--"be praying [second person plural] however in order (that) not should occur of winter, will be, because. . ."
Even though there are two different error points, it is better to consider the intended-to-be-communicated referrent as one, among the three, so at any rate, there is a historical error on this point in the speech.
In the unbroken flow of words spoken by Jeshua, as attested to by Luke, there is no room for fitting it into that of the other two writers. It is again a very tightly connected development of syntax, within which 'for the powers of the heavens will be shaken and then (they) will see the son (of) the man coming in cloud with power and glory much' fits into logical place equally in the context and flow given by Mark's narrative, and which Matthew's disagrees with again. Matthew has: "and then will appear the sign (of) the son (of) the man, in heaven and then (they) will stike themselves all the tribes of the earth and (they) will see the son (of) the man coming upon the clouds (of) the heaven with power and glory much. . ."
There will be found counts of historical error in the Luke 21:29,30 against Matthew 24:32,33, Mark 21:28,29 section, and in the Luke 21:34-36 against Matthew 24:42-44 against Mark 21:33-36.
What can be seen from this scene is that. . . there are, with a little margin given, even, a total of 13 counts of historical error. The writer of Matthew most evidently was stuck on trying to make some point to or against (according to one possible theory of groups within the Quamrun (sp)/essene cult) the intended audience, and thus ends up putting a lot more in Jeshua's mouth than the others were willing to attest two. (Matthew's scene finishes up at Mt 26:1)
*I find it a shame that some cannot seem to get it into their heads that spoken words are as much history, and thus facts, as the speaker's existence is, that a claim to know what a person has spoken verbatim, given in direct quotations rather than in a looser indirect manner, can be as testable a matter as verifying the point in time and space that such is said to have been spoken. I will continue, as stated in my #12 , p 1; final paragraph. :note:
I reconsidered and decided to list this one as #6b since in reality it is still the 'Mount of Olives' scene. I would first like to go back and correct an error of mine, in my #60, p 3; paragraph four. It was the Mark that was a cousin of Barnabas who possibly penned the work attributed to 'Mark' and there is a possibility that Luke may have seen what is theorized to be a pre-edited edition of that gospel account. That makes it possible that the likely writer of that work may have seen a few letters of Paul, or may have helped in delivering them.
There still seems to be a gap in understanding just what history is, but I'll let that go.
RECAP
That the three writers who present this story are going in a linear, chronological order, for the greater part, is very clear. Each leads into the 'Mount of Olives' scene by telling us that Jeshua and his troupe were leaving the temple during the days of that last trip up to Jerusalem, when the buildings of the temple were pointed out. There was a response, and then that fact was to have lead to some disciples asking a question about when that would occur--that starts what I have titled the 'Mount of Olives' scene. In #6 (the previous of the 'Historical Errors' line) there were at least 8 counts of historical error. That portion had taken us up to Luke 21:19, which is the order-of-theme equivalant of Matthew 24:13, Mark 21:13b.
Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #6b
We are looking at a discourse which the writers are claiming Jeshua had told his followers on that day, in the Jewish month of Nisan, just a couple of days or so before the 14th-- it has been thought to be. It is in a single, continuing flow of thought development through words and sentences, as any speech would naturally be. It is a report on the history of what had been said by Jeshua.
>Luke 21 (again, these bold headings are the chapters of the document)
20 has 'Jerusalem being encircled by encamped armies, know that the desolation of her has drawn near.'
.....Mt 24
. 15 has 'the disgusting thing of desolation, that spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in a holy place.'
..........Mk 13
. 14 has 'the disgusting thing of the disolation having stood where it ought not to (stand)'
This is one count of historical error. In the span of the idea developed which concurs fairly enough, it is only reasonable and realistic to conclude that two of the full claims cannot be true history, therefore an error has occured, and it is historical in nature; a historical error.
>Lk 21
21, 22 has 'the ones in the midst of her let (them) depart out and the (ones) in the regions (cultivation areas) not let (them) enter into her because days of vengence are these, to the fulfillment of all things written'.
.....Mt 24
. 15,16 has ' the one on the housetop not let (him) come down nor let (him) enter to lift up anything [belongings] out of the house of him and the (one) in the field not let (him) return into [for] the (things) behind to lift up the garment of him'.
..........Mk 13
. 17,18 has almost the same thing as Matthew--we can let it slide.
This is one count of historical error. The idea development runs parallel in the discourse accounts provided by the three, but the wording of Luke cannot overlap the others--the word choice is very different and the attached conclusion in Luke which cannot be broken from the sentence cannot be considered a possibility in any of the other claims.
>Lk 21
23b,24,25 This entire run of speech, in the same manner as the above examples cannot fit into the development of the other historical flows presented.
.....Mt 24
. 20-30a differs in wording and thought development within an intended-to-be-communicated referent which is generally the same as Luke's and Mark's. Luke's cannot fit into this.
..........Mk 13
. 18-25b is almost a mirror image of Matthew's but omits 'the flight of you (plural)' and 'nor sabbath' in the end of verse 20 which Matthew has, but which Mark could just as easily have had.
This is one count of historical error. The writer of Luke claims that Jeshua had used wording and thought development which cannot be fit into what the others claim Jeshua had spoken on that day at that particular moment. The fact that the author of Mark left out those words in such a tight fitting syntax is without mistake, historical error. Here is the outlay, for those who do not have a copy of the Bible to compare:
Mt 24:20,21--"be praying [second person plural] however in order (that) not should occur the flight of you (plural) of winter nor sabbath, will be, because. . ."
Mk 13:18,19--"be praying [second person plural] however in order (that) not should occur of winter, will be, because. . ."
Even though there are two different error points, it is better to consider the intended-to-be-communicated referrent as one, among the three, so at any rate, there is a historical error on this point in the speech.
In the unbroken flow of words spoken by Jeshua, as attested to by Luke, there is no room for fitting it into that of the other two writers. It is again a very tightly connected development of syntax, within which 'for the powers of the heavens will be shaken and then (they) will see the son (of) the man coming in cloud with power and glory much' fits into logical place equally in the context and flow given by Mark's narrative, and which Matthew's disagrees with again. Matthew has: "and then will appear the sign (of) the son (of) the man, in heaven and then (they) will stike themselves all the tribes of the earth and (they) will see the son (of) the man coming upon the clouds (of) the heaven with power and glory much. . ."
There will be found counts of historical error in the Luke 21:29,30 against Matthew 24:32,33, Mark 21:28,29 section, and in the Luke 21:34-36 against Matthew 24:42-44 against Mark 21:33-36.
What can be seen from this scene is that. . . there are, with a little margin given, even, a total of 13 counts of historical error. The writer of Matthew most evidently was stuck on trying to make some point to or against (according to one possible theory of groups within the Quamrun (sp)/essene cult) the intended audience, and thus ends up putting a lot more in Jeshua's mouth than the others were willing to attest two. (Matthew's scene finishes up at Mt 26:1)
*I find it a shame that some cannot seem to get it into their heads that spoken words are as much history, and thus facts, as the speaker's existence is, that a claim to know what a person has spoken verbatim, given in direct quotations rather than in a looser indirect manner, can be as testable a matter as verifying the point in time and space that such is said to have been spoken. I will continue, as stated in my #12 , p 1; final paragraph. :note:
Last edited:
Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #7
RECAP
Up to this point, in looking at the narratives, we have looked at eight scenes and have found 28 errors of a historical nature, with 2 counts raising doubt. The scenes are listed below:
The Jericho scene--three counts of historical error
Traveling to Jerusalem--one count of doubt
The Entering Jerusalem scene--three counts of historical error
The temple scene: first day's history--one count of historical error
The fig tree scene--two counts of historical error; one count of doubt
The temple dialog scene: another day's history--six counts of historical error
The temple building scene--one count of historical error
The Mount of Olives scene--thirteen counts of historical error
If there are any who would like to discuss and consider any of the conclusions on these above scenes, I'd be happy to look over them in detail again. I wish to make it clear, however, that these are the scenes as presented in the Greek text (which of course is translated into English, etc.) and not hypothetical examples of how a number of observers could possibly give seemingly various reports on event. If one wishes to check if such had been, or could be understood as having been ,the case in any of these scenes, then that is in relation to the text and is consistant with the thread; I'll do my best to help out in such a discussion of any scene, then.
It cannot be ignored, moreover, it is either ignorant or foolish, to purposely not take into consideration the fact that talking is making history, and that once a word has been spoken, it is a historical fact that cannot changed, and which intention and meaning in having been spoken by that speaker, can likewise, not be changed. To maintain consistency in argumentation on the text, it is necessary to adhere to the fact that like an oral communication, a written communication's historical element is equally so. This is what had been pointed towards by the working premise laid out in post #1 of this thread, and should well be known by those who do understand the impact of historical, cultural, and linguistical matters on the understanding of any text.
Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #7
>Lk 22
7 starts off the introduction of the passover scene
.....Mt 26
..... 17 is where the story picks up at on the passover scene, after first reporting on one evening episode at the house of one Simon.
.........Mk 14
.........12 has the passover scene picking up after the account of the evening meal in Bethany, at the house of one Simon--just as Matthew has done--one or two nights before. (vs1)
Before going into the passover scene, however, attention should be drawn to the evening meal scene that is recorded at both Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9. It is not covered by Luke's narrative, but it is covered by the combined work of John, at John 12:1-8. Since Mark's work is usually considered closer chronological, I'll use it as the base.
>Mk 14
1-3a starts off with the time period as being 2 days before the [festival] (of) unfermented cakes [passover] and the Jewish religious leaders were plotting against Jeshua, and Jeshua and his disciples were in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at meal.
.....Mt 26
.....1-6 starts the telling of this same scene by having Jeshua pointing out that iwas two days before passover, the Jewish religious leaders plotting against him, and his being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper on the night before passover, or one of the nights before that. (passover starts at sundown)
..........Jn 12
..........1 has Jeshua, and obviously his disciples too, at the house of Lazarus, who was said to have been raised from the dead (11:43,44) six days before the passover.
>Mk 14
3 has a woman with an albaster (case) of perfumed oil, genuine nard, very expensive, breaking (the case) and pouring it on Jeshua's head.
.....Mt 26
.....7 has a woman with an alabaster (case) of costly perfumed oil pouring the oil on Jeshua's head as he was reclining at meal.
..........Jn 12
..........3 has Mary taking a pound of perfumed oil, genuine nard, very costly, and greasing Jeshua's feet and wiping them with her hair.
>Mk 14
4-9 has some complaining about it and Jeshua is to have said to the group:
"let go off her (2nd person plural imper.) [ie leave be]. why (to) her troubles you (plural) are making. fine work she worked in [ie towards] me. . ."
.....Mt 26
.....8-13 has the disciples getting indignant and Jeshua answering them with:
....."why troubles you (pl) make (to) the woman. a fine work, because, she worked into [ie towards] me. . ."
..........Jn 12
..........4-8 has Judas Iscariot complaining (which contents favor Luke's) and Jeshua answering with:
"let go off her (2nd person sing imper.) [ie leave be] in order that into the day (of) the burial (of) me she may observe it. . ."
The latter portion of the quotes do not match either, and can be fairly seen through a good English translation.
these combine to make two counts of historical error and one count of doubt. Firstly, we have two different time periods for the obviously one intened event, some time within two days from the up-coming passover, against some six days before the up-coming passover. Furthermore, in this conclusion, it has to be taken into account that John 12:12 tells us that the next day Jeshua rides a colt into Jerusalem--which had clearly occured much earlier in the accounts given by the synoptics. This is one count of historical error.
Although it doesn't much matter about the general quotes given by either the group at large, or by Judas, the words attributed to Jeshua are a singualrity in nature--that is thye cannot reasonably and realistically be thought of have being said twice, in the contexts given. Again, the tightness of syntax and context make it very conclusive that some writers have misquoted. This is one count of historical error.
We are given two different residences, and the likelihood of Judas having repeated the common complaint against someone else's, or the other way around, leaves some doubt on the historicity of these claims. This is one count of doubt.
What can be seen from this scene is that. . . it is certainly the one and same event that the several authors are reporting on. The internal context, syntax and intended-to-be-communicated referent only draw that conclusion. It can only be said that the words attributed to Jeshua, thus, could not have been repeats or segments of a greater overlay. The times offered, as they are said to have occured in the several overall event flows given, are definitely in error. Then, there is doubt as to where it occured, and in just who voiced what complaint.
RECAP
Up to this point, in looking at the narratives, we have looked at eight scenes and have found 28 errors of a historical nature, with 2 counts raising doubt. The scenes are listed below:
The Jericho scene--three counts of historical error
Traveling to Jerusalem--one count of doubt
The Entering Jerusalem scene--three counts of historical error
The temple scene: first day's history--one count of historical error
The fig tree scene--two counts of historical error; one count of doubt
The temple dialog scene: another day's history--six counts of historical error
The temple building scene--one count of historical error
The Mount of Olives scene--thirteen counts of historical error
If there are any who would like to discuss and consider any of the conclusions on these above scenes, I'd be happy to look over them in detail again. I wish to make it clear, however, that these are the scenes as presented in the Greek text (which of course is translated into English, etc.) and not hypothetical examples of how a number of observers could possibly give seemingly various reports on event. If one wishes to check if such had been, or could be understood as having been ,the case in any of these scenes, then that is in relation to the text and is consistant with the thread; I'll do my best to help out in such a discussion of any scene, then.
It cannot be ignored, moreover, it is either ignorant or foolish, to purposely not take into consideration the fact that talking is making history, and that once a word has been spoken, it is a historical fact that cannot changed, and which intention and meaning in having been spoken by that speaker, can likewise, not be changed. To maintain consistency in argumentation on the text, it is necessary to adhere to the fact that like an oral communication, a written communication's historical element is equally so. This is what had been pointed towards by the working premise laid out in post #1 of this thread, and should well be known by those who do understand the impact of historical, cultural, and linguistical matters on the understanding of any text.
Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #7
>Lk 22
7 starts off the introduction of the passover scene
.....Mt 26
..... 17 is where the story picks up at on the passover scene, after first reporting on one evening episode at the house of one Simon.
.........Mk 14
.........12 has the passover scene picking up after the account of the evening meal in Bethany, at the house of one Simon--just as Matthew has done--one or two nights before. (vs1)
Before going into the passover scene, however, attention should be drawn to the evening meal scene that is recorded at both Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9. It is not covered by Luke's narrative, but it is covered by the combined work of John, at John 12:1-8. Since Mark's work is usually considered closer chronological, I'll use it as the base.
>Mk 14
1-3a starts off with the time period as being 2 days before the [festival] (of) unfermented cakes [passover] and the Jewish religious leaders were plotting against Jeshua, and Jeshua and his disciples were in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at meal.
.....Mt 26
.....1-6 starts the telling of this same scene by having Jeshua pointing out that iwas two days before passover, the Jewish religious leaders plotting against him, and his being in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper on the night before passover, or one of the nights before that. (passover starts at sundown)
..........Jn 12
..........1 has Jeshua, and obviously his disciples too, at the house of Lazarus, who was said to have been raised from the dead (11:43,44) six days before the passover.
>Mk 14
3 has a woman with an albaster (case) of perfumed oil, genuine nard, very expensive, breaking (the case) and pouring it on Jeshua's head.
.....Mt 26
.....7 has a woman with an alabaster (case) of costly perfumed oil pouring the oil on Jeshua's head as he was reclining at meal.
..........Jn 12
..........3 has Mary taking a pound of perfumed oil, genuine nard, very costly, and greasing Jeshua's feet and wiping them with her hair.
>Mk 14
4-9 has some complaining about it and Jeshua is to have said to the group:
"let go off her (2nd person plural imper.) [ie leave be]. why (to) her troubles you (plural) are making. fine work she worked in [ie towards] me. . ."
.....Mt 26
.....8-13 has the disciples getting indignant and Jeshua answering them with:
....."why troubles you (pl) make (to) the woman. a fine work, because, she worked into [ie towards] me. . ."
..........Jn 12
..........4-8 has Judas Iscariot complaining (which contents favor Luke's) and Jeshua answering with:
"let go off her (2nd person sing imper.) [ie leave be] in order that into the day (of) the burial (of) me she may observe it. . ."
The latter portion of the quotes do not match either, and can be fairly seen through a good English translation.
these combine to make two counts of historical error and one count of doubt. Firstly, we have two different time periods for the obviously one intened event, some time within two days from the up-coming passover, against some six days before the up-coming passover. Furthermore, in this conclusion, it has to be taken into account that John 12:12 tells us that the next day Jeshua rides a colt into Jerusalem--which had clearly occured much earlier in the accounts given by the synoptics. This is one count of historical error.
Although it doesn't much matter about the general quotes given by either the group at large, or by Judas, the words attributed to Jeshua are a singualrity in nature--that is thye cannot reasonably and realistically be thought of have being said twice, in the contexts given. Again, the tightness of syntax and context make it very conclusive that some writers have misquoted. This is one count of historical error.
We are given two different residences, and the likelihood of Judas having repeated the common complaint against someone else's, or the other way around, leaves some doubt on the historicity of these claims. This is one count of doubt.
What can be seen from this scene is that. . . it is certainly the one and same event that the several authors are reporting on. The internal context, syntax and intended-to-be-communicated referent only draw that conclusion. It can only be said that the words attributed to Jeshua, thus, could not have been repeats or segments of a greater overlay. The times offered, as they are said to have occured in the several overall event flows given, are definitely in error. Then, there is doubt as to where it occured, and in just who voiced what complaint.
sabro san, do you think that 'stance' would prevent you from being able to use common sense, when you were to reason on things as we know them to be?
I am sure it has reached your attention that I am clearly focusing on statements that amount to claims to know the words that a person has used. Would your 'stance' prevent you from being able to reason on just what it means and involves to say that a person has said, "quote"? That's what I would like to find out from you, and is why I had also asked that question. I would hope that you would consider the whole of it, carefully, and answer honestly. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I am sure it has reached your attention that I am clearly focusing on statements that amount to claims to know the words that a person has used. Would your 'stance' prevent you from being able to reason on just what it means and involves to say that a person has said, "quote"? That's what I would like to find out from you, and is why I had also asked that question. I would hope that you would consider the whole of it, carefully, and answer honestly. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
Something Paraousia said has got me looking at the Gospels again. The point is about Jesus descended from the house of David. Looking through the beginning of Matthew is gives the geneology from David to Jesus. I have a problem with this. Joseph is a descendent from the house of David. Mary is made pregnant from the Holy Spirit and Jesus is the result from a virgin birth. In other words Joseph is not the father of Jesus, as Jesus is supposed to be God in human form. In other words Jesus is not descended from the house of David. If Mary was a descendent than he would be, but at the time the important relationship was through the paternal line. If you take the Bible as true, Jesus is not genetically related in any way to the house of David. This, as I have mentioned elsewhere, a case of people making Jesus fit the Messiah Prophecy. Other instances can be found in Luke.
Most Christians will say that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all present to the events that they wrote about. Yet dating of the Gospels shows that they were written between 80 to 100 years after the events discibe in the passages. the argument then taken is that they were old men. The beginning of Luke seems to shake that image. the verse in qusetion are Luke 1:1-4.
Reading that passage infers that the gospel is written by a man who was not present at any of the events and are taken from more than one eyewitness:
"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word"
This passage not only mentions eyewitnesses in the plural, but also mentions that the rest of the Gospel is taken from "Ministers of the word". Implying that not only were eyewitnesses used as a source, but followers of Christianity who spread the word, but did not partake in the events. Because Luke is taken from more than one source, including those who only know by word of mouth, it cannot be taken as an accurate narrative.
To go to Micha 5:2
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little amonug the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting"
- Kings James
"But you, O bethlehem of Eurprathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days"
- NRSV Catholic Edition, Anglicized Edition
I have used the two quotes, as one makes for easier reading, but also shows how Protestant and Catholic are similar in text. The phrase "Ruler in Israel" is used in both passages, yet Jesus never became Ruler in Israel and was mocked at the crucifiction because of it. To the Jewish prophets that wrote this, it would have meant that from humble origins the Messiah would rise to power to lead the Jews to Glory. Early Christians would have taken this text and added their own views on this piece. Jesus never became ruler in Israel. IMHO it again shows that the early church using prophecy and twisting it slighlty to fit their views. Remeber the OT is in origin a Jewish Testament to God and their faith. The early church use the same text to show how God has abandoned his convenant with the Jews.
Most Christians will say that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all present to the events that they wrote about. Yet dating of the Gospels shows that they were written between 80 to 100 years after the events discibe in the passages. the argument then taken is that they were old men. The beginning of Luke seems to shake that image. the verse in qusetion are Luke 1:1-4.
Reading that passage infers that the gospel is written by a man who was not present at any of the events and are taken from more than one eyewitness:
"Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word"
This passage not only mentions eyewitnesses in the plural, but also mentions that the rest of the Gospel is taken from "Ministers of the word". Implying that not only were eyewitnesses used as a source, but followers of Christianity who spread the word, but did not partake in the events. Because Luke is taken from more than one source, including those who only know by word of mouth, it cannot be taken as an accurate narrative.
Could you check the Daniel please, as Daniel 10 only goes up to 21. Do you mean Daniel 9:24-27?Pararousia said:
To go to Micha 5:2
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little amonug the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting"
- Kings James
"But you, O bethlehem of Eurprathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth from me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from old, from ancient days"
- NRSV Catholic Edition, Anglicized Edition
I have used the two quotes, as one makes for easier reading, but also shows how Protestant and Catholic are similar in text. The phrase "Ruler in Israel" is used in both passages, yet Jesus never became Ruler in Israel and was mocked at the crucifiction because of it. To the Jewish prophets that wrote this, it would have meant that from humble origins the Messiah would rise to power to lead the Jews to Glory. Early Christians would have taken this text and added their own views on this piece. Jesus never became ruler in Israel. IMHO it again shows that the early church using prophecy and twisting it slighlty to fit their views. Remeber the OT is in origin a Jewish Testament to God and their faith. The early church use the same text to show how God has abandoned his convenant with the Jews.
Common sense and reasoning tell me that you spend way too time finding what appear to me to be rather minor and unimportant differences between four narratives of the same event. None of the "historical" errors you cite renders the accounts implausible or fictional, and none is so blatantly contradictory as to reduce the doctrine of inerrancy.
I do have to admit that your earlier posts on this thread- I read far more carefully and gave more attention to, but the errors that you seem to be finding are less than earth shattering- So I've paid far less attention to the content of your latter posts. As I read those accounts it only seems plausible that there would be that amount of variance in the retellings. I don't find your citations contradictory.
You seem to have this strange agenda of disproving the Bible by diputing the parallelisms of the gospels-- when most Christians use the same evidence of the harmony of the gospels. Neither school holds my attention long.
I do have to admit that your earlier posts on this thread- I read far more carefully and gave more attention to, but the errors that you seem to be finding are less than earth shattering- So I've paid far less attention to the content of your latter posts. As I read those accounts it only seems plausible that there would be that amount of variance in the retellings. I don't find your citations contradictory.
You seem to have this strange agenda of disproving the Bible by diputing the parallelisms of the gospels-- when most Christians use the same evidence of the harmony of the gospels. Neither school holds my attention long.