|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
With regard to the accounts of Jesus' resurrection, the differences can not be lightly dismissed. Did the women meet Jesus while they ran to tell the disciples as Matthew portrays? If so, why did the disciples on the way to Emmaus in Luke not know this? They knew the tomb was empty and that the women had seen angels. Did the women just forget to relay the important fact of SEEING Jesus? An inconsisteny, yes. But of what magnitude? Is it greater than the inconsistency between the stories of people describing a bar fight? And of what consequence is the inconsistency? Absolutely none. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Golffly writes: Do you have a shred of evidence for your belief ? Well yes. Various people contributed to the collection of books that make up the Bible. People nearly 2000 years ago wrote down those accounts in the NT and people have been working out over the centuries what to make of them. Certainly one can dismiss them entirely but they have to do that not based on evidence, but on the belief that we know those things just don't happen, and the fact that there is no other collaborating evidence. I accept them in the manner that I do on belief, but without any other evidence other than what is in the Bible. It is a belief or a faith. However, I contend that there is philosophical evidence. Frankly Christianity makes more sense philosophically than any other view that I am aware of. IMHO intelligent life that came into existence from an intelligent root cause is far more plausible than fro a non-intelligent root cause. That makes me either a theist or a deist. IMHO the theistic POV is more plausible than the deistic view as it doesn't sound reasonable to me to believe in an intelligence that would bring life into existence and then abandon the project. IMHO if we then have an involved intelligence that is responsible for life then it is also plausible that this intelligence could have a long term plan and could resurrect a Jesus in the middle of human history as part of that long term plan. If we accept the possibility of the resurrection then I contend that the resurrection as an historical event is a far better explanation for the rise of Christianity than any other explanation on offer. All arguments that I have heard opposing the resurrection are based on the idea that it couldn't happen so any other explanation is preferable. IMHO Christianity provides a more plausible explanation for selfless morality than does any other explanation including the idea that it evolved naturally along with physical evolution. (I don't dispute evolutionary theory.) One other point. I have been involved volunteering with seniors for over 35 years. (Apparently I have now been assimilated. ) One universal finding that I have made is the sense that as our bodies age we don't. I still have the same sense of being that I had when I was 20. Sure I have different ideas as a result of living this long but the essential "I" hasn't changed. There is a strong sense of our eternal nature. I also contend that Christianity provides the most reasonable explanation for why we feel that way. A long answer to a short question eh? He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Polloux writes: If the revelation of God comes through Jesus, how were the people living in the 4000 or 40,000 or 200,000 years (depending on your beliefs) before Jesus able to know what God is really like? As Golffly points out the picture in the OT is often not very pretty. I never claimed that Jesus is the sole revelation of God. I'd suggest that unselfish love is an eternal truth. Mankind has always have an innate knowledge of the choice between selfishness and unselfishness. The interesting thing about the Jesus saying that loving our neighbour is a commandment is that it is a command unlike any other. A command that I should feed my neighbour when he is hungry is one thing but that is quite different than saying that I should love him. Sure, feeding my neighbour may very well be a result of the fact that I love him as I am prepared to put his interests ahead of my own. However, I might be doing it as I am hoping to get something more from him in the future, or maybe I am simply wanting to be well thought of. I think that Paul got it right in his first letter to the Corinthians when he wrote:quote: In the end it is all about our hearts. Humans of all ages have all had the opportunity to make loving selfless choices and to reject the selfish choices.
Pollux writes: With regard to the accounts of Jesus' resurrection, the differences can not be lightly dismissed. Did the women meet Jesus while they ran to tell the disciples as Matthew portrays? If so, why did the disciples on the way to Emmaus in Luke not know this? They knew the tomb was empty and that the women had seen angels. Did the women just forget to relay the important fact of SEEING Jesus? And Mark says, in the part before the later addition, that the women told no-one. So which account do we believe? As I said in the post that you are replying to the differences simply point out that the differences simply make the basic story more plausible. As for the rest of it read No Nukes response as he covers it well. CheersHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3081 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
Loved the answer GDR. Thanks for that.
I disagree with everything but I think it's great none the less. Would you mind telling me which, if any, of these claims are valid - the gospel writers are anonymous - there are no eye witness writers to Jesus - Paul believed a spiritual Jesus and not a bodily form, just recently resurrected, but rather was resurrected some time in the long distant past - The first Gospel was Mark and others copied him - Marks screws up the geography and clearly the writer wasn't familiar with the area - Matthew copies Mark, adding embellishment and fixing Mark's geography screw ups - the NT contains essentially nothing unique but rather mirrors the pagan gods before - the birth accounts and resurrection accounts are not reconcilable - they copy Mark but the writers had no expectation their writing would end up in a book read by billions . So writers had no expectation their writings would be compared to other gospel writers, showing obvious contradictions. Nor did they expect it to be compared to other books in the bible..again pointing out obvious contradiction - Jesus evolves in the bible from the earliest writer Paul, to the next Mark, then embellished by the copiers Matthew, Luke, John. They all depict a different type of Jesus. - there are no OT prophecies of Jesus. Rather a cherry picked quote mine occurs. - Jesus' own prophecies fail This is off the top of my head. Do you believe any of this. Or none of it?This isn't baiting and I'm not teeing you up so I can swing the driver. I am genuinely interested in your response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Golffly Member (Idle past 3081 days) Posts: 287 Joined: |
jar writes: Golffly writes:Do you have a shred of evidence for your belief ? Too funny. Did GDR use the term faith to describe the source of his beliefs? Didn't GDR say: quote:In the end though it is a faith, and as I have said numerous times here my faith is based on the understanding of the nature of God is that He is loving, just and merciful, and as a Christian I have faith that God resurrected Jesus which affirms and validates the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Jar,I know technically faith is belief without evidence. I find it's rarely used that way. We have a rare deist or theist who will say " I believe because I want to believe. I know it's not rational and there is no evidence. I believe anyway". Then the other end where every word of the bible is true and it is the best evidence man kind has ever seen. These individuals are not debatable, in my view, and they have given up on rational thought. In my view. Then there are most who believe some things in the bible and not other things, but the bible is still evidence. Then some who believe nothing specifically in the bible, but think in general it points to a truth. They often say the bible isn't evidence. Anyway, that was kind of where I was going or thinking with the evidence question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Godfly writes: I disagree with everything but I think it's great none the less. Would you mind telling me which, if any, of these claims are valid. I would agree that an argument can be made for any of these assertions which does not mean that any or all of them represent what actually happened. I'm bot sure what you mean by valid. If you are asking me my opinion on any of them I can give it to you, but it remains an opinion. None of us know the accuracy of any of those statements - all we can have is our opinion or belief. Does that answer your question or are you asking me to go through it point by point with my opinion.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jar, I know technically faith is belief without evidence. I find it's rarely used that way. We have a rare deist or theist who will say " I believe because I want to believe. I know it's not rational and there is no evidence. I believe anyway". That's close but in my experience it is seldom a matter of wanting to believe.
Then the other end where every word of the bible is true and it is the best evidence man kind has ever seen. These individuals are not debatable, in my view, and they have given up on rational thought. In my view. Correct, but again, that is not so much a fault of the Bible (the topic of this thread) but rather of their education.
Then there are most who believe some things in the bible and not other things, but the bible is still evidence. But the Bible (remember there is no such thing as The BibleTM ) is evidence; often not evidence that supports their assertions, often evidence that refutes their assertions but still evidence. Again, the issue is a matter of learning how to think, of education, not of the Bible or Bible stories or particular Canon itself.
Then some who believe nothing specifically in the bible, but think in general it points to a truth. They often say the bible isn't evidence. Folk say the damnedest things. Edited by jar, : fix formattingAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Hi NoNukes,
You did not really answer my question.If the women saw Jesus as they ran to tell the disciples, their omission to tell them this, as shown in Luke, is incomprehensible. If they did not see him, then Matthew just made it up and was not inspired. Or is it like Mark, where they told no-one? Then there is John's account where Mary visits the tomb twice, seeing Jesus on her own at the tomb on the second visit. So did she see him in the company of others running to the disciples, or on her own on a second visit, or tell no-one? The most stupendous event in Christianity is the Resurrection. One would expect the accounts of it to be reasonably consistent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You did not really answer my question. No, I did not answer your question. I instead attempted to make the case that your question was unimportant.
If the women saw Jesus as they ran to tell the disciples, their omission to tell them this, as shown in Luke, is incomprehensible. I acknowledged that you pointed out an inconsistency. Some detail is wrong. Luke is not an eyewitness. So unless the detail is of some consequence, then you're going to have to tell me why the inconsistency is not just a mistake on one writer's part.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
However, I contend that there is philosophical evidence. Frankly Christianity makes more sense philosophically than any other view that I am aware of. IMHO intelligent life that came into existence from an intelligent root cause is far more plausible than fro a non-intelligent root cause. That makes me either a theist or a deist. When you write than an idea "makes more sense" without explanation, what should a reader make of that. To me your statement is an entirely subjective statement which provides no clue as to how you reject one conclusion over another. And what is the standard for judging plausibility? Are you actually saying anything more than that you are a particular type of theist? I don't see a case for anything more.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Your cats-eye marble worked randomly. I thought you said nothing was random? I guess that makes my marble the only thing random in the entire universe? The marble never worked at all. Ever.
Superstition is what the heathen practice It also appears to be what the chosen people in the Bible practiced.
I gave biblical context that tells us whether God answered or not. And I gave my critique of your "biblical context". Describing something that works "sometimes" sounds exactly like your claiming that my random marble worked sometimes (randomly). In reality, the marble never "worked" at all regardless of the outcome obtained. Do you even understand what superstitions are? Rally caps don't generate wins in a baseball game. We can't really say that the rally caps "worked" when we win the game. And we don't unless we are superstitious.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
duplicate
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I thought YOU said the marble worked, the way superstitions do seem to work, and then I pointed out that the pattern is random, but the biblical examples I gave are not. Earlier on I also said that even if there is always a reason for things that happen from God's point of view, from our point of view they most often appear random. And what I said about the biblical examples was that the Bible shows instances where God answered the casting of lots and others where He didn't. God may answer our prayers or not answer them. You COULD try to follow the logic. All the stuff you keep making an issue of has already been answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: Calling people who think biblically "irrational" is a stupid bias that no amount of reason is going to penetrate. Since thinking Biblically requires one to ignore facts of the real world, and since thinking rationally requires one to reason from facts of the real world, the characterization of irrational is an inescapable conclusion, not a "stupid bias." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Calling people who think biblically "irrational" is a stupid bias that no amount of reason is going to penetrate.
Since thinking Biblically requires one to ignore facts of the real world ..., Only according to the bias mentioned.
... and since thinking rationally requires one to reason from facts of the real world, the characterization of irrational is an inescapable conclusion, not a "stupid bias." However, your "facts of the real world" are defined by your bias so that you refuse to treat the facts that are revealed in the Bible as real facts, but of course they are. And as I've said before, if it hadn't been for biblical reasoning there would never have been true science, because the philosophy-based science you had through Aristotle and other pagans failed at recognizing actual fact, but the Bible provides the concept of a lawmaking God which led to the concept of a lawful Nature, which allowed science to develop along empirical lines. But I suppose you love your irrational idea that the Bible is irrational too much to give it up for reality.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024