A quick question for "Bible based" Christians [Archive]

Ruloah

28-02-2006, 17:46

This has been something I have been thinking of for a while but another thread has provoked to actually put this out to the NS Christian community (well, Christians of a certain type).

Now, I understand that a large proportion of the Christian community consider the Bible to be the divinely inspired and inerrant word of God. The part I don't understand is why they/you believe this since I have found nothing in the Bible to support this claim. Especially since it doesn't have the same thing that Islam has, ie a tradition of believe that the Holy Book was dictated by God/Allah to one man who transcribed it accurately

So, why do a large proportion of Christians believe the Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God when the claim (to the best of my knowledge) isn't supported by either tradition or scripture?

You must not be reading the same Bible as the rest of us.

Scriptural support (from the New International Version):

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1

20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 1
1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
2 Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!
For the LORD has spoken

Jeremiah 1
1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of the LORD came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3 and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile.

4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,

Daniel 1
17 To these four young men God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning. And Daniel could understand visions and dreams of all kinds.

18 At the end of the time set by the king to bring them in, the chief official presented them to Nebuchadnezzar. 19 The king talked with them, and he found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king's service. 20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom.

Daniel 2
19 During the night the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision. Then Daniel praised the God of heaven 20 and said:
"Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
wisdom and power are his.

21 He changes times and seasons;
he sets up kings and deposes them.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.

22 He reveals deep and hidden things;
he knows what lies in darkness,
and light dwells with him.

23 I thank and praise you, O God of my fathers:
You have given me wisdom and power,
you have made known to me what we asked of you,
you have made known to us the dream of the king."

And lots more passages. The OT prophets were know for constantly using the phrase "thus sayeth the Lord", which means this is what God asked me to pass along to the rest of you.

And of course, the NT apostles were promised by Jesus that He would send the Holy Spirit of God after He left...

John 16
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

And Jesus also promised that all believers would be one with God...

John 17
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

And more when I get the chance. Or you can go look for yourself, in just about every book of the Bible...;)

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 18:06

-Snip-
All due respect, but the only one that actually backs up the claim in question is the Timothy one, which has already been mentioned by Adriatica.

Mooseica

28-02-2006, 18:14

All due respect, but the only one that actually backs up the claim in question is the Timothy one, which has already been mentioned by Adriatica.

Not so - for example, the Isiah one says that the Lord has spoken with reference to the prophecy itself, meaning that the prophecy comes from God, and also the Peter one which also says that prophecy comes from God.

And besides, even if only one of them was relvant, it's still evidence in the Bible itself that it's God-breathed.

Kataslavia

28-02-2006, 18:16

All due respect, but the only one that actually backs up the claim in question is the Timothy one, which has already been mentioned by Adriatica.
I personally have no stakes in this, but I think that I'll add just this...YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT. If you cannot read that and take it's meanings; which you quite obviously were incapable of doing, because of the fact that even though it does not just say it blatantly does not imply that that is not what it means.

Shinners

28-02-2006, 18:28

Why do people latch onto the Bible - it is reckoned that the gospels were written a century after christ's death (if he ever existed), and the church has actually amended it over the years.

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 18:30

I personally have no stakes in this, but I think that I'll add just this...YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT. If you cannot read that and take it's meanings; which you quite obviously were incapable of doing, because of the fact that even though it does not just say it blatantly does not imply that that is not what it means.
What it says is "God talked to people". What it did not say, beyond that first point, is "What is written is what God Said". The difference is vital, and is the one on which the topic is founded. I apologise for setting off your sensitive Ignorance Alarm, though perhaps you may choose to consider context as well as content whenever you study what people write?

Oh, and welcome to the boards.

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 18:37

Not so - for example, the Isiah one says that the Lord has spoken with reference to the prophecy itself, meaning that the prophecy comes from God, and also the Peter one which also says that prophecy comes from God.

And besides, even if only one of them was relvant, it's still evidence in the Bible itself that it's God-breathed.

No

It's only evidence that some one said so.

The Niaman

28-02-2006, 18:44

The Niaman

28-02-2006, 19:01

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:11

The Bible, as it now stands, is not inerrant. It has been mistranslated, changed, and even deviated.

My Faith states

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly..."

We have not yet recieved all corrections from God yet. We have some, we lable JST (Joseph Smith Translation) but it is incomplete. There are many books missing in the Bible, several mention in the Bible itself

-The Book of Enoch
-The Book of Jasher
-The Apocrypha (which is mostly true, but has had alot of crap mixed in with it)
-The other Gospels written by other apostles and disciples

Many claim to have these books, but, alas, they have also been perverted and are not entirely correct either.I would agree with you that as long as the Bible is translated correctly, it is correct. But where is any evidence that it has been "deviated?" All archeological evidence of the Bible shows the exact opposite- every single word. There is more manuscript evidence than there is for Shakespeare. The Bible Christians have today is the same as what was written thousands of years ago. The Bible, as far as I can tell, also is faultless (can you prove otherwise? I look forward to seeing your response), whereas you admitted that your texts have errors even though they are more recent. Something seems to be wrong with that. Don't get me wrong I don't want to say "you're stupid for believing that" or that "whatever you believe, it's wrong," but it's something to think about.

Norleans

28-02-2006, 19:13

Why do people latch onto the Bible - it is reckoned that the gospels were written a century after christ's death (if he ever existed), and the church has actually amended it over the years.

Actually, The book of Romans is figured at about 58 A.D. and 1st Corrinthians at about 55 A.D. and 2nd Corinthians at about 57 A.D. Galatians as early as 47 A.D. Ephesians most likely in about 62 A.D. Phillipians in about 62-64 A.D., Colosians in 62 A.D., 1st Thessalonians in about 50 A.D. 1st and 2nd Timothy and Hebrews between 64 and 68 A.D. - Several of these were clearly written at a time when people who actually knew Christ could still be alive and Paul indicates he met some of the original disciples in Jerusalem in his writings. The earliest of the Gospels was likely the Gospel of Mark (Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark and then expand on the borrowed material). Mark was definitely in existence before 70 A.D. and was likely written around 62-64 A.D. during the time of Nero's persecution of Christians in Rome. Matthew was written around 70 A.D. and was the only Gospel originally written in Aramaic. Luke was probably written in 80 A.D. or so. John was the latest of the gospels, It was clearly in existence by 150 A.D. and is generally felt to have been written somewhere around 100 A.D.

- Source: "Asimov's Guide to the Bible," Isaac Asimov, Wing Books 1982

All serious historians accept that Christ lived. It is the details of his life (and ressurection?) that are disputed.

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:24

I was thinking that part of what I said might have been able to be taken in a couple different ways. When I said the Bible we have today is the same, I meant the writings, not the format. Cuz obviously that isn't the same. Sorry if you were thinking otherwise

Frangland

28-02-2006, 19:27

Why do people latch onto the Bible - it is reckoned that the gospels were written a century after christ's death (if he ever existed), and the church has actually amended it over the years.

a) Reckoned by whom that the gospels were written a century after christ's death? I have it that the gospels were written by the four chroniclers between 45 AD (earliest, think it's Mark) and 90 AD. 90 AD would be approximately 60 years after Jesus' death... would logically be toward the end of the writer's life -- he was writing his "memoirs" of Jesus. The fact that the four gospels were actually originally written down at slightly different dates would help account for the four slightly different (but mostly similar/same) versions of Jesus' ministry.

b) The church has amended the Bible? Which church? The Catholic church? If I'm not mistaken, they added a book or two to the new testament, books that the Protestants don't include. I've heard no news about the Protestant Bible changing at all. Now, new versions of the Bible come out periodically (for instance, there are the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Good News Bible, etc.), but they simply say the same thing in different ways.

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 19:29

I God had no hand in the creation of the Bible

signed God

There you have it a signed document from God himself denying any hand in the creation of the Bible.

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:31

I God had no hand in the creation of the Bible

signed God

There you have it a signed document from God himself denying any hand in the creation of the Bible.We're being serious here. Please, at the very least be respectful.

DrunkenDove

28-02-2006, 19:32

We're being serious here. Please, at the very least be respectful.

Besides, if it was written by God, It'd be in spanish.

Frangland

28-02-2006, 19:34

What has happened is that over time, the Bible has been copied, translated language to language, debated over, changed, &c...

Sometimes, just an error in translation would occur, resulting in change of meaning

Sometimes evil, conspiring men would change it to fit their own purposes

Sometimes language gaps would occur, or inserts had to be installed, or a word was mistranslated.

Sometimes there were councils that picked and chose what books to keep and what books to leave out.

I am not dissing the Bible, or trying to disprove anything.
These are things that have occured, do occur, and they are things that can reasonably happen. It's not like people in their limited capacities don't err, things have been changed.

God will set the record straight.

Well your last sentence is on the mark, at least.

Meanwhile, we can stick to the central tenets of the Bible (these are four, anyway):

a)Believe in Jesus and follow him

b)Love others as Christ loves you (as he loves us all)

c)Treat others as you want to be treated. If you're into S&M, err on the side of treating others well, not whipping them. hehe

d)Bear one another's burdens (through prayer/fellowship)

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:35

Does anyone have a serious argument/statement to make? Anyone? If not I'm just gonna quit posting on this.

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:36

yay someone does.... thanx frangland

Frangland

28-02-2006, 19:36

Besides, if it was written by God, It'd be in spanish.

hehe

pa-dum-pun tssssssss

Does anyone else know of any names used commonly today (in Western countries, i mean) that are Aramaic in origin?

Thomas is, and that's the only one i can think of.

Frangland

28-02-2006, 19:37

yay someone does.... thanx frangland

cool, now go back to your tree house.

hehe j/k (i just assume that everyone who lives in Oregon is a hippie. hehe)

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:40

portland may be rainy and be the meth capital of the usa, but it's a good city and it's not AS liberal as I understand its reputation is. I just hate the lack of snow (you should see us all dance when we get 2 inches in a whole winter)

but back to the main topic and no i don't do meth...

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 19:42

We're being serious here. Please, at the very least be respectful.

A serious discussion as to how any text in any writing stating God's hand means that God had a hand in the writing?

How can any one have a serious discussion about that?

Examples,

God wrote this

God had a hand in writing this

God didn't write this

God dictated this to the guy who wrote it

God wrote some of this

This is what God said

Whether or not there is writing in scripture suggesting God's hand has no bearing at all as to whether God's hand was there.

Good Lifes

28-02-2006, 19:46

One of the big problems is HOW the Bible came to be. Very few Christians ever study the history of how books were selected to be placed in the Bible.

Actually several Popes set up committees to decide which of many books should be included and which shouldn't. There wasn't agreement within or between committees. Hebrews for instance was left out by several of the committees because the church had become Gentile so why should we have a book of Hebrews? Revelation was left out of many lists. There was a time when apocoliptic writings were popular. There were many of them. But at the time books were being selected, the fad of apocoliptic writings had passed. That last committee (they didn't know they would be the last) had left them all out. Then on the last day, someone said maybe one should be included just for the historical purpose of showing what they were like. They grabbed the Revelation of John as an afterthought and slapped it on the back. Several books made it by just a few votes and several were left out by a few votes. Interestingly, many of the traditions that cann't be found in the bible are actually in the ones left out. That final committee figured there would be other committees that would make other decisions. BUT the printing press was invented and people began to read that last version. SO, that last selection became the standard.

Interestingly, The Jews cannonized their scripture AFTER the Christians made that final selection. They also left some out that had been considered by many to be scripture for many years. And put some in that many considered less that scripture.

That is why it is folish to say the Bible is 100% correct. Rather than look at detail, it is necessary to look at general ideas that run through all of the writings.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 19:46

Actually, The book of Romans is figured at about 58 A.D. and 1st Corrinthians at about 55 A.D. and 2nd Corinthians at about 57 A.D. Galatians as early as 47 A.D. Ephesians most likely in about 62 A.D. Phillipians in about 62-64 A.D., Colosians in 62 A.D., 1st Thessalonians in about 50 A.D. 1st and 2nd Timothy and Hebrews between 64 and 68 A.D. - Several of these were clearly written at a time when people who actually knew Christ could still be alive and Paul indicates he met some of the original disciples in Jerusalem in his writings. The earliest of the Gospels was likely the Gospel of Mark (Matthew and Luke borrow heavily from Mark and then expand on the borrowed material). Mark was definitely in existence before 70 A.D. and was likely written around 62-64 A.D. during the time of Nero's persecution of Christians in Rome. Matthew was written around 70 A.D. and was the only Gospel originally written in Aramaic. Luke was probably written in 80 A.D. or so. John was the latest of the gospels, It was clearly in existence by 150 A.D. and is generally felt to have been written somewhere around 100 A.D.

- Source: "Asimov's Guide to the Bible," Isaac Asimov, Wing Books 1982

All serious historians accept that Christ lived. It is the details of his life (and ressurection?) that are disputed.

Rubbish. There is a huge ammount of debate as to when and in which order the synoptic gospels were written and most estimates tend to be around 70AD for Mark with the rest coming a fair bit later. To arbitrarily assign a date of 62-4 AD to it is just plain dishonest. There are many reputable scholars who argue that none of the synoptic gospels were written before 100AD.
Paul never met Jesus and never talks about Jesus the man in his writings, neither do James or Peter, the two people who would have been closest to him.
Also, please bare in mind that the average life expectancy at the time was 25, about 40 once you account for a high level of infant mortality. This means that it is unlikely that any of the disciples were around after about 55AD (possible but unlikely), let alone 70AD.

There are a growing number of serious historians who dispute the existence of Jesus. Blind assertion won't get you anywhere.

[NS]Simonist

28-02-2006, 19:49

hehe

pa-dum-pun tssssssss

Does anyone else know of any names used commonly today (in Western countries, i mean) that are Aramaic in origin?

Thomas is, and that's the only one i can think of.
Bethany, Samantha, Martha, Marit, Thaddeus, Barnaby.....all Aramaic in origin.

I was thinking that part of what I said might have been able to be taken in a couple different ways. When I said the Bible we have today is the same, I meant the writings, not the format. Cuz obviously that isn't the same. Sorry if you were thinking otherwise
Have you ever read the different versions of the Bible over the years? The writings, while basically the same at the very core, aren't nearly as similar as you might think. Part of that, of course, is because of King James and his political twist, and then all the Bibles thereafter that used the KJ version as reference, but reading a copy of the Catholic Living Bible from 1892 and the King James Bible from 1914, there are tons of discrepancies.

Not that it matters to me, because I'm Catholic, so not only does the KJ version not count for much, but we're usually taught that the Bible is not to be taken literally......

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 19:49

b) The church has amended the Bible? Which church? The Catholic church? If I'm not mistaken, they added a book or two to the new testament, books that the Protestants don't include. I've heard no news about the Protestant Bible changing at all. Now, new versions of the Bible come out periodically (for instance, there are the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, Good News Bible, etc.), but they simply say the same thing in different ways.

Actually the KJV was altered significantly to fit the views of the Puritans at the time, several words have been changed and short (but important) passages were cut if they didn't fit with the Puritanical beliefs.

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 19:50

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 19:56

a) Reckoned by whom that the gospels were written a century after christ's death? I have it that the gospels were written by the four chroniclers between 45 AD (earliest, think it's Mark) and 90 AD. 90 AD would be approximately 60 years after Jesus' death... would logically be toward the end of the writer's life -- he was writing his "memoirs" of Jesus. The fact that the four gospels were actually originally written down at slightly different dates would help account for the four slightly different (but mostly similar/same) versions of Jesus' ministry.

Only just noticed this part of your post. My bad.

As I posted just now Mark was almost certainly not written in 45AD, about 60AD is the earliest estimate with most scholars hovering around 70AD but a fair few think that not one of the four gospels was written before 100AD.

As to the 90AD being 60 years after the Crucifiction, the life expectancy at the time was 25, 40 after you deduct infant mortality. In other words even if the author was born on the day Jesus died he'd be unlikely to be alive 60 years later. Obviously the disciples weren't born in 30AD, John the Baptist was supposedly born at around the same time as Jesus so that would make him 90 in 90AD; I'm guessing most of the disciples would have been born at around the same time.

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 19:56

The Niaman

28-02-2006, 19:59

I think I should clarify my position.

I believe the Bible to be the Word of God

I believe it is true, and is 99.99999999....% correct.

It is one of the most basic tenets of my religion.

And I'll hand to alot of people, clarification in meaning and translation and the like has been majorly improved on. Passages have recieved clarification, meanings have been illuminated.
Ancient texts are bringing out many things, I hope it continues.

Myotisinia

28-02-2006, 20:01

It's a matter of faith. Either you have it or you do not. I believe in God because it brings me peace and provides release from the burdens of the world. Nothing else I had ever tried while I was a non-believer provided that for me. Explaining to an atheist why I believe in God would be like trying to explain to a fish the concept of air. I could produce any number of Biblical passages that would back up why the Bible is the Word of God, but they would not really explain anything to you, really. You'd be able to dismiss them all all too easily. You have to give up your preconceptions about God first. And since so many things in all of our lives are completely out of our control, that giving up our "control" of our lives and then giving it over to the Lord is an easy step to make. And, at the same time, the most difficult step of all.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 20:03

Valid, but why would they lie? Furthermore why wouldn't the alleged eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about strike the writings down if the events didn't really take place? Since they didn't reject the writings, that means they didn't lie and the events did happen, so that means in order for them to happen God must exist (they wouldn't have been possible otherwise). Since God exists He must have had the influence in the writings the Bible says He did. I know this isn't the best argument but I have plenty of others if you're interested.

I'm assuming that was directed at me.

1. 99% of the eye-witnesses would have been dead by the time the Gospels were written.
2. Most people at the time were illiterate anyway so they couldn't have read the Gospels even if they were still alive.
3. The dating in the Bible is pretty vague, it would be hard to conclusively prove that the event didn't happen at some point.
4. I don't think the writers of the Gospels lied as such, they probably did beleive what they were writing. One theory is that Jesus started of as a spiritual Messiah (not in human form) and the idea that he was a man was only added later.
5. The Gospels appear to have been cobbled together from a collection of legends told at the time, this would support the theory that the authors were merely speculating as to what this Messiah figure would have been like if he'd been alive.
6. There are contradictions in the Gospels, John even contradicts himself at times. Under your logic these would have been shouted down. This obviously didn't happen so this reinforces my points.

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 20:05

Adriatica II

28-02-2006, 20:06

Why do people latch onto the Bible - it is reckoned that the gospels were written a century after christ's death (if he ever existed), and the church has actually amended it over the years.

Its actualy reckoned the Gospels (some of them anyway) were written between 30-70AD as they reference buildings and people who would not have been known of after 70AD (the buildings because of the destruction of Jerusleum by the Romans in 70AD and the people because too much further back and the names of the people would need clarification as opposed to the way they are portrayed in the Bible, Jospeh of Aramathea. What does that tell you, that his name was Jospeh and he was from Aramethea? That doent narrow it down)

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 20:07

Sleeping Beauty is real than as well as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. There is lots of fiction that has been writen.

Also there are many other sacred texts and traditions that you don't believe. What makes the Bible different from those other sacred texts? Say the book of Morman for example or the the writings about Zues etc.
What makes it different? Prophecy. No other book or teaching has the accuracy of the Bible (by that I mean what has happened so far) regarding prophecy. Many can claim to be prophets, but all it takes is one mistake to prove they are false. I think I mentioned this before in another thread, but Jesus fulfilled so many predictions made hundreds of years before He was born. Not to mention other predictions were fulfilled, like the destruction of Jerusalem. Then there's Jesus' resurrection. If you want I can even go into that. I'll spare you an explanation on Sleeping Beauty in an assumption that you were joking.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 20:09

Its actualy reckoned the Gospels (some of them anyway) were written between 30-70AD as they reference buildings and people who would not have been known of after 70AD (the buildings because of the destruction of Jerusleum by the Romans in 70AD and the people because too much further back and the names of the people would need clarification as opposed to the way they are portrayed in the Bible, Jospeh of Aramathea. What does that tell you, that his name was Jospeh and he was from Aramethea? That doent narrow it down)

By Gospels are you refering to the Synoptic Gospels? I know that Paul's writing were very early but I've never seen a reputable claim that any of the four Gospels were written before 60AD, let alone in 30AD.

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 20:11

Actually the KJV was altered significantly to fit the views of the Puritans at the time, several words have been changed and short (but important) passages were cut if they didn't fit with the Puritanical beliefs.
Can you supply any evidence that anything was altered?

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 20:12

What makes it different? Prophecy. No other book or teaching has the accuracy of the Bible (by that I mean what has happened so far) regarding prophecy. Many can claim to be prophets, but all it takes is one mistake to prove they are false. I think I mentioned this before in another thread, but Jesus fulfilled so many predictions made hundreds of years before He was born. Not to mention other predictions were fulfilled, like the destruction of Jerusalem. Then there's Jesus' resurrection. If you want I can even go into that. I'll spare you an explanation on Sleeping Beauty in an assumption that you were joking.

1. How do we know that Jesus fulfilled prophecy (or indeed that he even existed)? Because the Bible says so.
2. Given that most scholars think the earliest Synoptic Gospel was written after 70AD predicting the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD wasn't much of a challenge really is it?
3. How do we know Jesus was resurrected? Because the Bible says so. Notice a pattern here?

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 20:17

What makes it different? Prophecy. No other book or teaching has the accuracy of the Bible (by that I mean what has happened so far) regarding prophecy. Many can claim to be prophets, but all it takes is one mistake to prove they are false. I think I mentioned this before in another thread, but Jesus fulfilled so many predictions made hundreds of years before He was born. Not to mention other predictions were fulfilled, like the destruction of Jerusalem. Then there's Jesus' resurrection. If you want I can even go into that. I'll spare you an explanation on Sleeping Beauty in an assumption that you were joking.

Jesus fulfilled no real prophecy not a single one. All prophecies are fualty in relation to Jesus. Some of the fualts are, The prophecy was already fulfilled, Prophecy was a statement not a prophecy, Prophecy was taken out of context, Prophesy had already expired, etc. There isn't a single legitamate prophecy conscerning Jesus.

Also to note. This was supposed to be about how finding words saying something to the effect God wrote the Bible means that he in fact did write it.

Myotisinia

28-02-2006, 20:20

Not placed in God's control. Placed under the control of the written words of men. You are now under con man control.

That's one way to look at it, and not necessarily the correct one. I answer only to God, and not the suggestions or rules of others. God speaks to everyone everyday in any number of little ways. All you have to do is to look within your own heart to know whether or not it is what God wants for you. What others may say matters not at all. Including you.

So, no, I am not dancing to anyone elses tune, or blindly following the tail of the next lemming in line ahead of me. There is room for interpretation within the Bible. People have been doing that for years, and will continue to do so. Most people have a basic and inherent sense of right and wrong that comes from God. All you have to do is listen, and let go of your worldly predjudices. The Bible serves as a template for how you should live your life. Sometimes you just have to fill in the blanks.

I would suggest that you, sir, are more likely to be under con man control, than I.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 20:22

Can you supply any evidence that anything was altered?

The best example I can give you off the top of my head is that in the NIV (which was translated by over 100 specialists in Greek and Aramaic) has no mention of Hell in the OT; the KJV has many references to Hell in place of the Hebrew word 'Sheol'. Sheol can mean grave or it can refer to a kind of afterlife, but the afterlife isn't a punishment for the sinful. Sheol the afterlife just refers to a kind of tomb complex, there is no punishment for the guilty or reward for the virtuous, they merely exist for all eternity.

I can give you more differences if you like but I'll need time to find them.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 20:24

...or blindly following the tail of the next lemming in line ahead of me...

Nice metaphor. :p

The blessed Chris

28-02-2006, 20:25

Dont insult my intellegence

His question was "Why do you believe the Bible to be to be Divinely inspired when the Bible itself does not say so". I pointed out it does. That answers his question. If you want to know why I am a Christian I'd be happy to answer but that is not what this thread is about.

So essentially you contend that an assertion of validity within a text makes it valid?

Whilst I am aware a degree of blind faith is necessitated by religion (do not quote Pascal herein, I can refute it), surely the above is not the extent of your justification for belief in an apocryphal and anachronistic text?

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 20:42

1. How do we know that Jesus fulfilled prophecy (or indeed that he even existed)? Because the Bible says so.
2. Given that most scholars think the earliest Synoptic Gospel was written after 70AD predicting the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD wasn't much of a challenge really is it?
3. How do we know Jesus was resurrected? Because the Bible says so. Notice a pattern here?
Let's assume for the moment that the man Jesus existed. The man Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb. Not just crucified, but whipped, spat upon, and after being whipped the robe he wore for a bit was ripped off (reopening the scabs), he suffered from halidrosis (a real medical condition where blood vessels break in the temple and you seem to sweat blood- it's caused by extreme stress), and he was pierced in the side (one of the many prophecies). So the man Jesus did die on that day. Fair enough? Ok. So then Jesus was buried. Traditional burial clothes and spices weighed in at about 90 lbs. Then the stone was rolled into place. The stone was rolled in a way that it was all but impossible to lift up (it was particularly heavy, and it was in a "valley"). The tomb was sealed. This doesn't mean like an airtight thing but there was a light rope with the official seal of the Roman Emperor's signet ring, signifying if you broke that seal you'd most definitely get the death penalty. Just to make sure, a Roman guard platoon thingy was placed to guard the tomb for a time. Now when Roman soldiers were guarding something, it was serious business. Not only were they brilliant fighters (I mean, they're Romans for crying out loud), but there were 16 in each group. At least 4 would be awake and standing guard at a given time, and the other 12 would be laying down in a semicircle, in way so that anyone trying to sneak up would have to step on them or create vibrations in the ground by jumping. So whoever would have taken Jesus' body would have needed to not only get past 12 sleeping guards, but they would have needed to fight the 4 (or more) awake guards, (thus awaking the others), beat all of them, then roll the stone away with some massive strength, and then proceeded to rip off the burial clothes and take the body, all without causing a commotion big enough to bring more guards in. Sound a bit ridiculously tough? Yeah. Thought so. Then there's the fact that Jesus was seen by hundreds of people afterward. Long-lost twin? No, don't forget those nasty scars. If the man Jesus was a real man, based on this I don't see how you could say He wasn't God. Randomlittleisland, if you are not convinced some of the most widely accepted historians were correct in saying the man Jesus existed, there is nothing more I can do for you.

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 20:51

Let's assume for the moment that the man Jesus existed. snip

That is of cuarse if you believe the is true. And no there is no plurality of historians suggesting all those things you mentioned happened.

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 21:00

That is of cuarse if you believe the is true. And no there is no plurality of historians suggesting all those things you mentioned happened.There are a ton... even historians from soon after Jesus. I'll
pull up a link in a minute with a few examples.

Dark Shadowy Nexus

28-02-2006, 21:03

There are a ton... even historians from soon after Jesus. I'll
pull up a link in a minute with a few examples.

I'll be back tonight to respond

New Rhodichia

28-02-2006, 21:10

Norleans

28-02-2006, 21:16

Rubbish. There is a huge ammount of debate as to when and in which order the synoptic gospels were written and most estimates tend to be around 70AD for Mark with the rest coming a fair bit later. To arbitrarily assign a date of 62-4 AD to it is just plain dishonest. There are many reputable scholars who argue that none of the synoptic gospels were written before 100AD.
Paul never met Jesus and never talks about Jesus the man in his writings, neither do James or Peter, the two people who would have been closest to him.
Also, please bare in mind that the average life expectancy at the time was 25, about 40 once you account for a high level of infant mortality. This means that it is unlikely that any of the disciples were around after about 55AD (possible but unlikely), let alone 70AD.

There are a growing number of serious historians who dispute the existence of Jesus. Blind assertion won't get you anywhere.

1. I gave a source for my material, where is yours?
2. I never said Paul met Jesus and I don't know of anyone who has said that
3. Paul does claim to have met some of the original disciples in Jerusalem
4. I made no "blind" assertions or arbitrarily assigned any dates, I referenced a scholarly work
5. Who are these "serious historians" that dispute the existence of Jesus - reference please.
6.The average life expenctancy doesn't tell you how long a specific person lived. There are several references in the bible to people living into their 60's 70's and 80's and if you believe the old testament is literal, then into their 900's

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 21:34

So whoever would have taken Jesus' body would have needed to not only get past 12 sleeping guards, but they would have needed to fight the 4 (or more) awake guards, (thus awaking the others), beat all of them, then roll the stone away with some massive strength, and then proceeded to rip off the burial clothes and take the body, all without causing a commotion big enough to bring more guards in. Sound a bit ridiculously tough? Yeah. Thought so. Then there's the fact that Jesus was seen by hundreds of people afterward. Long-lost twin? No, don't forget those nasty scars. If the man Jesus was a real man, based on this I don't see how you could say He wasn't God.
Firstly, what's to say the guards didn't do it themselves? Global superpower hires local boys to take care of prisoners and experience shows they tend to goof off and make asses of themselves by doing stupid, abusive things with the things they're supposed to be guarding.

Secondly, however, you're using a bizarre twist of logic. Assuming the witness to be accurate, how on earth do you justify the God of the Old Testament being correct? It's an impossible leap to make; Jesus being God, Dying, then resurrecting himself by his Own Power is a complete refutation to the notion of monotheism if ever there was one.

Moantha

28-02-2006, 21:48

Norleans

28-02-2006, 21:55

Two questions. If I get the answers I'm expecting to, I'll have a valid arguement.

First, does the bible say straight out that God is benevolent?

Second, does the bible say straight out that the only way to reach heaven is through Jesus?

1. No - it says he is a "jealous" God
2. Sorta - after Jesus life, death and resurrection, yes. Before him, no.

Jocabia

28-02-2006, 21:56

[20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Out of curiosity do you believe the scripture has not just prophecies of events that were in the future in the terms of who wrote it, but in our future as well? Are there actual descriptions of wars? Can you point out the scripture that describes recent past and future battles?

Moantha

28-02-2006, 22:01

1. No - it says he is a "jealous" God
2. Sorta - after Jesus life, death and resurrection, yes. Before him, no.

Well, even after life, death and resurrection, it was a matter of several centuries before any Christian emmisaries reached the Americas. So did all the Native Americans go to hell?

Although if the Bible doesn't say he's benevolent...

I'm sure there are other paradoxes/contridictions.

Adriatica II

28-02-2006, 22:02

Jesus fulfilled no real prophecy not a single one. All prophecies are fualty in relation to Jesus. Some of the fualts are, The prophecy was already fulfilled, Prophecy was a statement not a prophecy, Prophecy was taken out of context, Prophesy had already expired, etc. There isn't a single legitamate prophecy conscerning Jesus.

There are many

His birth Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Matt. 2:1, "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem."

His treatmentIsaiah 53:3, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him."

John 7:48, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him?"

He would be pierced Zech. 12:10, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one mourns for an only son."

John 19:34, "Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

He would be crucified Psalm 22:1, Psalm 22:11-18, "For the director of music. To the tune of "The Doe of the Morning." A psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."

Luke 23:33, "When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals -- one on his right, the other on his left."
John 19:33, "But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs."
John 19:23-24, "When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. Let's not tear it, they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled which said, "They divided my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." So this is what the soldiers did."

Adriatica II

28-02-2006, 22:05

So essentially you contend that an assertion of validity within a text makes it valid?

Whilst I am aware a degree of blind faith is necessitated by religion (do not quote Pascal herein, I can refute it), surely the above is not the extent of your justification for belief in an apocryphal and anachronistic text?

I just said that. I will repeat however that the question above stated that they wanted to know why Christians think the Bible is innerent if the Bible itself does not say. I pointed out that the Bible does indeed say itself is innerent. That is not the only reason I believe it, but it does deal with the OP's question

Adriatica II

28-02-2006, 22:09

Two questions. If I get the answers I'm expecting to, I'll have a valid arguement.

First, does the bible say straight out that God is benevolent?

The Psalms make continual refences to how loving God is. There are too many refences for me to give now, but if you search the Pslams for "loving" or "love" on Biblegateway.com I'm sure you'll find what you want

Second, does the bible say straight out that the only way to reach heaven is through Jesus?

John 14:6
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me..." (Jesus speeking)

Moantha

28-02-2006, 22:13

The Psalms make continual refences to how loving God is. There are too many refences for me to give now, but if you search the Pslams for "loving" or "love" on Biblegateway.com I'm sure you'll find what you want

John 14:6
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me..." (Jesus speeking)

Well, then. If the only way to heaven is through him, and people died before hearing about him, that's not exactly showing benevolence.

Desperate Measures

28-02-2006, 22:13

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 22:16

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me..." (Jesus speeking)
It's personification. The way to find God is through Looking, Learning and Living; not by blindly, statically yet obsessively following some group's literal interpretation of a story. At least, that's what it seems like he's saying.

[NS]Simonist

28-02-2006, 22:29

I believe Jesus said this because it's written in red. I believe that Jesus also corrects my book reports.
Does that mean that Jesus also allegedly nullifies legal contracts, if the misconceptions are to be believed?

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 22:32

Simonist']Does that mean that Jesus also allegedly nullifies legal contracts, if the misconceptions are to be believed?
Well, yeah. Jesus is both the Third and the First party. Legal contracts kinda fail where he's involved. =p

[NS]Simonist

28-02-2006, 22:34

Well, yeah. Jesus is both the Third and the First party. Legal contracts kinda fail where he's involved. =p
I was referring more to the red ink insinuation. It seemed likely more people would know that particular business myth than me asking "So Jesus helps you float checks twice as long?"

Frangland

28-02-2006, 22:40

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 23:03

(will try to explain the concept of the Trinity)

God the Father (Yahweh), Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all God.

They are simply different aspects of God.

Jesus was God incarnate. He now reigns with God the Father in heaven.

The Holy Spirit is with us now... sent by God after Jesus left the earth so that we'd still have God with us (think i've got that right. Bible-readers/Christians, please verify that for me).

So you see, Jesus is God... so it's still monotheism.
No, I don't see. Jesus is human, and yet was God. Jesus genuinely prayed to God. Jesus Died. Jesus, when dead, was risen to life by God. These four things together are contradictory to Jesus and God being one entity as long as you view God as being the unique personal entity that monotheism demands.

Trying to say God and Jesus are the same person leads to a contradiction. For Jesus to be both Dead and God would render God Dead, thus preventing anything from reviving him. But if Jesus was risen to life then God was Not Dead, and thus either Jesus was Not Dead or Jesus is Not God.

The only viable solution is to say that Jesus and God are not the same entity. It doesn't matter if Jesus is God or not; he cannot be all of God, nor can God be all of him, and therefore the two are not the same entity. Thus, monotheism must be disregarded.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 23:05

Ok, here it is... http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html It talks about various refutations to the "Jesus is a myth" argument with links to information on a couple historians. I'll be honest and say I didn't read all of it but based on what I read it sems legitimate enough.

Adriatica II posted this exact same link last week, I will give you the exact same refutation I gave him:

Shattering the Christ-Myth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus

J. P. Holding

During a discussion of William Shakespeare, a student asked the old professor about the en vogue theory that Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him.
The professor growled, "Young man, if Shakespeare did not write those plays,then they were written by someone who lived at the same time and had the same name!"

It is a sure sign of desperation: In disbelieving circles, one of the most popular ideas to come to the fore recently is the "Jesus-myth" - the idea that Jesus did not even exist, much less conduct a ministry as described in the New Testament. It is an idea that one would suppose would be relegated to the pages of the Weekly World News - and it might even be funny, were it not for the fact that there are so many who take it seriously and are extremely vocal in their seriousness.

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

"Come off it, Holding. Just because a consensus of historians say that the Jesus-myth is wrong does not mean that it is wrong. The historians could be wrong. They could also be biased. Since this subject is dominated by theological agendas and philosophical presuppositions, a scholarly consensus does not constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus."

As silly as this may sound, it is actually the core of many arguments made in favor of the "Jesus-myth"! Behind every historian there is a conspiracy, a bias, or some gross error of judgment - and sometimes even the ancient historians are in on the conspiracy, too! At the end of this chapter we will offer some counsel for dealing with those who advance this type of argument, but for now, let's deal with this objection and take it seriously.

Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the "Jesus-myth" are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word. If this were not the case, why should there be any criteria for someone being a historian at all? Why should we not just pick a vagrant at random off the street and let him/her compose an official history of 20th-century America for the Smithsonian archives?

Therefore, while scholarly consensus is not itself evidence, it does function as a "weighting" or "warning" sign: if one agrees with peers who are detailed-students of the same subject matter, then less evidence is needed than would be needed if we disagreed with their consensus (as a very small minority). We would require not just a "good argument" but we would also have to refute all of the consensus arguments first. In other words, evidence may be mediated through expert witness and consensus. Therefore, the argument that consensus does not count as evidence, while correct in its own way, cannot be allowed to stand as a dismissal of consensus, nor as a leveling of the playing field. It is almost like the criteria, "extraordinarily bizarre positions require extraordinary evidence," that operates in scholarly circles. Such a minority position as the "Jesus-myth" is not courageous, but foolhardy - unless one has considerably stronger evidence than the majority; and even then, speculation about alternate views of historical references, such as is commonly found in "Jesus-myth" circles, is not going to keep the sawed-off limb up in the air!

If proponents of the "Jesus-myth" were either qualified historians or had equivalent knowledge, then their counter-consenus position might deserve to be taken more seriously. However, the overwhelming prevalance of tortured explanations, inventive theories, arguments from silence, and outright misrepresentations to get around the evidence that Jesus existed mitigates strongly against offering the Jesus-mythers any scholastic solace. The argument is more than that writers like G. A. Wells are scholars out of their field; it is also that their being out of their field shows like a gaping wound! Drews, for example [Drew.WH, 16-17], attempting to show that there were arguments that Jesus did not exist in early church history, cited these quotes from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. Trypho, a Jewish person skeptical of Christianity, is speaking with Justin; the relevant passage says (words used by Drews, etc. highlighted):

Yes, that's how much sophistry I had to read before he even began to present evidence.

The first source he presents comes from the writings of Justin Martyr, who wasn't even born until 100-114 AD. Hardly a reliable source for a man who supposedly died in 30 AD.

By the time I get near to the bottom of the page it offers Josephus and Tacitus, both of which were written long after Jesus would have been alive. What's more Josephus's passage is agreed to be a forgery and Tacitus was merely reporting the beliefs of the Christians. not confirming their veracity.

Thallus is listed but doesn't even mention Jesus; Pliny wrote in 112 AD and only mentioned Christians, not Jesus; Lucian does the same and is writing even later; most Christians acknowledge that Suetonius wasn't refering to Jesus, but rather to a 'Chrestus', a common name at the time.

Please just give me the sources next time instead of making me waste my time reading empty rhetoric and bogus sources. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus existing.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 23:07

Let's assume for the moment that the man Jesus existed. The man Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb. Not just crucified, but whipped, spat upon, and after being whipped the robe he wore for a bit was ripped off (reopening the scabs), he suffered from halidrosis (a real medical condition where blood vessels break in the temple and you seem to sweat blood- it's caused by extreme stress), and he was pierced in the side (one of the many prophecies). So the man Jesus did die on that day. Fair enough? Ok. So then Jesus was buried. Traditional burial clothes and spices weighed in at about 90 lbs. Then the stone was rolled into place. The stone was rolled in a way that it was all but impossible to lift up (it was particularly heavy, and it was in a "valley"). The tomb was sealed. This doesn't mean like an airtight thing but there was a light rope with the official seal of the Roman Emperor's signet ring, signifying if you broke that seal you'd most definitely get the death penalty. Just to make sure, a Roman guard platoon thingy was placed to guard the tomb for a time. Now when Roman soldiers were guarding something, it was serious business. Not only were they brilliant fighters (I mean, they're Romans for crying out loud), but there were 16 in each group. At least 4 would be awake and standing guard at a given time, and the other 12 would be laying down in a semicircle, in way so that anyone trying to sneak up would have to step on them or create vibrations in the ground by jumping. So whoever would have taken Jesus' body would have needed to not only get past 12 sleeping guards, but they would have needed to fight the 4 (or more) awake guards, (thus awaking the others), beat all of them, then roll the stone away with some massive strength, and then proceeded to rip off the burial clothes and take the body, all without causing a commotion big enough to bring more guards in. Sound a bit ridiculously tough? Yeah. Thought so. Then there's the fact that Jesus was seen by hundreds of people afterward. Long-lost twin? No, don't forget those nasty scars. If the man Jesus was a real man, based on this I don't see how you could say He wasn't God. Randomlittleisland, if you are not convinced some of the most widely accepted historians were correct in saying the man Jesus existed, there is nothing more I can do for you.

In other words: 'If the Bible is true then the Bible is true'? Ever heard of circular logic?

If you can present some contemporary evidence for the existance of Jesus then I will admit that he existed, if so many historians believe it then it shouldn't be hard to do should it?

Norleans

28-02-2006, 23:15

Well, even after life, death and resurrection, it was a matter of several centuries before any Christian emmisaries reached the Americas. So did all the Native Americans go to hell?

Although if the Bible doesn't say he's benevolent...

I'm sure there are other paradoxes/contridictions.

Well, the Mormoms believe Jesus did travel to the Americas and preach to the native Americans.

yes the bible has paradoxes and seeming contradictions.

Jocabia

28-02-2006, 23:18

No, I don't see. Jesus is human, and yet was God. Jesus genuinely prayed to God. Jesus Died. Jesus, when dead, was risen to life by God. These four things together are contradictory to Jesus and God being one entity as long as you view God as being the unique personal entity that monotheism demands.

Trying to say God and Jesus are the same person leads to a contradiction. For Jesus to be both Dead and God would render God Dead, thus preventing anything from reviving him. But if Jesus was risen to life then God was Not Dead, and thus either Jesus was Not Dead or Jesus is Not God.

The only viable solution is to say that Jesus and God are not the same entity. It doesn't matter if Jesus is God or not; he cannot be all of God, nor can God be all of him, and therefore the two are not the same entity. Thus, monotheism must be disregarded.

You're oversimplifying the issue. Jesus was genuinely seperated from God when he was human and this is what made it possible for him to die and be reborn. However, because God is not bound by time Jesus was always in heaven and with God even when he was here. There are times when he was not here, but it's not even possible for him to have never been with God. This is a concept we struggle with. Jesus and God are one and the same but because we personify God we struggle with this idea. We look at persons as not being able to be two and one at the same time, but limits to our understanding our not limitations of God. God is not a person and not bound by the same limits you try to apply. So yes, Jesus prayed to God who is himself while Jesus was both on earth and in heaven and Jesus died but God did not. It all seems complicated until you stop personifying either one and seeing that they are not bound by time and space as we are. They are not bound by limits to their existence like we are. You are limiting your view to make it seem nonsensical but minus your limitations that, in my view, appear to be intentional, there is nothing contradictory.

Randomlittleisland

28-02-2006, 23:24

1. I gave a source for my material, where is yours?

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.

So it seems that I was actually being generous in the dates I gave you, even Christian scholars estimate a later date of writing than I did.

Incidently it is very bad ettiquette to use a book as a source as your opponents can't verify the information, it is polite to supply a website.

2. I never said Paul met Jesus and I don't know of anyone who has said that

I was making the point that all of the early works you listed were written by a man who, by his own account, never met Jesus.

3. Paul does claim to have met some of the original disciples in Jerusalem

It's interesting to note that Paul never refers to Jesus the man or his acts.

4. I made no "blind" assertions or arbitrarily assigned any dates, I referenced a scholarly work

You certainly did my friend: 'All serious historians accept that Christ lived. It is the details of his life (and ressurection?) that are disputed.'

5. Who are these "serious historians" that dispute the existence of Jesus - reference please.

You can find a fair few here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth).

6.The average life expenctancy doesn't tell you how long a specific person lived. There are several references in the bible to people living into their 60's 70's and 80's and if you believe the old testament is literal, then into their 900's

Key phrase: in the Bible. If the average life expectancy is 40 then it is highly unlikely that somebody will live to be 90. It is so unlikely that we can assume that the Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses.

Good Lifes

28-02-2006, 23:38

Second, does the bible say straight out that the only way to reach heaven is through Jesus?
The problem that most Christians have with this question is they forget that that part of God which became Jesus was "in the beginning". Christians tend to limit that part of God to the 30 years of corporeal existance. In actuallity, that part of God was the creator. and continues to be the creator. Paul argues that if a person looks at nature and sees a creator and honors that creator then that person has honored the part of God which was contained in Jesus. So the answer to your question is Yes....but not necessarily the Jesus of those 30 years...but the Jesus of creation, In the Beginning.

Moantha

28-02-2006, 23:44

The problem that most Christians have with this question is they forget that that part of God which became Jesus was "in the beginning". Christians tend to limit that part of God to the 30 years of corporeal existance. In actuallity, that part of God was the creator. and continues to be the creator. Paul argues that if a person looks at nature and sees a creator and honors that creator then that person has honored the part of God which was contained in Jesus. So the answer to your question is Yes....but not necessarily the Jesus of those 30 years...but the Jesus of creation, In the Beginning.

Still leaves the problem of there being people who lived and died without being preached to about that God.

Kamsaki

28-02-2006, 23:46

You're oversimplifying the issue. Jesus was genuinely seperated from God when he was human and this is what made it possible for him to die and be reborn. However, because God is not bound by time Jesus was always in heaven and with God even when he was here. There are times when he was not here, but it's not even possible for him to have never been with God. This is a concept we struggle with. Jesus and God are one and the same but because we personify God we struggle with this idea. We look at persons as not being able to be two and one at the same time, but limits to our understanding our not limitations of God. God is not a person and not bound by the same limits you try to apply. So yes, Jesus prayed to God who is himself while Jesus was both on earth and in heaven and Jesus died but God did not. It all seems complicated until you stop personifying either one and seeing that they are not bound by time and space as we are. They are not bound by limits to their existence like we are. You are limiting your view to make it seem nonsensical but minus your limitations that, in my view, appear to be intentional, there is nothing contradictory.
Personification is how the Christian God is defined. Jealousy, Justice, Mercy, Peace, Love. Having these personal attributes is the pivotal reason to define God as having an existence external to reality. Without a unique sense of self of its own, God need not exist outside of our own universe and Heaven as a concrete location separate from our own becomes unwarranted. Without a unifying personhood, Monotheism collapses.

This is ultimately my point; you cannot assign personal attributes to deity without reaching a clash of entity. By dropping this attempt to personify God, it makes sense. In doing so, however, you must relinquish all personal traits that have been assigned to him which includes those that have claimed to represent him. What you have left is not monotheism by any stretch of the imagination; it is a cold, calculated pantheism. That suits me fine.

Kabram

28-02-2006, 23:49

I havent read every post as it started growing too quickly, but it seems a few things have not been said that need to be.
1) Jesus was born about 3 AD making the original writting of the gospels between 40-90AD well within a human life span. Just because the 'average' age in Ancient Rome was about 35 *not 40 as was said earlier* does not mean SOME people still lived to be very old. In fact, since infant mortality rates were very high the 'average' age was actually squewed down from how we'd think of it because so few people actually made it out of their toddler years.
2) The earliest ORIGINAL copy of any of the New Testament dates to just over 100 AD, 113 AD last I heard. The validity of ancient writings are classed by how soon to the orginal writting you can get a copy. We have the entirety of the New Testament in physical copies that date within the 2nd century AD. By comparison the closest thing we have to Homers Odessy, initially written BEFORE the New Testament is about 800 AD, a partical copy from the Dark Ages. Scientifically speaking there is no valid reason to not accept the Bible in its current condition as a near perfect copy *98% accurate to the earliest known manuscripts and no doctranal issues involved in those 2%* of the original writtings.
3) The Bible's claim to accuracy as the written Word of God is based in prophecy, of which the Bible has a 100% accuracy rate even according to current achelogical and secular historians.
4) Other secular writtings from the time of Jesus acknowledge not only His existance but all of the main points of His life as well.
5) The Council of Trent and other so called councils that 'decided' upon the Bible decided only upon what Rome would put its stamp to. History tells us the Bible as we have it in the NKJ version as far as books, is historically verifibly unchanged since the 3rd century and most of it to 2nd century, long before the Catholic Church was even in existance.
6) the KJV verson of the BIble was written from the earliest orignal Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramic copies of the Bible and specific books. That's why its so different than a Catholic stamped Bible of the late 1800, which was not written off of original manuscript. Most Bible translations since the KJV have followed suite and gone back to the orignal manuscripts for its interpretation. It is an urban legend at best and a lie at worst that every Bible since has been based on the KJV.
7) While some Bible versions are not accurate, specifically those that are paraphrased, these versions are known and can be easily avoided.
To summarize:
There is no archelogical, historical, or prophetic reason to doubt the Bible. there is archelogical, historical, and prophetic reason to doubt every other book that claims to be divinely inspired.

Jocabia

28-02-2006, 23:50

Personification is how the Christian God is defined. Jealousy, Justice, Mercy, Peace, Love. Having these personal attributes is the pivotal reason to define God as having an existence external to reality. Without a unique sense of self of its own, God need not exist outside of our own universe and Heaven as a concrete location separate from our own becomes unwarranted. Without a unifying personhood, Monotheism collapses.

This is ultimately my point; you cannot assign personal attributes to deity without reaching a clash of entity. By dropping this attempt to personify God, it makes sense. In doing so, however, you must relinquish all personal traits that have been assigned to him which includes those that have claimed to represent him. What you have left is not monotheism by any stretch of the imagination; it is a cold, calculated pantheism. That suits me fine.
The personification of God is a simplification for understanding. This does not define God, it defines us. Our limitations are just that OUR limitations. Do not ascribe them to God. It's not a unifying personhood, it's simply unifying. Also, there a great many who claim that the location of God is not outside of the universe but everywhere, throught space and time. You have heard the term omnipresent referring to God, no? You're actually making my point for me. People recognize the omnipresence of God while at the same time due to limitations of understanding and/or language referring to Him as being in Heaven or "up there" or whatever. It's the same kind of flaw you are applying when trying to argue the personification angle. There are limitations to the way we look at the world and to our langauge and those limitations make it difficult to refer to God without personifying Him. Hell, look at the fact that people get upset if I call Him, It, but ascribing a gender to God is also silly. The contradictions lie in us not in God.

You don't seem to get it. There is one God and thus it is monotheistic despite your rather weak attempts to claim otherwise. And it's not clearly not pantheism since there is no attempt to identify God in terms of the universe and there is no attempt to worship ALL gods. Your spinning and it seems like you're jamming your hand into the spokes of the wheel and blaming the wheel because your fingers hurt.

Moantha

28-02-2006, 23:55

To summarize:
There is no archelogical, historical, or prophetic reason to doubt the Bible. there is archelogical, historical, and prophetic reason to doubt every other book that claims to be divinely inspired.

I expect then that you can provide archelogical, historical and prophetic reason to doubt every other book that claims to be divinely inspired? And what of writings that are not in books? Such as, hiroglyphs (sp?) on pyramid walls.

Good Lifes

28-02-2006, 23:55

Still leaves the problem of there being people who lived and died without being preached to about that God.
The part of God that became Jesus was the creator. Everyone is exposed to creation. Everyone can look at creaton and see a creator. If they then honor that creator they are honoring that part of God that was Jesus. So it really doesn't matter if they were before or after AD 30. Or before or after the missionaries showed up. All the missionaries do is give a greater understanding. All any minister can do is give a greater understanding.

Of course as Paul adknowledges, many look at creation and deny a creator. In doing so they deny that part of God which was Jesus.

Kabram

28-02-2006, 23:57

I expect then that you can provide archelogical, historical and prophetic reason to doubt every other book that claims to be divinely inspired? And what of writings that are not in books? Such as, hiroglyphs (sp?) on pyramid walls.
name a book i'd be happy to, and yes the term is meant to apply to things such as the rosetta stone or wall writing

Moantha

28-02-2006, 23:58

The part of God that became Jesus was the creator. Everyone is exposed to creation. Everyone can look at creaton and see a creator. If they then honor that creator they are honoring that part of God that was Jesus. So it really doesn't matter if they were before or after AD 30. Or before or after the missionaries showed up. All the missionaries do is give a greater understanding. All any minister can do is give a greater understanding.

Of course as Paul adknowledges, many look at creation and deny a creator. In doing so they deny that part of God which was Jesus.

So accepting and honoring a creator is accepting and honoring God? You aren't by any chance a unviersalist?

Then again, maybe that's not what you were saying, or I am interpreting it wrong.

Kabram

01-03-2006, 00:00

The part of God that became Jesus was the creator. Everyone is exposed to creation. Everyone can look at creaton and see a creator. If they then honor that creator they are honoring that part of God that was Jesus. So it really doesn't matter if they were before or after AD 30. Or before or after the missionaries showed up. All the missionaries do is give a greater understanding. All any minister can do is give a greater understanding.

Of course as Paul adknowledges, many look at creation and deny a creator. In doing so they deny that part of God which was Jesus.

The Romans worshiped 'the Unknown god' long before they knew of Jesus, had they worshiped the true God 'In spirit and in truth' they will be in heaven. unfortunately their idea of the 'unknown god' was not the true God. Curiously enough there are numerious tribal religions, early tribal religions, that were nearly identical to Christianity. The wonder and knowledge of God and His Son does not need the Bible to exist, but the Bible and Christian Missionaries sure help.

Moantha

01-03-2006, 00:01

name a book i'd be happy to, and yes the term is meant to apply to things such as the rosetta stone or wall writing

All right. I'll use the example you just provided me with. The Rosetta Stone.

(What does it actually say, anyways?)

Kamsaki

01-03-2006, 00:03

The personification of God is a simplification for understanding. This does not define God, it defines us. Our limitations are just that OUR limitations. Do not ascribe them to God. It's not a unifying personhood, it's simply unifying. Also, there a great many who claim that the location of God is not outside of the universe but everywhere, throught space and time. You have heard the term omnipresent referring to God, no? You're actually making my point for me. People recognize the omnipresence of God while at the same time due to limitations of understanding and/or language referring to Him as being in Heaven or "up there" or whatever. It's the same kind of flaw you are applying when trying to argue the personification angle. There are limitations to the way we look at the world and to our langauge and those limitations make it difficult to refer to God without personifying Him. Hell, look at the fact that people get upset if I call Him, It, but ascribing a gender to God is also silly. The contradictions lie in us not in God.
And you're making my point as well. Which is strange. That has been my view for a considerable period of time, and neither I nor any of my Christian friends have been able to call it compatible with the name of Christianity.

You're essentially outlining one of the two reasons I do not ascribe to it myself. It's hard for me to see how this attitude is anything other than contrary to the religious ideas of both Paul and the Old Testament, which it seems are how Christianity are defined in the world. Perhaps I care too much about what people think about a name, but isn't it reasonable to refuse to call ourself something that doesn't fairly reflect who we are?

Randomlittleisland

01-03-2006, 00:03

I havent read every post as it started growing too quickly, but it seems a few things have not been said that need to be.
1) Jesus was born about 3 AD making the original writting of the gospels between 40-90AD well within a human life span. Just because the 'average' age in Ancient Rome was about 35 *not 40 as was said earlier* does not mean SOME people still lived to be very old. In fact, since infant mortality rates were very high the 'average' age was actually squewed down from how we'd think of it because so few people actually made it out of their toddler years.

If you'd taken the time to actually read my posts you would realise that 40 years was the average life expectancy after infant mortality was taken into consideration. Before it was about 25. Also, as I have pointed out several times already, the Gospels were NOT written in 40AD. The earliest that even a reputable Christian scholar would estimate would be 70AD for Mark and later for the rest. Please bare in mind that people would have been regarded as old by the age of 30, to imagine them living to 90 (more than twice their life expectancy) is frankly ludicrous.

2) The earliest ORIGINAL copy of any of the New Testament dates to just over 100 AD, 113 AD last I heard. The validity of ancient writings are classed by how soon to the orginal writting you can get a copy. We have the entirety of the New Testament in physical copies that date within the 2nd century AD. By comparison the closest thing we have to Homers Odessy, initially written BEFORE the New Testament is about 800 AD, a partical copy from the Dark Ages. Scientifically speaking there is no valid reason to not accept the Bible in its current condition as a near perfect copy *98% accurate to the earliest known manuscripts and no doctranal issues involved in those 2%* of the original writtings.

Link?

3) The Bible's claim to accuracy as the written Word of God is based in prophecy, of which the Bible has a 100% accuracy rate even according to current achelogical and secular historians.

Rubbish.

4) Other secular writtings from the time of Jesus acknowledge not only His existance but all of the main points of His life as well.

Care to give some examples? Bear in mind that Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny have already been refuted on this thread.

There is no archelogical, historical, or prophetic reason to doubt the Bible. there is archelogical, historical, and prophetic reason to doubt every other book that claims to be divinely inspired.

There is every reason to doubt the Bible and none to believe it.

Kabram

01-03-2006, 00:10

All right. I'll use the example you just provided me with. The Rosetta Stone.

(What does it actually say, anyways?)
*chuckle* actually the Rosetta Stone is mostly a history of pharohs coupled with economics if I remember correctly. But as far as the general beliefs of the Egyptians go... their sacred writtings said the sky was made of water and the Nile flowed from one unending ocean through a small strip of land that made up Egypt, to another unending ocean. They also believed in spontaneous generation, according to their beliefs messengers of the gods, such as frogs actually erupted from the Nile, much like englishmen in the dark ages though rotting meat created maggots. That's why the pharohs daughter wasn't surprised to find a baby in the Nile, she would have thought it answered her prayers and created for her a baby. Those are the ones that leap immediately to mind. They also believed in a ancient world, much like the ancient greeks, romans, and hindu's that even extends past what evolutionists would want.

Moantha

01-03-2006, 00:13

*chuckle* actually the Rosetta Stone is mostly a history of pharohs coupled with economics if I remember correctly. But as far as the general beliefs of the Egyptians go... their sacred writtings said the sky was made of water and the Nile flowed from one unending ocean through a small strip of land that made up Egypt, to another unending ocean. They also believed in spontaneous generation, according to their beliefs messengers of the gods, such as frogs actually erupted from the Nile, much like englishmen in the dark ages though rotting meat created maggots. That's why the pharohs daughter wasn't surprised to find a baby in the Nile, she would have thought it answered her prayers and created for her a baby. Those are the ones that leap immediately to mind. They also believed in a ancient world, much like the ancient greeks, romans, and hindu's that even extends past what evolutionists would want.

Granted, the Egyptians weren't right, but is any of that archeological, historical, or prophetic.

Besides, how different is spontaneous generation from creationism?

Jocabia

01-03-2006, 00:21

And you're making my point as well. Which is strange. That has been my view for a considerable period of time, and neither I nor any of my Christian friends have been able to call it compatible with the name of Christianity.

You're essentially outlining one of the two reasons I do not ascribe to it myself. It's hard for me to see how this attitude is anything other than contrary to the religious ideas of both Paul and the Old Testament, which it seems are how Christianity are defined in the world. Perhaps I care too much about what people think about a name, but isn't it reasonable to refuse to call ourself something that doesn't fairly reflect who we are?

See, there's your trip. I don't ascribe to the teachings of Paul and I believe that Jesus proved the Old Testament was not meant to be literal stories but teachings about who we are and in many cases metaphorical descriptions of how we got to be where we are.

I do think it's reasonable.

New Rhodichia

01-03-2006, 00:21

Firstly, what's to say the guards didn't do it themselves? Global superpower hires local boys to take care of prisoners and experience shows they tend to goof off and make asses of themselves by doing stupid, abusive things with the things they're supposed to be guarding.
Disobedience meant death for Roman guards- even merely letting a prisoner escape meant death, whether they meant to or not. The soldiers would have known this, so they wouldn't have been "goofing off" since it meant their very lives. Talking and joking, maybe, but they wouldn't have gone in, broken the seal, and messed with the body- that would have been active defiance of the emperor, especially by breaking the seal. And they were trained soldiers, not "local boys."

Don't forget the appearances of Jesus afterward.
Secondly, however, you're using a bizarre twist of logic. Assuming the witness to be accurate, how on earth do you justify the God of the Old Testament being correct? It's an impossible leap to make; Jesus being God, Dying, then resurrecting himself by his Own Power is a complete refutation to the notion of monotheism if ever there was one.
Forgive me but I'm not sure I see where the confliction is- "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever should believe in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." If you meant to say Jesus is seperate from God and that that's the conflict between the two, then I'll repeat what I said in another thread- it's an example of how to explain how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. (I'm just saying it because I'm not sure what you were saying was conflicting with what)
To describe an egg, you have to describe the shell, the yolk, and the white. If you left out any of those, you couldn't possibly describe the whole egg- you'd be missing the big picture. It's the same with God- overall He is the egg of the example.
Sorry if I misfollowed what you were saying.

Kabram

01-03-2006, 00:22

If you'd taken the time to actually read my posts you would realise that 40 years was the average life expectancy after infant mortality was taken into consideration. Before it was about 25. Also, as I have pointed out several times already, the Gospels were NOT written in 40AD. The earliest that even a reputable Christian scholar would estimate would be 70AD for Mark and later for the rest. Please bare in mind that people would have been regarded as old by the age of 30, to imagine them living to 90 (more than twice their life expectancy) is frankly ludicrous.

Link?

Rubbish.

Care to give some examples? Bear in mind that Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny have already been refuted on this thread.

There is every reason to doubt the Bible and none to believe it.
First off, I have a Ancient Roman history book sitting on my shelf from college "As the Roman's Did: a Sourcebook in Roman Social History" that would refute your objection to my ages. It makes the same point I did, that infant mortality was included in the 35 year average and that actual life expectancy once a person reached adulthood would be higher. As far as providing a link, my sources do not come from online, so unfortunately it would be difficult to give you a link. Most of my sources come from semanaries I have attended over the years. If you want the specific dates I'd suggest looking at www.ICR.org www.answersingenesis.com as far as paper resources, check Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, Ungers Bible Dictonary, or simply check the back of a Nelson study Bible, or most study Bibles. People I've hear include Ken Ham and Dr. Chittick among others.
Since the three historians you listed as refuted as considered valid to most historians secular or otherwise including Asamov who is rabidly anti biblical but still acknowledges those historians I feel absolutely no need to protect acknowledged valid sources. YOu might as well tell me you don't believe we landed on the moon that has been 'refuted' as well. As far as your 'rubbish' remark. list a single prophecy that has been achelogically or historically disproved. You'll be hard pressed to come up with one, because even secular achelogists can't find one that stands up to scrutiny.

Kabram

01-03-2006, 00:25

Granted, the Egyptians weren't right, but is any of that archeological, historical, or prophetic.

Besides, how different is spontaneous generation from creationism?
its acheologically incorrect because, unless they've found something recent the earth has always extened past egypt and there have never been two unending oceans. historically, same go. as far as prophetic i am unaware of any egyptian prophecies period. and spontaneous generation is actually a tenet of evolution, not creation. evolution requires life springing unbidden from nonlife, which is the definition of spontaneous generation. creation says an outside force acted to create life.

Good Lifes

01-03-2006, 00:30

So accepting and honoring a creator is accepting and honoring God? You aren't by any chance a unviersalist?

Then again, maybe that's not what you were saying, or I am interpreting it wrong.
Rom 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of theiir bodies among themselves, and because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

I'm sorry I made that so long, but if I didn't someone would say I took it out of context. Clearly, everyone is given the oportunity to acknowledge the Creator. If they don't it's their problem.

Kabram

01-03-2006, 00:38

unfortunately i have to log off now. You seem at least mildly but intelligently curious about this concept. If you wish to continue in a private debate on this subject, or any other Christian and/or conservative subject feel free to leave a msg at my nationstates site and I will get back to you. We can do it via email, blog, or im. The offer stands to any who are interested.

Randomlittleisland

01-03-2006, 00:38

First off, I have a Ancient Roman history book sitting on my shelf from college "As the Roman's Did: a Sourcebook in Roman Social History" that would refute your objection to my ages. It makes the same point I did, that infant mortality was included in the 35 year average and that actual life expectancy once a person reached adulthood would be higher. As far as providing a link, my sources do not come from online, so unfortunately it would be difficult to give you a link.

In Rome maybe, but Jesus didn't live in Rome did he?

Most of my sources come from semanaries I have attended over the years. If you want the specific dates I'd suggest looking at www.ICR.org www.answersingenesis.com as far as paper resources, check Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, Ungers Bible Dictonary, or simply check the back of a Nelson study Bible, or most study Bibles. People I've hear include Ken Ham and Dr. Chittick among others.

Yes, ICR and AiG aren't biased at all are they? Why should I believe dates from websites which routinely twist science to fit their personal beliefs?

Since the three historians you listed as refuted as considered valid to most historians secular or otherwise including Asamov who is rabidly anti biblical but still acknowledges those historians I feel absolutely no need to protect acknowledged valid sources. YOu might as well tell me you don't believe we landed on the moon that has been 'refuted' as well. As far as your 'rubbish' remark. list a single prophecy that has been achelogically or historically disproved. You'll be hard pressed to come up with one, because even secular achelogists can't find one that stands up to scrutiny.

Well seeing as two of them don't even mention Jesus except to report Christian beliefs it isn't really very convincing is it now? And Josephus is agreed by a majority of scholars to be a later addition:

Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers; a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers.

Is that enough to put a stop to your arrogance?

Anyway, there are two kinds of prophecy in the Bible:

1. Prophecies which are so vague as to be useless or which are reinterpretted every time they fail to be fulfilled (such as Jesus's claim that he would return in the apostles lifetimes, when he didn't they jsut reinterpretted it).
2. Those which the Bible claims have been fulfilled. For example, the Bible prophecises a virgin birth, then the Bible reports a virgin birth. In other words, we have only the Bible's word that they have indeed been fulfilled.

New Rhodichia

01-03-2006, 01:19

In Rome maybe, but Jesus didn't live in Rome did he?
Like a few miles' difference could really make such an enormous difference in the average lifespan. Keep in mind Jerusalem was a big city- not just an indifferent little village captured by the Romans. This means they had access to what medical technology was available.
Yes, ICR and AiG aren't biased at all are they? Why should I believe dates from websites which routinely twist science to fit their personal beliefs?
Obviously they are biased. But can you give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of how they deliberately distorted scientific data past the point of validity?
Is that enough to put a stop to your arrogance?Absolutely not; you neglected to post what was said right after: "There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers..." So for my sake and others' let's give him the benefit of the doubt since the general consensus has always been that the books are accurate.
Anyway, there are two kinds of prophecy in the Bible:

1. Prophecies which are so vague as to be useless or which are reinterpretted every time they fail to be fulfilled (such as Jesus's claim that he would return in the apostles lifetimes, when he didn't they jsut reinterpretted it).
No offense but I think you're the one being arrogant by calling all the prophecies in the Bible vague. A few of them? Sure, whatever. I'll give those to you. But to say all of them are either vague or fall under option number two is a little desperate. By the way, Jesus did not say He would come back during their lifetimes (unless you mean before His death, in which case He did come back anyway).
2. Those which the Bible claims have been fulfilled. For example, the Bible prophecises a virgin birth, then the Bible reports a virgin birth. In other words, we have only the Bible's word that they have indeed been fulfilled.If you're not willing to trust absolutely anything the Bible says and claims, then so be it. I can't help you.

Moantha

01-03-2006, 01:45

Rom 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of theiir bodies among themselves, and because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

I'm sorry I made that so long, but if I didn't someone would say I took it out of context. Clearly, everyone is given the oportunity to acknowledge the Creator. If they don't it's their problem.

But is acknowledging and honoring a creator synomous with acknowleding and honoring what the bible regards as the creator.

For example, suppose there is a small isolated island. The people of the island honor a creator named, for our purpose Steve. Is honoring Steve, (provided they stay away from idolatry, and worship only Steve) the same as worshipping God?

Good Lifes

01-03-2006, 02:11

But is acknowledging and honoring a creator synomous with acknowleding and honoring what the bible regards as the creator.

For example, suppose there is a small isolated island. The people of the island honor a creator named, for our purpose Steve. Is honoring Steve, (provided they stay away from idolatry, and worship only Steve) the same as worshipping God?
Jesus isn't the name that the man the English speakers call Jesus was named. Joshua is a better translation. Yashua even more accurate.

God himself is YHWH. No Vowels. So we don't really know what the name was 5000 years ago. We do know that language and pronounciation changes from generation to generation, so it's hard to tell how a word with no vowels could change over millenia. If translated it becomes "I am" or "I exist" not a normal name. In other words, there is no name, just a recognition of existance.

So as far as I'm concerned, Steve, is as close as Jesus. Provided there is an acknowledgement of the existance and the creation and honoring and thanking and following the general principles that are taught.

Christianity is the simplest of religions. God is love. Lev. 19:18 Mat 5:44 19:19 22:39 Mark 12:31 Luke 10:27 Rom 13:8-9 Gal 5:14 James 2:8 Love everyone and you have fulfilled the entire law of Christianity. All of the rest of the arguements are just commentary. So if you love in respect to Steve all is fulfilled.

Moantha

01-03-2006, 02:20

Jesus isn't the name that the man the English speakers call Jesus was named. Joshua is a better translation. Yashua even more accurate.

God himself is YHWH. No Vowels. So we don't really know what the name was 5000 years ago. We do know that language and pronounciation changes from generation to generation, so it's hard to tell how a word with no vowels could change over millenia. If translated it becomes "I am" or "I exist" not a normal name. In other words, there is no name, just a recognition of existance.

So as far as I'm concerned, Steve, is as close as Jesus. Provided there is an acknowledgement of the existance and the creation and honoring and thanking and following the general principles that are taught.

Christianity is the simplest of religions. God is love. Lev. 19:18 Mat 5:44 19:19 22:39 Mark 12:31 Luke 10:27 Rom 13:8-9 Gal 5:14 James 2:8 Love everyone and you have fulfilled the entire law of Christianity. All of the rest of the arguements are just commentary. So if you love in respect to Steve all is fulfilled.

All right. To use an actual example, what about Judaisim? They deny Jesus but accept God, (yes, that is an oversimplification, I know, but for our purposes, it is true...) does the fact that they actually deny Jesus make any difference?

Good Lifes

01-03-2006, 02:37

All right. To use an actual example, what about Judaisim? They deny Jesus but accept God, (yes, that is an oversimplification, I know, but for our purposes, it is true...) does the fact that they actually deny Jesus make any difference?
Well, as I remember, God accepted Elija, Elisha, Moses, David, and many others.

You're going to push me into things that I cann't back up but believe to be true.

Again it goes back to the thing that the part of God that was to be Jesus for 30 years has always been and still is a part of God. If I can put it in human terms, the part of God that is Jesus is like your hands. That part of you that creates, works, reaches out to others. Yes, it is separate, yet a part of you. Those hands were in the creation that OT people, and everyone else, were able to see and honor. So they were and are honoring the Jesus part of God as they honor the works of that part of God.

Theorb

01-03-2006, 02:48

Klitvilia

01-03-2006, 03:01

I believe that the Bible, though it is the word of God, was not exactly "written" by God and then delivered to us. It HAS been "edited" for whatever reason by translators or certain religious leaders (ie. the early popes) though the story is true. it is not divine, merely a record of happenings, and an exellent guide.

Straughn

01-03-2006, 03:06

What has happened is that over time, the Bible has been copied, translated language to language, debated over, changed, &c...

Sometimes, just an error in translation would occur, resulting in change of meaning

Sometimes evil, conspiring men would change it to fit their own purposes

Sometimes language gaps would occur, or inserts had to be installed, or a word was mistranslated.

Sometimes there were councils that picked and chose what books to keep and what books to leave out.

I am not dissing the Bible, or trying to disprove anything.
These are things that have occured, do occur, and they are things that can reasonably happen. It's not like people in their limited capacities don't err, things have been changed.

God will set the record straight.
Well, people's written record of things is obviously from the skew of people's POV, and since we rarely have our own heads out of our arses (and indeed attempt to keep other peoples' heads in theirs), it stands to be a good league away from the record of any ubiquitous/omniscient entity - even though the Bible god isn't either of those things anyway.
But as per your last sentence, i guess "god" would do the whole tabula rasa thing it seems so keen on inflicting on its own "loving" progeny, in such a "loving" manner, like oh, a plague, a flood, immolation, transfiguration, condemnation, torture, blah blah blah ...

Straughn

01-03-2006, 03:19

That's one way to look at it, and not necessarily the correct one. I answer only to God, and not the suggestions or rules of others. God speaks to everyone everyday in any number of little ways. All you have to do is to look within your own heart to know whether or not it is what God wants for you. What others may say matters not at all. Including you.

So, no, I am not dancing to anyone elses tune, or blindly following the tail of the next lemming in line ahead of me. There is room for interpretation within the Bible. People have been doing that for years, and will continue to do so. Most people have a basic and inherent sense of right and wrong that comes from God. All you have to do is listen, and let go of your worldly predjudices. The Bible serves as a template for how you should live your life. Sometimes you just have to fill in the blanks.

I would suggest that you, sir, are more likely to be under con man control, than I.
(BOLDED) .. and obviously, Dark Shadowy Nexus.
(UNDERLINED) ... your own ego is the con man, then it would appear, given your own willingness to state a self-contradictory post such as this.
If it didn't matter what was said, you wouldn't be reflexing.
Carry on with the religious mindset.

Randomlittleisland

02-03-2006, 23:05

Like a few miles' difference could really make such an enormous difference in the average lifespan. Keep in mind Jerusalem was a big city- not just an indifferent little village captured by the Romans. This means they had access to what medical technology was available.

A few miles? To get from Rome to Jerusalem you have to go through Greece, across two seas, through Byzantium, past Antioch and then you'll finally get to Jerusalem.

Italy has a fairly temperate climate whereas Judah was mostly desert. Also bear in mind that the Romans had much better sanitation in the form of baths, aqueducts etc. They introduced these into conquered territories to some extent but they never reached the level of Rome.

Obviously they are biased. But can you give ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of how they deliberately distorted scientific data past the point of validity?

Certainly:

here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html)
or here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html)
and a downright lie here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html)

Absolutely not; you neglected to post what was said right after: "There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers..." So for my sake and others' let's give him the benefit of the doubt since the general consensus has always been that the books are accurate.

And you neglected to finish the passage: "a significant number of scholars likewise consider the passage interpolated, on the ground that all the passages upheld are likewise demolished by other writers."

In other words most scholars agree that it was changed later, a few claim it is genuine and a few claim that it is completely false.

However, this is irrrelevant as you said:

Since the three historians you listed as refuted as considered valid to most historians secular or otherwise including Asamov who is rabidly anti biblical but still acknowledges those historians I feel absolutely no need to protect acknowledged valid sources.

I have shown that the majority of historians beleive the reference has been changed to some extent so you must admit that you were wrong.

No offense but I think you're the one being arrogant by calling all the prophecies in the Bible vague. A few of them? Sure, whatever. I'll give those to you. But to say all of them are either vague or fall under option number two is a little desperate. By the way, Jesus did not say He would come back during their lifetimes (unless you mean before His death, in which case He did come back anyway).

I admit that I oversimplified the issue, there are really about five types of prophecy:

-Retrodiction. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.
-Vagueness. The prophecy can be worded in such a way that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are all of this type. Vagueness works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.
-Inevitability. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to prophecy, it will.
-Denial. One can claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.
-Self-fulfillment. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

Kudos to Talkorigins for the definitions.

Can you find one which doesn't fit into one of these catergories?

If you're not willing to trust absolutely anything the Bible says and claims, then so be it. I can't help you.

It isn't an issue of trust, it's an issue of circular logic. If the only record of a prophecy being fulfilled comes from the book that issued it then it isn't reliable.

Anarchic Conceptions

02-03-2006, 23:35

Key phrase: in the Bible. If the average life expectancy is 40 then it is highly unlikely that somebody will live to be 90.

Life expectancy is not the same as life span. Life span of humans has only really increase fairly recently with the advent of modern medicine and better dietary information. I don't see it as outlandish to assume that it is possible to have seen the crucifixtion and have written a gospel in the dates given. I think the concern would be the gap in the dates and the ravages of time on the memory.

Needless to say, this is a minor point and doesn't change anything.

Ruloah

02-03-2006, 23:37

Out of curiosity do you believe the scripture has not just prophecies of events that were in the future in the terms of who wrote it, but in our future as well? Are there actual descriptions of wars? Can you point out the scripture that describes recent past and future battles?

This is a subject that deserves lots more attention from me than I am able to devote right now.

On this subject, I normally defer to those who know what they are talking about, since I have not devoted much study into these matters.

As far as recent battles, or future ones, I leave that to those who like to scan the daily papers for links to scripture and prophecies...:rolleyes:

Not me, I'm afraid.

So label me undecided, pending deeper investigation. Need to do more than just read the passages, need to do research...;)

Randomlittleisland

02-03-2006, 23:53

Life expectancy is not the same as life span. Life span of humans has only really increase fairly recently with the advent of modern medicine and better dietary information. I don't see it as outlandish to assume that it is possible to have seen the crucifixtion and have written a gospel in the dates given. I think the concern would be the gap in the dates and the ravages of time on the memory.

Needless to say, this is a minor point and doesn't change anything.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. If you survived childhood in Judah then you would, on average, live until 40. The earliest reputably prediction for a Gospel is at around 70AD, as far as I know only a few fragments of New Testament text have been found from the second century with several more fragments coming from the third century. For this reason a great many scholars date the Gospels at after 100AD.

Anarchic Conceptions

03-03-2006, 00:05

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. If you survived childhood in Judah then you would, on average, live until 40. The earliest reputably prediction for a Gospel is at around 70AD, as far as I know only a few fragments of New Testament text have been found from the second century with several more fragments coming from the third century. For this reason a great many scholars date the Gospels at after 100AD.

Life Expectancy and Life Span are two different things, the Life Span of humans at the time was fairly close to what it is now. The Life Expectancy wasn't, for many reasons.

I said it is that unlikely for someone to have witnessed the crucifixtion and have written down their Gospel. However, since the gap in the time was so huge, questions are raised about how reliable their memory was.

This was just a bit of musings, it has absolutely no impact on anything.

Norleans

03-03-2006, 00:18

Life Expectancy and Life Span are two different things, the Life Span of humans at the time was fairly close to what it is now. The Life Expectancy wasn't, for many reasons.

I said it is that unlikely for someone to have witnessed the crucifixtion and have written down their Gospel. However, since the gap in the time was so huge, questions are raised about how reliable their memory was.

This was just a bit of musings, it has absolutely no impact on anything.

Well as I recall, the book of Acts records that Paul met with Jesus' disciple, Peter (and possibly other original disciples) in Jerusalem shortly after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. It is also probable that some of Paul's letters to the various churches were written before the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So it is possible that a witness to the crucifixtion and ministery of Jesus discussed those things with Paul.

Anarchic Conceptions

03-03-2006, 00:25

Well as I recall, the book of Acts records that Paul met with Jesus' disciple, Peter (and possibly other original disciples) in Jerusalem shortly after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. It is also probable that some of Paul's letters to the various churches were written before the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So it is possible that a witness to the crucifixtion and ministery of Jesus discussed those things with Paul.

My post was unconfirmed idle speculation. Actual proof will be needed to substantiate anything.

However, I am surprised at how long this thread got, I only posted a simple answer expecting to get few replies. Though I am disappointed the only solid answer to my question is in the Letters part of the New Testement which seems cheating to me. Though rules are rules.

New Rhodichia

03-03-2006, 05:43

Norleans

03-03-2006, 08:07

My post was unconfirmed idle speculation. Actual proof will be needed to substantiate anything.

However, I am surprised at how long this thread got, I only posted a simple answer expecting to get few replies. Though I am disappointed the only solid answer to my question is in the Letters part of the New Testement which seems cheating to me. Though rules are rules.

Your intellectual honesty is refreshing and something not seen on these boards often enough, thanks. :cool:

Now, on this issue, I want to point out a few things. This requires you do some math and use logic; sorry, I know that doing so sucks, but here it goes.

1. The average lifespan in Palestine at the time of Jesus was 45, this does not mean that everyone died at age 45. Clearly (unless you are an idiot) that means that some people lived beyond the age of 45. If no one lived past the age of 45, then the average life span would be much less.

2. Best estimates (I'll find the source if ya'll demand) say that the pop. of the world at the time of Christ was 50 to 200 million. If we assume that 25% of the world population and 20% of the world's population were, as they are today, located in China and India, then only 55%, or 27.5 to 110 million occupied the rest of the planet.

3. If we next assume that no more than 10% of the remaining world population lived in Palestine then that means at the time of Christ the population of Palestine was 2.75 to 11 million people (I admit this 10% figure is pulled from "thin air" but would also state it is not an unreasonable figure to work with - see the next point.

4. Since I'm not all that good at math myself, I am going to use the number of 9 million at the population of Palestine in the year 30 A.D. - I admit this number is open to significant debate as to it's accuracy, but the priniciples I intend to elucidate based on this number are solid in their basis.

5. If we now assume that 10% of the assumed 9 million who live in Palestine at the time of Christ die every 10 years (and assume the population remains steady at 9 million) and assume that births=deaths at that time then the following is mathmatically correct:
a 0f the 9 million, 900 thousand are dead by age 10, leaving only 8.1 million people
b Another 900 thousand are dead by age 20, leaving only 7.2 million;
c by age 30, another 900 thousand have died leaving only 6.3 million;
d by age 40 we have only 5.4 million left;
e by age 50 we're down to 4.5 million;
f by age 60 we're at 3.6 million;
g by age 70 we're at 2.7 million;
hat age 80 we're at 1.8 million; and
i at age 90 we're at 900 thousand.
Using the above numbers as the basis, you'll see an average life span of 45 years, which is attained by close to 5 million people.

6. I do not claim the above to be exact or accurate numbers, but I use them to illustrate the idea that at the time of Christ, even with an average life span of only 45 years, significant numbers of people lived into what we still consider today to be "old age" (i.e. their 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's).

7. At the time of Christ, males entered into the "workforce" between the ages of 14 and 18. That is to say, by age 18, the average male was out earning a living for himself and his family. He might be a farmer, carpenter, stone mason, etc., but by age 18, the average person would be working to sustain a livelihood of some kind.

8. Jesus chose his disciples from the working class - fisherman in particular

9. Assume that at least one of the original 12 disciples, say Peter, was only 20 when Jesus chose him as a disciple in 30 A.D.

10. In 70 A.D., Peter would have been 60 years old. Using the above assumptions, Peter fit in with 3.6 million people in Palestine who would have also lived to age 60.

11. Paul records in Acts that he met with Peter. Historians say that Paul wrote his first letter as early as 57 A.D., well within the lifespan of a disciple of Christ's who was 20 at the time of his chosing as a disciple.

12. Paul records in Acts that he met Peter. Assuming the first of the Gospels was in 75 A.D at the earliest, then it would mean that Peter (or any other original discple) who was 20 when Jesus started his ministry would be 65 or so at the time this first gospel was written. Clearly not an impossible age range.

13. There is no dispute that between 62 and 64 A.D. the Roman Emporer Nero persecuted Christians, therefore Christianity as a religion existed within 30 of Jesus' execution - more than enough time for an eye witness to recount his story to someone who had the ability to read and write who put the "pen to paper" so as to speak and wrote an original version of the Gospel .

OK, the above is not perfectfully accurate and contains many assumptions, I'll grant that and don't deny it at all. That being said, If you assume one fact, that the earliest synoptic gospel, Mark, was writtin in 75 A.D. or that Paul's earliest letter was in 60 A.D., why is it impossible to believe that one or the other of the authors of these works met with some one who was an eye witness to Jesus' life, ministery & death or was himself an eyewitness?

Randomlittleisland

03-03-2006, 17:25

Randomlittleisland, you quoted me as saying, "Since the three historians you listed as refuted as considered valid to most historians secular or otherwise including Asamov who is rabidly anti biblical but still acknowledges those historians I feel absolutely no need to protect acknowledged valid sources"

Take it back. You know I didn't say that.

Ah, I see what happened, you took over the argument from Kabram and I didn't notice.

However, you were defending his point and you later wrote:

Absolutely not; you neglected to post what was said right after: "There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree. However, a significant number of scholars consider it genuine, on the grounds that all of the passages supposed to be corrupt are upheld by other writers..." So for my sake and others' let's give him the benefit of the doubt since the general consensus has always been that the books are accurate.

So while I apologise for my mistake it in no way affects the validity of my argument.

Randomlittleisland

03-03-2006, 19:24

Your intellectual honesty is refreshing and something not seen on these boards often enough, thanks. :cool:

Now, on this issue, I want to point out a few things. This requires you do some math and use logic; sorry, I know that doing so sucks, but here it goes.

1. The average lifespan in Palestine at the time of Jesus was 45, this does not mean that everyone died at age 45. Clearly (unless you are an idiot) that means that some people lived beyond the age of 45. If no one lived past the age of 45, then the average life span would be much less.

Nice strawman. Nobody on this thread has ever claimed that a life expectany of 40 meant that nobody survived beyond that age.

2. Best estimates (I'll find the source if ya'll demand) say that the pop. of the world at the time of Christ was 50 to 200 million. If we assume that 25% of the world population and 20% of the world's population were, as they are today, located in China and India, then only 55%, or 27.5 to 110 million occupied the rest of the planet.

A source would be nice but I'll let it go as it's not really relevant.

3. If we next assume that no more than 10% of the remaining world population lived in Palestine then that means at the time of Christ the population of Palestine was 2.75 to 11 million people (I admit this 10% figure is pulled from "thin air" but would also state it is not an unreasonable figure to work with - see the next point.

4. Since I'm not all that good at math myself, I am going to use the number of 9 million at the population of Palestine in the year 30 A.D. - I admit this number is open to significant debate as to it's accuracy, but the priniciples I intend to elucidate based on this number are solid in their basis.

Again, I'll let it go because it isn't relevant.

5. If we now assume that 10% of the assumed 9 million who live in Palestine at the time of Christ die every 10 years (and assume the population remains steady at 9 million) and assume that births=deaths at that time then the following is mathmatically correct:
a 0f the 9 million, 900 thousand are dead by age 10, leaving only 8.1 million people
b Another 900 thousand are dead by age 20, leaving only 7.2 million;
c by age 30, another 900 thousand have died leaving only 6.3 million;
d by age 40 we have only 5.4 million left;
e by age 50 we're down to 4.5 million;
f by age 60 we're at 3.6 million;
g by age 70 we're at 2.7 million;
hat age 80 we're at 1.8 million; and
i at age 90 we're at 900 thousand.
Using the above numbers as the basis, you'll see an average life span of 45 years, which is attained by close to 5 million people.

I notice that your calculations have just bumped the average life expectancy up to about 50, you also fail to include a child mortality rate of about one in three. You also er in assuming that deaths would be spread so evenly. To be honest the whole concept is worthless statistically (I study extended mathematics, including statistics, at sixth form college if you're wondering so I know what I'm talking about).

6. I do not claim the above to be exact or accurate numbers, but I use them to illustrate the idea that at the time of Christ, even with an average life span of only 45 years, significant numbers of people lived into what we still consider today to be "old age" (i.e. their 60's, 70's, 80's and even 90's).

I'm afraid not, as I've pointed out the entire concept is worthless.

7. At the time of Christ, males entered into the "workforce" between the ages of 14 and 18. That is to say, by age 18, the average male was out earning a living for himself and his family. He might be a farmer, carpenter, stone mason, etc., but by age 18, the average person would be working to sustain a livelihood of some kind.

Mind you if the NT is to be believed then Luke was a doctor and Matthew was a tax collector. Those would have been professions which would not have started at such a young age, medicine in particular would have required a long period of apprenticeship first.

8. Jesus chose his disciples from the working class - fisherman in particular

See above, Matthew and Luke were not working class by any stretch of the imagination. It's also worth pointing out that the average life expectancy would be lower for somebody from the working classes.

9. Assume that at least one of the original 12 disciples, say Peter, was only 20 when Jesus chose him as a disciple in 30 A.D.

10. In 70 A.D., Peter would have been 60 years old. Using the above assumptions, Peter fit in with 3.6 million people in Palestine who would have also lived to age 60.

Again, this is based on worthless data.

11. Paul records in Acts that he met with Peter. Historians say that Paul wrote his first letter as early as 57 A.D., well within the lifespan of a disciple of Christ's who was 20 at the time of his chosing as a disciple.

[QUOTE=Norleans]12. Paul records in Acts that he met Peter. Assuming the first of the Gospels was in 75 A.D at the earliest, then it would mean that Peter (or any other original discple) who was 20 when Jesus started his ministry would be 65 or so at the time this first gospel was written. Clearly not an impossible age range.

But extremely unlikely, the modern day equivalent of about 95.

13. There is no dispute that between 62 and 64 A.D. the Roman Emporer Nero persecuted Christians, therefore Christianity as a religion existed within 30 of Jesus' execution - more than enough time for an eye witness to recount his story to someone who had the ability to read and write who put the "pen to paper" so as to speak and wrote an original version of the Gospel .

I never denied it was possible but this is pure speculation.

OK, the above is not perfectfully accurate and contains many assumptions, I'll grant that and don't deny it at all. That being said, If you assume one fact, that the earliest synoptic gospel, Mark, was writtin in 75 A.D. or that Paul's earliest letter was in 60 A.D., why is it impossible to believe that one or the other of the authors of these works met with some one who was an eye witness to Jesus' life, ministery & death or was himself an eyewitness?

Again, I never denied it was possible but this is pure speculation. Suppose I wrote an essay for my history A level, with the information coming from a couple of different sources. However, I didn't know who wrote the sources, when they were written (although it was probably after the eye-witnesses were dead) and the earliest scraps of them date to one hundred years after the event supposedly took place. Also suppose that there was not one independant, contemporary confirmation of the claims they made, and in fact there were some reliable sources which contradicted some of the claims. Lets go even further and imagine that my four sources actually contradict one another (and even themselves at times). To cap it all, suppose that the claims seemed to have been copied from other, earlier figures. Would you care to guess what grade I'd get?

Here's an interesting website which lists the writers who could have mentioned Jesus but didn't: link (http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html)

Norleans

04-03-2006, 00:37

I don't dispute anything you said in criticism of my post Random. The point of my post was only to show that it is entirely possible that the person who first wrote one of the Gospels or Paul was writing down what an eyewitness had told him and that it was even possible (though admittedly unlikely) that one of the eyewitnesses themselves wrote part of the Gospels. I concede it is speculative to conclude that this is in fact what took place, but it is not outside the realm of reasonably possible. That's all I was saying or trying to establish.

Jocabia

04-03-2006, 01:09

If I believe that Jesus died for my sins, have confessed them, and have a personal relationship with him, then I am a Christian. I do, have, have, and am. The only thing to validate my belief is the resurrection of Jesus.

There are three possibilities. Jesus told the truth, he was crazy, he lied. Why would God the father raise a madman or a lier? A perfect God wouldn't. Therefore, the resurrection is the proof that Jesus was who he said he was.

Where is the only place that the resurrection is spoken of as fact? The Gospels, the Epistles, and the Prophets. These make up most of the Bible. The Law and the remaining books are so intertwined with the other books that they cannot be easily seperated. Yes, the Bible was put together by a council of the early Church, but they had been using these writings since the beginning and this is another place where faith and trust come in: faith that God inspired those at the council to select the proper books and trust that the Church fathers were open to God's will.

Therefore, the Bible must be inerrant in order to have a basis for the faith. So the answer comes down to faith.

That's not a theologian's answer so don't take it as final.

While I obviously agree with your conclusion, some of your arguments are flawed.

1. There are two more possibilities. The writers of the Gospels embellished the story of Jesus or the story is completely made up. You don't consider those in your argument.

2. The are many parts of what people believe about Jesus that are actually taken from the myth of Mithras (this is a rival religion at the time of the beginning of Christianity). Mithras was the Sun god and referred to as the light of the world and a savior from darkness. Same is true of Jesus. Jesus was also called the bright and morning star and one does not have to drive far from that to the Sun. Mithras was resurrected and on his death there was a darkening of the sun. Same is true of Jesus. Mithras was born on December 25th.

Why is all this important? Because it's important to accept that there is much of Christianity, particular where Christianity became a power of its own, that incorporated other ideologies or paralleled other ideologies. This leaves a faithful Christian with the necessity to look at the acts of the Church and to ensure that we filter the Church from the actual teachings. Very important.

3. The Church did not compile the Bible and the Bible is not the compilation of the books that were being taught at the time. There was a strong influence by a military leader that used Christianity to unite Rome, named Constantine. He rejected certain gospels because he did not like the way they portrayed Jesus or he believe it gave to much power to man. This exposes a flaw in your argument about how the Bible was compiled.

The point of all this is that a large requirement of Christianity and of faith is that you inside you to where the Lord has written on your heart. There you can find answers that have not been touched by the corruption of governments, militaries or power-mongering Church officials. It is there we can find the basis for our faith and the truth of the teachings. This is what ensures that we follow the one true God and Savior. It is the very essense of faith and love for the Savior. Your argument ignores almost all of this.

Vellia

04-03-2006, 01:33

While I obviously agree with your conclusion, some of your arguments are flawed.

1. There are two more possibilities. The writers of the Gospels embellished the story of Jesus or the story is completely made up. You don't consider those in your argument.

2. The are many parts of what people believe about Jesus that are actually taken from the myth of Mithras (this is a rival religion at the time of the beginning of Christianity). Mithras was the Sun god and referred to as the light of the world and a savior from darkness. Same is true of Jesus. Jesus was also called the bright and morning star and one does not have to drive far from that to the Sun. Mithras was resurrected and on his death there was a darkening of the sun. Same is true of Jesus. Mithras was born on December 25th.

Why is all this important? Because it's important to accept that there is much of Christianity, particular where Christianity became a power of its own, that incorporated other ideologies or paralleled other ideologies. This leaves a faithful Christian with the necessity to look at the acts of the Church and to ensure that we filter the Church from the actual teachings. Very important.

3. The Church did not compile the Bible and the Bible is not the compilation of the books that were being taught at the time. There was a strong influence by a military leader that used Christianity to unite Rome, named Constantine. He rejected certain gospels because he did not like the way they portrayed Jesus or he believe it gave to much power to man. This exposes a flaw in your argument about how the Bible was compiled.

The point of all this is that a large requirement of Christianity and of faith is that you inside you to where the Lord has written on your heart. There you can find answers that have not been touched by the corruption of governments, militaries or power-mongering Church officials. It is there we can find the basis for our faith and the truth of the teachings. This is what ensures that we follow the one true God and Savior. It is the very essense of faith and love for the Savior. Your argument ignores almost all of this.

Thank you for correcting me in your third point. I understand your first two points but I'm not quite sure what to make of them yet. It's going to take a little thought. I was speaking to the idea of the "Historical Jesus" that the Man really existed but was just a good teacher, or mad, or lying. Though I guess that doesn't disqualify your first two points. However, I do say that the first and final decider for inerrancy of Scripture is faith.

NationStates Jolt Archive

A quick question for "Bible based" Christians