Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why would the apostiles have lied?
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 137 of 177 (20095)
10-17-2002 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by RedVento
10-16-2002 9:52 AM


I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce.
"3rd, whether the apostles and Jesus were real or not is really insignifacant. The real purpose of the Bible is to give you the guides to live by. "
You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about. If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines? If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away. We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us. If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation. If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines??? Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing".
"2nd, suppose he "proved" he was God. Would that suffice? "
I don't know myself. But a truely alpowerful, alknowing God would. Hence the "all" before "powerful" and "knowing"
"1st who says God went through ANY effort to create the universe.. That is VERY presumptious, and imposes SIGNIFICANT limits on God... "
Granted. My mistake.
I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate. Now you lot start using the tactics of a religious person that feel cornered: you stray from the point, and throws personal insults. (I concider your statement that I am worshipping a book instead of God very insulting). You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence. All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RedVento, posted 10-16-2002 9:52 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nos482, posted 10-17-2002 9:14 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 139 by compmage, posted 10-17-2002 9:32 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 140 by RedVento, posted 10-17-2002 11:14 AM compmage has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 177 (20101)
10-17-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by compmage
10-17-2002 8:29 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce.
Without the bible there is no belief.
"3rd, whether the apostles and Jesus were real or not is really insignifacant. The real purpose of the Bible is to give you the guides to live by. "
Too bad most Christians don't see it that way.
You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about.
Please, most of us grewup in Christian homes and were part of the conditioning throughout our childhoods.
If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines?
Because they aren't solely found in the bible, but taken from other cultures .
If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away. We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us.
No, these guidelines are our way of ensuring our survival and that of our offspring. Saying that they are from some mythical all-powerful being only gives them weight to be inforced.
If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation.
The Hebrews had these long before Christ was suppose to be around and dying on the cross for us.
If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines???
Christ never ever claimed to be god, only his/her/its messenger. It is people, like you, who assert that he was god. Plus, it wouldn't be much of a real sacrifice if one comes back to life. The real sacrifice would have been if Christ had stayed dead.
Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing".
Morality can, and does exist without the fear of religion added to it. Atheists, and the like, tend to be far more moral than theists since atheists have more to lose and theists have nothing to lose.
"2nd, suppose he "proved" he was God. Would that suffice? "
I don't know myself. But a truely alpowerful, alknowing God would. Hence the "all" before "powerful" and "knowing"
We're waiting.
Granted. My mistake.
I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate. Now you lot start using the tactics of a religious person that feel cornered: you stray from the point, and throws personal insults. (I concider your statement that I am worshipping a book instead of God very insulting).
The way most Christians act in regards to their bible makes it perfectly clear that they do worship the bible more than they actually worship their god. That is why Christianity is known as the religion of the Book.
You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence.
Sure, it is a waste of time trying to convince a TRUE believer since even absolute proof will not be enough.
All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"!
Yes, all of what you believe in is speculation and you are leaving because you might begin to actually see this.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by compmage, posted 10-17-2002 8:29 AM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 139 of 177 (20104)
10-17-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by compmage
10-17-2002 8:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce.

False analogy. Something like this would be more accurate. Your parents and friends tell you that you are married to this girl (though you have never actually seen her). Your parents also give you a box of letters that they claim are from her, saying that if you don't read them and do what they say, she will have you tortured. The letters look like they were written by many different people and some of them contradict each other. Personally, I would think there was something fishy going on. How about you?
quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:

You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about. If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines? If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away.

Is that why you aren't willing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong? That the story in the Bible isn't actually true?
quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:

We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us. If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation.

Says who? The Bible? So the Bible says that the Bible is the 'Word of God' and because it is the 'Word of God' it is 100% accurate, therefore it must be the 'Word of God'. I suppose everyone can belief anything they want.
quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:

If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines??? Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing".

What could be wrong with ignoring morally bankrupt parts of the Bible in favour of parts that are acceptable to all?
quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:

I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate.

Except that it wasn't a stalemate.
quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:

You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence. All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"!

We didn't have to prove you wrong. The burden of proof lay on you, since you made the claim.
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by compmage, posted 10-17-2002 8:29 AM compmage has not replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 177 (20119)
10-17-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by compmage
10-17-2002 8:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
I'm not participating in this dabate anymore, but I need to set something strait. I do not worship the bible. I regard the Bible as Gods word to us. How can you worship God, while rejecting his Word? If you tell your wive you love her, but never listen to a word she says, you'll end up with a divorce.
You can accept the "word" without worshipping the book its written in. Jesus used parables, and the Bible is one. That is what you seem unable to accept.
quote:
"3rd, whether the apostles and Jesus were real or not is really insignifacant. The real purpose of the Bible is to give you the guides to live by. "
You really have absolutly no idea what Christianity is about. If the bible isn't real, why would anyone follow its guidelines? If you don't believe in the bible, you might as well throw it away. We follow the guidelines in the Bible, because we believe it's Gods Guidelines, and that God knows what is best for us. If it isn't, then it is just the idea of some man, and you might as well throw it away and buy a book on phycology. Further more, God gave us these guidelines to live by as a way of thanking Him for our salvation. If you do not believe that He paid for our sins, why exactly would you follow these guidelines??? Your arguements is exactly that of the Inter faith movements: You rip out the hart of the Christian faith, then reduce it to a set of moral rules and then you want all religions to come together "because they all believe the same thing". [/quote]
I never said the bible isn't real, I said it wasn't literal. The guidelines the bible presents in its broadest scope are exactly the same as the guidelines of other religions. And that worshiping the bible is not the same as worshipping the Judeo/Christian God.
quote:
"2nd, suppose he "proved" he was God. Would that suffice? "
I don't know myself. But a truely alpowerful, alknowing God would. Hence the "all" before "powerful" and "knowing"
That isn't really an answer by the way. You should really think about it and try to answer it, if just for yourself. If you are able to accept the possibility that God COULD tell you that the bible is not innerant or literal, but in fact is a big parable that conveys his message, or his spirit then you are doing ok. If that possibility is to frightening to contemplate then you are really not the kind of christian you think you are.
quote:
I left this debate in a dignified and honorable manner, leaving it as a stale mate. Now you lot start using the tactics of a religious person that feel cornered: you stray from the point, and throws personal insults. (I concider your statement that I am worshipping a book instead of God very insulting). You had lots of time to prove me wrong on the toppic I've posted, and non of you could give any concrete evidence. All of it was speculation. Now that I wish to leave, you force me to come back to reply to this so called "arguements"!
I am sorry if you feel I am attacking you, but I am not. I am mearly posing theological questions about your religious beliefs. You seem very vigourous in your beliefs and I was just wondering what they are based on. I have been exposed to MANY religions(Mother Jewish, Father Roman Catholic, gone to Hebrew school, Protastant High School where I was forced to attend chapel 3 times a week and take two years of theology) and I am fascinated by this kind of thing. Actually my questions don't need any responses, but are hopefully making you really ponder your own beliefs and where they are based.
Red.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by compmage, posted 10-17-2002 8:29 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by compmage, posted 10-21-2002 12:37 PM RedVento has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 141 of 177 (20410)
10-21-2002 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by RedVento
10-17-2002 11:14 AM


I am sorry if you feel I am attacking you, but I am not. I am mearly posing theological questions about your religious beliefs. You seem very vigourous in your beliefs and I was just wondering what they are based on. I have been exposed to MANY religions(Mother Jewish, Father Roman Catholic, gone to Hebrew school, Protastant High School where I was forced to attend chapel 3 times a week and take two years of theology) and I am fascinated by this kind of thing. Actually my questions don't need any responses, but are hopefully making you really ponder your own beliefs and where they are based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad to hear this is your real motive. I felt VERY insulted. I have thought of this matter several times. (There is no religious person that does not sometimes experience doubt.) However, thinking of what I said in the debate above, I feel assured that the apostles DID exist, and they DID tell the truth. Christianity is about God reaching out to us, Jesus Christ paying for our sins, so we can find forgiveness. If you do not believe in this, you're missing the most precious message of Christianity. This IS christianity, and if you take away the LITTERAL understanding of the gosples, you're missing the point, and you're not dealing with christianity anymore. To take out this part of christianity, is like taking out the part of not eating meat in being vegitarian. Following the bible litterally, is to truely believe in God. If I worshipped the bible, I would've placed in a shrine and prayed prairs like "Oh Almighty Alknowing Book of Wisdom, look after us today." The bible is not the end,(the worshipped) but the means the the end (learning the correct way to worship God). In fact. we have a bible in our home falling appart. This is not a problem to me, sieeng that the book itself is worthless. It is the message countaint IN the book that is important. I don't mind damage to the bible, but i do mind damage to its message. And that is not idol worship, because that message comes from God.
I will not respond to any more critisisms and sarcastic remarks, however, I'll be happy to explain my believes to those who want to know. (nos482, I do not know what your intentions are when calling me a "TRUE believer". You can make fun of it as much as you like, I will still concider it a great compliment.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by RedVento, posted 10-17-2002 11:14 AM RedVento has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by nos482, posted 10-21-2002 12:59 PM compmage has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 177 (20411)
10-21-2002 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by compmage
10-21-2002 12:37 PM


(nos482, I do not know what your intentions are when calling me a "TRUE believer". You can make fun of it as much as you like, I will still concider it a great compliment.)
A TRUE believer is a person who will believe in their religion no matter what, even to the point of absolute proof that they are completely wrong. The reality of the matter means nothing to them since they have chosen to believe what they want. They are one step away from being fanatics who would do just about anything to protect these beliefs, even kill for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by compmage, posted 10-21-2002 12:37 PM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 8:27 AM nos482 has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 143 of 177 (20475)
10-22-2002 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by nos482
10-21-2002 12:59 PM


even to the point of absolute proof that they are completely wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
and, when it comes to disproving the existance or words of the apostles, it is clear in this debate that there is no "absolute proof" to proof they did not exist. You say the onus is on me to proof you wrong. I disaggree. The onus is on the person that wishes to convince the other party. That means you too, unless you're not really here to convince me, and just make fum of my believes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are one step away from being fanatics who would do just about anything to protect these beliefs, even kill for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That step being to blindly believe what someone else says the bible say, instead of reading the bible, and judging what the person says. Thus, the person's word carrys more athority than the Bible. Thank goodness Christianity is a "Religion of the book", otherwise the church reformation would never have happend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nos482, posted 10-21-2002 12:59 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 9:23 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 145 by nos482, posted 10-22-2002 10:29 AM compmage has replied
 Message 146 by frank, posted 10-22-2002 7:03 PM compmage has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 144 of 177 (20478)
10-22-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by compmage
10-22-2002 8:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
and, when it comes to disproving the existance or words of the apostles, it is clear in this debate that there is no "absolute proof" to proof they did not exist. You say the onus is on me to proof you wrong. I disaggree. The onus is on the person that wishes to convince the other party. That means you too, unless you're not really here to convince me, and just make fum of my believes.

The burden of proof lies the the person making the existential claim. you claim that the apostles existed, therefore you have to provide the evidence.
If you want to try it your way, proof to me that there is no invisible pink unicorn making everything work. If you can't then by your own logic you should belief that this unicorn does in fact exists and is making everything work.
Do you understand the problem?
------------------
compmage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 8:27 AM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 177 (20488)
10-22-2002 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by compmage
10-22-2002 8:27 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
and, when it comes to disproving the existance or words of the apostles, it is clear in this debate that there is no "absolute proof" to proof they did not exist.
And really none that they did.
You say the onus is on me to proof you wrong. I disaggree. The onus is on the person that wishes to convince the other party. That means you too, unless you're not really here to convince me, and just make fum of my believes.
You're the one who is making extraordinary claims so the burden of proof is yours. I'm an agnostic. I believe that there is no way to prove it either way.
That step being to blindly believe what someone else says the bible say, instead of reading the bible, and judging what the person says.
The bible is written in such a way, as all religious texts are, to leave open to any interpretation the reader may want.
Thus, the person's word carrys more athority than the Bible. Thank goodness Christianity is a "Religion of the book", otherwise the church reformation would never have happend.
It is because of this personal interpretation that there are so many different sects, and denominations in Christianity (Around 1500 now, with around 30,000 in its bloody history.) Christians create god in their own image. You are no different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 8:27 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by compmage, posted 10-23-2002 8:57 AM nos482 has replied

  
frank
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 177 (20514)
10-22-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by compmage
10-22-2002 8:27 AM


Hanno,
There was some discussion earlier in this thread about whether Jesus actually existed. I found two links today you might find interesting. Although far from conclusive, they do provide some "concrete" evidence.
'Jesus' Inscription on Stone May Be Earliest Ever Found - The New York Times
CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002
Frank

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 8:27 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nos482, posted 10-22-2002 7:57 PM frank has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 177 (20515)
10-22-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by frank
10-22-2002 7:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by frank:
Hanno,
There was some discussion earlier in this thread about whether Jesus actually existed. I found two links today you might find interesting. Although far from conclusive, they do provide some "concrete" evidence.
'Jesus' Inscription on Stone May Be Earliest Ever Found - The New York Times
CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002
Frank

James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. Lemaire estimates there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in the city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph.
The owner is reported to be a collector of ancient Jewish artifacts. The man, who wishes to remain anonymous, bought the box some 15 years ago from an antique dealer for $200 to $700, Shanks said.
The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"
Doesn't the Catholic Church say that Jesus was an only child? Plus, is that the name mistranslated into Jesus or is it actually the name Jesus on the box?
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by frank, posted 10-22-2002 7:03 PM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by frank, posted 10-23-2002 1:44 PM nos482 has not replied
 Message 153 by doctrbill, posted 10-24-2002 2:21 AM nos482 has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 148 of 177 (20560)
10-23-2002 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by nos482
10-22-2002 10:29 AM


"You're the one who is making extraordinary claims so the burden of proof is yours. I'm an agnostic. I believe that there is no way to prove it either way."
What I believe is based on ancient text which claim to be witness accounts, I did not dream it up myself. I am not going to repeat why I believe these texts to be credable. You claim these texts are false. Let's take Piltdown man. Was it not up to the other scientists to proof reasonable doubt about it's true origins, before it was removed as one on our ancestors? You've all expressed doubts, but non of it I concider reasonable, as none of them were well thought through: they all addressed just one part on my arguements, in stead of awnsering them holisticly. You say there are not enough texts available. Well, just suppose Jesus came during the time of the Nazi's. Exactly how many scripts would you expect to find? Remember, the Romans thought Christianity is a threat to the Pax Romana for 300 years. Would they have hesitated to destroy any Christian documentation that they could lay their hands on?
I'm glad you said "I believe that there is no way to prove it either way." We have documentation in the Bible which describes the beginning of Christianity. For me, it's a glass that's half full, to you, it is a glass that is half empty. I say in the beginning, the glass was full, you say it was filled afterwards. (After what, I wonder?)
Therefore, the objective conclusion of this debate is, the bible could be true, or it could be a falsification. Subjectively, I will say it is definitly true, and you will say it's definitly false, and we both will believe that our point of view is objective. You will say I believe without proof, and I will say you won't accept proof. Then we will argue on what exactly qualifies as "proof". And neither will accept the others point of view. So to continue the debate is pointless. I would have stopped long ago if I weren't so darn curious how you'll reply everytime (I admit, this seem to be my weakness.)
Somehow, I didn't really believe I can any convince you. As Paul has said: I plant the seads and Apollos wet them, but it is God that makes them grow. So, if someone else reads my arguements, and this leads him to believe in God, or strenghten his faith, then this debate was not in vain.
cheers, and hopefully, if I can controll myself, this would be my last post. LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by nos482, posted 10-22-2002 10:29 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Brian, posted 10-23-2002 10:22 AM compmage has not replied
 Message 151 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 11:49 AM compmage has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 149 of 177 (20566)
10-23-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by compmage
10-23-2002 8:57 AM


What I believe is based on ancient text which claim to be witness accounts, I did not dream it up myself.
**Claiming to be an eyewitness to anything isn't proof that the events actually happened, just proof that someone made these claims.
What you need to do as well is look at the probability that the events 'witnessed' are likely to have happened or indeed if they are possible.
Your plea to these ancient texts as eyewitness accounts is very desparate for several reasons.
First, no one knows who wrote the gospels, and anyone that has completed even a basic introduction to the New Testament knows that none of the original 12 apostles wrote the texts allocated to them by the church fathers. For example, Papias wrote that Matthew wrote the logio in Hebrew, the earliest Matthew text is Greek and shows no signs of translation.
Secondly,the basic errors that the author of Matthew's gospel makes when refering to Hebrew scripture, the virgin birth for example, and also the blatant lies told by this author (slaughter of the innocents)weakens the case for this text being an accurate and reliable source.
Thirdly, the author of Matthew reproduces 90% of Mark's gospel, the author of Mark didnt claim to be an eyewitness, so why would an eyewitness rely on an account of someone that wasnt an eyewitness ? Did matthew walk about in a trance all the time ?
So you have two gospels negated as a reliable eyewitness account.
SO onto Luke, pretty straight forward, Luke states that he wasnt an eyewitness and doesnt name any of the 'eyewitnesses' he claims to have spoken to.
3 down one to go.
Gospel of John, really distinctive from the other 3, and called the 'spiritual gospel' by Clement. To include John as an eyewitness means you weaken the case even further for the synoptics. For example, the synoptics jesus 'speaks' in parables and witty little sayings, in John he is given long dialogues and discourses, which is a major contradiction between the ancient texts that you place your faith in.
Also from within 'John's' gospel there are problems with the identification of the author. The gospel says that it is the testimony of the 'beloved disciple' but it deosnt actually name this 'beloved disciple'.
Also from within the text is a clue to where the gospel was written.
Read this: John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
The interaction of 'we' in 21:24 with the 'I' of 21:25 supports the stance that the gospel of John was obviously a construction of a religious community intent on furthering the popularity of their particular god.
I am not going to repeat why I believe these texts to be credable. You claim these texts are false.
**Your explicit bias is the only thing that can possibly make you believe that these texts are reliable. How many endings has the Gospel of Mark had over the centuries, two, three or four ? What is the likelyhood of the supernatural events mentioned in these texts being true?
Let's take Piltdown man. Was it not up to the other scientists to proof reasonable doubt about it's true origins, before it was removed as one on our ancestors? You've all expressed doubts, but non of it I concider reasonable, as none of them were well thought through: they all addressed just one part on my arguements, in stead of awnsering them holisticly. You say there are not enough texts available. Well, just suppose Jesus came during the time of the Nazi's. Exactly how many scripts would you expect to find? Remember, the Romans thought Christianity is a threat to the Pax Romana for 300 years. Would they have hesitated to destroy any Christian documentation that they could lay their hands on?
**Forget the texts for a minute, why are there no belongings of the God become man preserved anywhere? Why did none of your so called eyewitnesses think to mark the scene of the greatest miracle of all time, the tomb of jesus? Why isnt his birthplace known ? where was the scene of the crucifiction (sp deliberate. You see a basic problem with your stance is that, for all the eyewitness to jesus miracles and their convincing that he was God, the eyewitnesses completey ignored jesus earthly life, they preserved nothing at all, probably because there was nothing to preserve. A final note on jesus relics, the Vatican has bought 9 jesus foreskins over the centuries !! LOL he was a special guy after all !!
I'm glad you said "I believe that there is no way to prove it either way." We have documentation in the Bible which describes the beginning of Christianity. For me, it's a glass that's half full, to you, it is a glass that is half empty. I say in the beginning, the glass was full, you say it was filled afterwards. (After what, I wonder?)
Somehow, I didn't really believe I can any convince you. As Paul has said: I plant the seads and Apollos wet them, but it is God that makes them grow. So, if someone else reads my arguements, and this leads him to believe in God, or strenghten his faith, then this debate was not in vain.
** You over-estimate your contribution to the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by compmage, posted 10-23-2002 8:57 AM compmage has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 177 (20567)
10-23-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by compmage
10-09-2002 12:48 PM


[QUOTE]Denying the existance of even the person Jesus Christ, is like denying the existance of dinosaurs. [/B][/QUOTE]
Wow, we have the bones of Jesus Christ?
Hanno, what you need is positive evidence for Christ's existence independent of the Bible.
Plain and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by compmage, posted 10-09-2002 12:48 PM compmage has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 177 (20573)
10-23-2002 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by compmage
10-23-2002 8:57 AM


Originally posted by Hanno:
What I believe is based on ancient text which claim to be witness accounts, I did not dream it up myself.
So is Greek mythology as well. Is it any more true than what you are asserting?
I am not going to repeat why I believe these texts to be credable. You claim these texts are false.
Not so much as being false as being fiction.
Let's take Piltdown man. Was it not up to the other scientists to proof reasonable doubt about it's true origins, before it was removed as one on our ancestors? You've all expressed doubts, but non of it I concider reasonable, as none of them were well thought through: they all addressed just one part on my arguements, in stead of awnsering them holisticly.
It was scientists who discovered that it was a fraud and removed it themselves, that is why there is peer review. All theists do is create another sect or denomination and break off from those who don't accept their belief.
You say there are not enough texts available. Well, just suppose Jesus came during the time of the Nazi's. Exactly how many scripts would you expect to find? Remember, the Romans thought Christianity is a threat to the Pax Romana for 300 years. Would they have hesitated to destroy any Christian documentation that they could lay their hands on?
It is not a matter of enough texts, but of outside collaboration which isn't directly or indirectly influenced.
I'm glad you said "I believe that there is no way to prove it either way." We have documentation in the Bible which describes the beginning of Christianity. For me, it's a glass that's half full, to you, it is a glass that is half empty. I say in the beginning, the glass was full, you say it was filled afterwards. (After what, I wonder?)
Saying that "The bible is true because it says that it is true" is like saying the National Enquirer is true because it says that it is true as well.
Therefore, the objective conclusion of this debate is, the bible could be true, or it could be a falsification. Subjectively, I will say it is definitly true, and you will say it's definitly false, and we both will believe that our point of view is objective. You will say I believe without proof, and I will say you won't accept proof. Then we will argue on what exactly qualifies as "proof". And neither will accept the others point of view. So to continue the debate is pointless. I would have stopped long ago if I weren't so darn curious how you'll reply everytime (I admit, this seem to be my weakness.)
In other words you believe that it is true only because you want (need) to believe that it is true since you have nothing else to back up what you believe.
Somehow, I didn't really believe I can any convince you. As Paul has said: I plant the seads and Apollos wet them, but it is God that makes them grow. So, if someone else reads my arguements, and this leads him to believe in God, or strenghten his faith, then this debate was not in vain.
And the Big Blue Banana made you think that your god did this to test your faith in the all powerful BBB and you have failed. Prepare to be peel. (This is just as valid a statement as you had said).
[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by compmage, posted 10-23-2002 8:57 AM compmage has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024