|
Author
|
Topic: My Beliefs- GDR
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
Message 394 of 1324 (701439)
06-19-2013 1:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 393 by GDR
06-19-2013 12:48 AM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
These are written somewhat differently as they are accounts that tell of other’s experiences and recollections, which is likely the primary reason that we don’t know the names of those who have put the accounts together. We make a choice as to whether we believe them or not. You have fallen victim to (post?)modernist revisionism GDR. There is no doubt about who wrote the gospel accounts, the names were assigned back when people knew who wrote them, and there are references to each of them in other NT accounts. And except for Luke and the fact that Mark repeats some information from Matthew's gospel, and that any of them may include some well known information about Jesus whether or not it was personally witnessed, they ARE eyewitness accounts, that is, written by men who were with Jesus and knew Him personally. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 393 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 12:48 AM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 400 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 1:52 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 401 of 1324 (701456)
06-19-2013 1:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 397 by onifre
06-19-2013 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
This isn't particularly to onifre but to everybody who has basically his point of view.
I don't know if you know how this works but a single source can't confirm it's own claims. This has been answered over and over. The Bible is only a single source because it's been put together that way in recent times, but in reality it's a collection of 66 separate writings by some 40 different authors over something like 1500 years. For all of them to build on one another as they do is evidence in itself of what they are saying. All you guys are doing is letting your prejudice against the supernatural dictate your view of the evidence. You refuse to believe it even possible so you demand an impossible level of evidence for it, which you wouldn't accept even if it were supplied because you are that committed to your rejection of anything otherworldly. Whatever evidence is offered gets trounced. Tacitus is dead in the water. Not necessarily because his report isn't authentic extrabiblical witness but because you all DON'T WANT IT TO BE. Would you even accept a miracle done before your eyes? Chances are you wouldn't, you'd explain it away somehow or other. So what WOULD convince you of supernatural claims? My guess is nothing. You've effectively cut yourself off from the possibility. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 397 by onifre, posted 06-19-2013 11:02 AM | | onifre has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 404 of 1324 (701465)
06-19-2013 3:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 400 by GDR
06-19-2013 1:52 PM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
I agree that we don't HAVE to know who the authors were but there is no reason whatever to doubt the authorship accepted by the early church. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt that Matthew himself wrote Matthew etc. There is no reason to think any of the gospels were written much later than say a decade or two past the resurrection because they were written to inform the new churches that were springing up all over the Mediterranean and Middle East, and that was going strong much earlier than 50 years after the resurrection. If Matthew had been written as late as you claim he would most certainly have reported on the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and he did not. That is one major event that helps to date NT books.
I'd make the point that it is highly improbable that someone would compile these accounts at least one generation later if there wasn't considerable agreement on the facts of the resurrection. That's a reasonable point but it also holds true for an earlier writing, and there was a veritable explosion of new churches springing up and the gospels being circulated and copied long before a whole generation had passed.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 400 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 1:52 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 410 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 6:50 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 406 of 1324 (701468)
06-19-2013 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 403 by Tangle
06-19-2013 3:18 PM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
It's supposed to be the Word of God - you'd have thought he could have done a tad better., All the inconsistencies and contradictions actually tell us that it's the word of error prone man. Uh huh, well God INSPIRED those error-prone men, and there really aren't all that many inconsistencies anyway. Most of them are easily enough resolved with a little good will, good faith etc.
God sends his son down to earth and has him killed for us, then doesn't leave any trace of himself behind, not a single word of his own that would actually help people get his message? Um, far from "no trace," there are plenty of His words in the Bible, Tangle, quite enough to help anyone get his message who isn't determined not to get it. Since the entire Bible is said to have been inspired by God in that sense every last word of it is "his own that would actually help people get his message" if they weren't so busy trying strenuously to prove it isn't his word. You're just proving that you don't honestly want to know what God has to say. He's said it and you reject it but you prefer to blame that on God when it's you making the decisions.
Instead he leaves it to a bunch of unknown peope 75-150 years later to write some stories You don't HAVE to believe those ridiculous dates, which were all made up just to cast doubt on the Bible, you COULD believe the earlier dates given by true believers down the centuries instead. The fact is that all the reports were written within a few decades of the events they describe, and they ARE reports, not "stories." As for unknown people, God expressly CHOSE to work with unknown people, chose people the world doesn't naturally admire, scripture says so. It's not what worldly people would expect of course, because God likes to work against what worldly people expect.
then allows a council of politicians to cherry pick the ones they like and discard the others? The "politicians" were the leaders of the many churches, not politicians at all but pastors and bishops and so on. And there was not just one council that established the canon of scripture but many councils compiled lists of what they regarded as the authentic inspired writings, and these were chosen largely because of their usage in the various churches, so it's not correct to say they were the choice of only a few people. The ones discarded are clearly in contradiction with the inspired ones,. The inspired ones warn against the gnostics for instance and the discarded ones are mostly gnostic writings by men who didn't much like the truths about God and Jesus. They also have the flavor of fiction compared to the true ones, to a discerning person anyway. But those who prefer the fakes and gnostic writings may have them, they just can't have the true writings at the same time because they are contradictory.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 403 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2013 3:18 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 413 of 1324 (701484)
06-20-2013 4:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 410 by GDR
06-19-2013 6:50 PM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
That site is clearly not a conservative Christian site, it includes all kinds of writings that have nothing to do with the Bible but presents them as if they did, and its dates are the usual late dates preferred by revisionists and Bible debunkers. Most of the NT CANNOT have been written after 70 AD because of the destruction of Jerusalem, which figures in the gospels only as prophecy and is otherwise unmentioned in other books as well. By conservative dating methods all the NT was written before the end of the first century, and the majority of it before 70 AD. John's writings are the latest, dated around 95 AD when he was on Patmos. The later the dating the more excuse is given to Bible debunkers to claim it is merely myth and all that. That's the motive for the dating, it's all subjective and speculative so they can get away with it with most people. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 410 by GDR, posted 06-19-2013 6:50 PM | | GDR has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 414 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 8:28 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 415 of 1324 (701495)
06-20-2013 8:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 414 by onifre
06-20-2013 8:28 AM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
These Jewish guys had no MOTIVE to make it "look like a prophecy" -- what, they just made up Jesus' words after the fact? That's ridiculous. And they CERTAINLY had no desire to ape mythology, which as good Jews they despised. You'll believe the most nonsensical things in your zeal to debunk Christianity. But YES, the dating is made later because of that belief that it must be myth, isn't that the same thing I said already? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 414 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 8:28 AM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 416 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 8:43 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 417 of 1324 (701498)
06-20-2013 9:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 416 by onifre
06-20-2013 8:43 AM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
Right, no motive to make Jesus look like a prophet. You think these blue collar Jewish guys were going to try to face down the Pharisees with a lie they made up themselves? About a Messiah that didn't even fit the Messiah who was going to defeat Rome that everybody was expecting? And besides, this would be a particularly useless lie, a prophecy that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed -- you think they could have made up that whole thing about how Jesus is now the cornerstone of the temple and the physical temple was going to be destroyed to prove that? And get the world to believe it? A bunch of fishermen? I don't need to know those people to know that a bunch of Jewish guys raised in the Jewish religion had NO motive whatsoever to create anything that sounded like a pagan myth. They had enough trouble believing the truth about Jesus as it was, believing in the resurrection and so on. They were afraid of the Jewish leaders, hiding out after the crucifixion. You should at least try to make your theory fit the facts just a teensy bit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 416 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 8:43 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 419 of 1324 (701508)
06-20-2013 10:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 418 by onifre
06-20-2013 9:46 AM
|
|
Re: Resurrection
When He died on the cross their faith was shaken, where were they going to get the motivation to make Him out to be the Son of God when they weren't sure of anything any more? But if you're talking about after the resurrection, even then they were hiding out from the Pharisees and not going out and preaching their gospel. Even believing Jesus was the Son of God wasn't enough to motivate them to do that much. You just aren't taking the actual situation into account in your zeal to prove they were all liars.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 418 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 9:46 AM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 424 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 4:33 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 430 of 1324 (701567)
06-21-2013 4:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 416 by onifre
06-20-2013 8:43 AM
|
|
Reality in the details
You'll believe the most nonsensical things in your zeal to debunk Christianity.
Oh please. You believe a guy came back from the dead. Talk about believing in the most nonsensical things. My point was that you don't even consider the realities of what first-century Jews would think and do, you just make up stuff based on how you think you might behave or somebody in our time or any old thing, and only because you have this zeal against the supernatural claims of Christianity. You aren't considering actual evidence, you're just slinging the wildest possible notions. As for what I believe about the resurrection, I believe it because of the credibility of the testimony of the Biblical witnesses and of the millions of other believers down the centuries, which is exactly what you are determined to discredit by hook or by crook. As I said a few times already, as long as you are willing to ignore the patent realism of the witness reports and make up off the wall objections to them you never could discover the truth about how Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead. Isn't this a mental set you guys are always imputing to creationists? The fact is that it applies to you even better when it comes to your prejudice against the supernatural. NOTHING could convince you because you refuse to be honest about the evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 416 by onifre, posted 06-20-2013 8:43 AM | | onifre has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 446 of 1324 (701608)
06-21-2013 11:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 445 by GDR
06-21-2013 11:43 PM
|
|
Re: Accept or Reject
Again the key for me is the resurrection. Yes, I believe in the virgin birth, but if it could be proven that it was just a legend that grew up around Jesus after the resurrection it doesn’t really change anything. If the resurrection could be proven as false then there is no basis for the Christian faith at all. Got to object here, GDR: If the virgin birth was just a legend it would change everything. The virgin birth is essential to the claim that Jesus is the literal Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit. If He isn't the Son of God but a mere fallen human being His sacrifice on the cross can't pay for our sins.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 445 by GDR, posted 06-21-2013 11:43 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 456 by GDR, posted 06-22-2013 5:29 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 460 of 1324 (701637)
06-22-2013 11:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 456 by GDR
06-22-2013 5:29 PM
|
|
Re: Virgin Birth
Faith writes: Got to object here, GDR: If the virgin birth was just a legend it would change everything. The virgin birth is essential to the claim that Jesus is the literal Son of God, conceived by the Holy Spirit. If He isn't the Son of God but a mere fallen human being His sacrifice on the cross can't pay for our sins.
Firstly, I do believe in the virgin birth but I don’t see it in anyway essential to the Christian message story or for that matter to the forgiving of sins. I’m inclined to believe it by coming back at it through the resurrection but it is only important if you believe that God the Father was absent from His dwelling place and inhabiting the body of Jesus. It wouldn't have been God the Father inhabiting he body of Jesus but God the Son who is co-eternal with the Father. Also, God need never be "absent" from anywhere in order to inhabit anything as He is already everywhere at once, i.e. omnipresent.
There are actually some scriptural reasons to actually reject the idea. Some examples are why did His cousin John the Baptist in light of the close ties between Mary and Elizabeth send a message questioning whether Jesus was the messiah or not? His faith failed under persecution, it happens to many, no mystery.
Why was Jesus’ brother James not a follower of Jesus until after His death? It took the resurrection, or more, the ascension, or really in the end it took Pentecost to fully persuade ALL the disciples, including Jesus' own siblings who were the hardest to persuade. As Jesus said, a prophet is not without honor except among his own people. His siblings apparently doubted their mother's story, and Jesus' not emerging as a great military leader but being this humble teacher pursued by the authorities must have increased their doubt. Why these questions? Nothing is more understandable than the doubts of Jesus' claims, that's what is being expressed at EvC all the time. Of course if people are persuaded by their doubts they're going to doubt the virgin birth along with all the rest of it. How you manage to hold on to parts of the revelation while denying the rest is really the puzzle.
Why is it only in 2 Gospels, and not much in Luke and not mentioned in any of the Epistles? Why is the only Gospel that writes a lot about it, namely Matthew, the writer that wrote pretty much specifically for the Jews and was very anxious to have his readers understand Jesus in the context of the Hebrew Scriptures? I don't see a problem here. It's always risky to argue from an absence you know. For one thing I wouldn't reduce Luke's report to "not much," it's sufficient to support the virgin birth. About Matthew I'd suppose that he was simply appealing to the common knowledge among the Jews of the prophecy of the virgin birth in the Hebrew scriptures. Makes sense, doesn't it? Beyond specific references to the virgin birth, the NT is full of affirmations of Jesus as God, Son of God, God in the flesh and so on, and that's the whole point of the virgin birth.
Jesus was very clear that His followers were to do the things that He was doing and He says this in John 14: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also ; and greater works than these he will do ; because I go to the Father. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is clearly the Father working through His Holy Spirit that those that believe in Him, by believing in the works of love, forgiveness, mercy and justice, will be empowered. Clearly Jesus had a relationship with the one He called Father that others didn’t have and His claim was that He spoke for the Father. As John puts it in chapter 1: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the onlybegotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus embodied the Word of God. In understanding Jesus as part of the Godhead it is clear that it was God the Father that put Him in that position. Jesus is very clear that He is beholding to the Father and that all that He does is in order to glorify, (do the work of) the Father. However, it seems clear that He did find himself doing what only the Father could do in the Jewish tradition. He was essentially a Temple replacement. When Jews wanted to meet with their God, or to be forgiven primarily through the offering of sacrifices they went to the Temple. Jesus was essentially saying that if you want to meet with God then you can meet Him through me. If you want forgiveness come to me but it isn’t sacrifice I want but mercy. It isn’t about buying forgiveness with animal sacrifices but about forgiveness by having a change of heart. God confirmed that message through the crucifixion, and He is now King over the Kingdom He came to establish. The political statement was that Jesus is King and Caesar and Herod aren’t. Caesar and Herod can only have you killed but God the Father, through the Son, showed that the death that Caesar can bring does not have the last word. The evil that death is has been defeated. None of that require the virgin birth. Without getting into some of your assertions that I disagree with, I'd just say that much of it requires Him to be God incarnate, and that requires the virgin birth. Oh, one thing needs correction:
It isn’t about buying forgiveness with animal sacrifices but about forgiveness by having a change of heart. Scripture disagrees with you:
Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, that is, there is no forgiveness. And the Letter to the Hebrews makes it clear that only the sacrifice of the Son of God can purge sin, that the animal sacrifices were meant to foreshadow His once-for-all sacrifice. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 456 by GDR, posted 06-22-2013 5:29 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 461 of 1324 (701638)
06-23-2013 12:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 459 by GDR
06-22-2013 7:10 PM
|
|
The theologians or Christian scholars that have most influenced me just happen to all be from the UK. They would be be N T Wright, C S Lewis, John Polkinghorne, John Lennox and to a lesser degree Alister McGrath. ( I’m not sure that Lennox would consider himself either a Christian scholar or theologian.) I like Polkinghorne, Lennox and McGrath for the way their use science to be influential in their beliefs. I also have been influenced by Francis Collins and Denis Lamoureux who both have doctorates in biology and use their biology to inform their Christian beliefs. The point is, that this is not something that I have made up on my own, but my views have been influenced by many people and I do consider myself to be pretty mainstream. I've wondered how on earth you can consider your beliefs to be "mainstream" or "orthodox" as you've claimed before, and I guess this is your answer. But of course all these guys are "liberals" and deny Bible inerrancy. It may well be that we're getting to the point that Bible believers or "fundamentalists" who believe in the whole revelation of the Bible, although our numbers are far greater still, are becoming marginalized enough that beliefs such as yours can almost get away with being called mainstream. It's one of the signs of the last days, and of course we Bible believers expect all the liberals and apostates eventually to merge into one global religion as the Harlot Church of Revelation, which I believe is Rome. You COULD take this as a prediction that MIGHT cause you to rethink things if you start to see it happening, but maybe you won't. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 459 by GDR, posted 06-22-2013 7:10 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 464 of 1324 (701648)
06-23-2013 6:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 463 by Tangle
06-23-2013 4:36 AM
|
|
I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. GDR will probably say this but I'll also say it: "Evil" in this context means disaster or calamity, bad happenings. In English the word means either that or sinful doings, and in this case it means that. That God cannot commit sin is said elsewhere to provide context. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 463 by Tangle, posted 06-23-2013 4:36 AM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 466 by Tangle, posted 06-23-2013 8:10 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
Re: Animal Sacrifice
It is clear, then, that the author of Leviticus thought that animal sacrifice actually worked and were perfectly capable of purging sin. I, of course, think that this is all so much tosh --- but do you agree with me? Yes, well it DID work for them, because all things in the OT looked forward to the Messiah who was to be their fulfillment. The sacrifices foreshadowed the one perfect sacrifice of Christ. The fundamental faith of the OT saints was faith in the promise given by God of the Messiah who would save them from their sins. The sacrifices of animals provided a picture of the costliness of atoning for sin, and done in faith, done with trust in God's promises, they also saved them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 467 of 1324 (701653)
06-23-2013 8:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 466 by Tangle
06-23-2013 8:10 AM
|
|
Disasters and calamities are God's judgments for sins and crimes. A decent bloke does not allow crimes to go unpunished. Today's idea of a "decent bloke" seems to be to abolish the death penalty, not make a big deal out of pedophile priests, and so on. That's not a decent bloke, that's a guy who doesn't mind letting evils in the other sense run rampant in society.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 466 by Tangle, posted 06-23-2013 8:10 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 468 by jar, posted 06-23-2013 9:14 AM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 477 by GDR, posted 06-23-2013 3:33 PM | | Faith has replied | | | Message 479 by ringo, posted 06-23-2013 4:05 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2