CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion

Maybe now we're getting somewhere: Define "Act". Again, define "act". And if God did ACT in the way you'll soon describe, how will you truly know that is was indeed God "acting"?Plz note that you've backed off what you said in msg # 108: Which was a direct reference to Charlesknight's requirement of God in post # 105: If you've backed off that, fine. No problem; I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting this right. "Appearing" is no longer a requirement, just "acting" (for which I'm hoping to get a definition shortly).

We don't know how much documentation there was before the Gospels were written. We do know that the Christians were arrested, jailed, even killed shortly after Jesus went to prepare a place for us.
Why would that happen? Why would people be willing to die for a faith that was "questionable" (as you might say)?

People died for Judaism, for Communism, for Islam to name three faiths.
I don't imagine that people willing to die for a faith would be questioning it. People are willing to die for many different causes. It's something people did and still do. Why are you asking me why that would happen?lfen

To everyone - Of course the 5 year-old will remember - this is god, if he wants them to remember they will.He can keep showing up to people for everything - being everywhere at once forever should be no problem.

Why would people be willing to die for a faith that was "questionable" (as you might say)?Well people killed themselves to catch a lift in a spaceship that was passing by.....

quote:

---

What non-matching documentation are you talking about in regard to Jesus?

---

Luke is the most obvious one.I’m sure you already know these and I don’t want to argue these. By tradition the author of the Matthew Gospel is supposedly Matthew the tax collector, one of the disciples, one of the twelve. So we check the evidence.1. The Book of Matthew is not written from an eyewitness point of view. Per The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Dictionary of 1902; The most ancient testimony about the Gospel of Matthew is by Papias (75AD?-163AD?), who was supposedly a disciple of John. His testimony is that Matthew wrote down the sayings of Christ in Hebrew.Quite obviously the Book of Matthew that we have today is more than just sayings.Testimony of Jerome (340AD-420AD), who translated the Bible into Latin also from the Bible Encyclopaedia above: Not really a concrete testimony and considerably late. Jerome also asserts that in the Bible there is no material error due to the ignorance or the heedlessness of the sacred writer, but he adds: "It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time"Here we have testimony that sacred historians are influenced by culture of the time.2. Luke supposedly drew up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses...Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginningSo we compare Matthew (eyewitness) to Luke (investigator)M — Birth Bethlehem - Magi visit house - Move to Egypt — Avoided Judea and moved to Nazareth instead.L — Left Nazareth — Census Bethlehem — Birth Bethlehem Manger — Shepherds no Magi — Returned to Nazareth, no tour of Egypt.The Nativity stories don’t compliment each other as they should. So now we have to look at secular information and the census part of the story doesn’t mesh with history.We also have historical information on a Jesus ben Pantera which does match some of the basics of the Jesus story.The funniest story in Matthew is the one about the donkeys. If it happened the way Matthew describes, I'm sure it was memorable. A little hard to sit astride two animals. Luke in his investigation came up with Jesus riding only one animal.That is just a little information that leads one to question whether the author of Matthew was actually an eyewitness.Even though I answered this question, I do not want to follow this line of discussion with you.I've already read all the inane apologetics and from reading your posts, I don't feel that you possess the spiritual maturity necessary to discuss this type of topic seriously.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Well, rightly stated. Charlesknight also pointed out in msg # 125: Again, very true. Many of these people had been brainwashed into believing a lie, or just chose to believe because it was a match for what they wanted. Usually it's a matter of the "power of sensational knowledge", but that's for another thread.
But I'm not talking about brainwashed people. I'm talking about the FOUNDERS of a faith. The people who saw and heard things as they happened, like the sick being healed, the lame walking, the dead coming to life, lepers cleansed, the blind seeing, etc. The crown jewel of course, being the Son of God rising from the grave.
Are you saying these "founders" went around brainwashing people to believe something that wasn't true? Sadly, many con-artists have promoted religion and used it (and continue to use it) for financial gain; cheating people out of their money (sadly, in the name of God).But the question I'm asking is: What purpose do you think these "founders" of Christianity had for promoting this supposed "lie" of Jesus rising from the grave? I'm guessing you think the disicples perhaps stole the body out of the grave, as the "elders" of the synagogue told the soldiers to report? Matt. 28:13 ?

See post # 127 plz.

quote:

---

But I'm not talking about brainwashed people. I'm talking about the FOUNDERS of a faith. The people who saw and heard things as they happened, like the sick being healed, the lame walking, the dead coming to life, lepers cleansed, the blind seeing, etc. The crown jewel of course, being the Son of God rising from the grave.

---

Well that's what they claim - all the best con artists have a decent story.

quote:

---

But the question I'm asking is: What purpose do you think these "founders" of Christianity had for promoting this supposed "lie" of Jesus rising from the grave? I'm guessing you think the disicples perhaps stole the body out of the grave, as the "elders" of the synagogue told the soldiers to report? Matt. 28:13

---

You've got to get out of this circular reasoning of supporting the bible by quoting the bible. Can you provide us with any supporting testimony from non-christian sources?

So, then by your more open-minded approach, I should assume the story of George Washington tossing a silver coin over one hundred yards across the Potomac River is true? I should assume it true that Washington was a wastrel willing to squander what in his youth would've been handsome bit of pocket change? I should assume it true that he would've tossed a coin rather than a rock? I should assume it true he could've tossed a coin for that unbelievable distance?Your suggestion that I assume illogical and incredible events to be truth without any first-hand accountability does not comport with common sense, much less a scientific approach. Your suggestion becomes more illogical when one can see that certain such stories are simply one-upmanship wherein the hero performs bigger and better miracles that the hero of the original source story.Your approach to verification additionally seems silly when we have well-researched documentation that those cherry tree/coin toss stories were written two generations after the supposed events by myth-building story writers.Now, if you will pardon me, I must get back to my current project, a biography of Santa Claus.Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-20-2005 10:56 AM

Huh? I think I've made it pretty clear what I expect God to do in the world. I don't see in what way I've backed off. The only way to appear would be to act.

So you won't listen to anything I have to say, right? You discredit me because you don't think I'm "spiritually mature enough", but have you heard of ANYONE who MIGHT be mature enough to suit your requirements? You have discredited modern apologists (indirectly) since you state the writings they use are no good (or "inane" (which may indicate your own level of maturity). You've discredited the disiples and their writings, as well as God himself. So don't make it sound like I'm the one lacking in spiritual maturity; it's clear by your comments that you wouldn't recognize spiritual maturity if it had legs and jumped in your face. You simply don't want to believe in God's message, and you'll use any excuse. You quoted Lee Strobel, but apparently didn't take his book as a whole; you cherry picked it for a sound bite that you could use to your advantage (see "liberal journalist reporting methods"). Lee Strobel was a full blown atheist who set out to discredit the writers of the gospels (as well as Christianity itself), but after examin (ing all the evidence he became a believer. Strange that you don't mention that. Lee Strobel understands how to investigate something and get the truth. He understands that eyewitnesses sometimes remember different details even though they were standing right next to each other when they witnessed the event (I've experience this myself directly and indirectly). There are very identifiable reasons why this happens; needless to say, the prosecution will use the information to their advantage while the defense will try to discredit the witnesses. Or vice versa. What we DO know is that SOMETHING HAPPENED, regardless of what the defense/prosecution might insinuate. (Was is one donkey or two? Your honor, they MUST be lying about the WHOLE STORY!!!)But speaking of not getting your story straight, you might want to talk to Crashfrog ahead of time to decide what you two will use to discredit the gospels. Crash stated that these four writers "copied" off each other and "plagarized". If they copied, don't you think they would have been careful to not contradict each other on the details? Might want to read ALL of what Lee Strobel writes rather than just cherry picking for sound bites.(deleted ranting)This message has been edited by Juhrahnimo, 01-20-2005 11:26 AM

Let's mess the two together: "Appear" and "act" are the same thing then (in your book).So, define what "act" is and what you would expect to experience if God "acted".

Abshalom,I'm enjoying your Washington/Potomac/coin discussion. There is another aspect of some historical claims that allows us to occasionally test them: the aspect of plausibility. In the Washington case where we have two contradictory physical claims, for example, we can go to the rivers in question and see if it is physically possible (hence plausible) to pitch anything over them. We can thus easily see with a very simple experiment whether or not it is possible to throw a coin, rock or anything else across the various rivers without mechanical assistance. In the case of the Potomac, it is impossible. In the case of the Rappahanock (I used to canoe down the river a lot when I lived in Fredericksburg), it is just barely possible to throw well-chosen stone across at some places (a good "skippin' rock" will do it during low summer water). In the case of the Rappidan (the other possible location for the story), it would be easy - and even a coin could make it. So while our experiment doesn't prove that the Rappahanock was the river of choice (or, for that matter, that the event occurred at all), it is the more plausible choice.I imagine this type of logic can also be applied to other claims, such as the ones you and J are discussing. If it's physical, we should be able to test it.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-20-2005 11:18 AM

Oh, I get it. You're convinced you're the very definition of "spiritual maturity", but it doesn't apparently occur to you that you spent the first 40 posts of this thread ignoring your own topic and instead trying to defend yourself against imagined slights.They call that "pride", you know.We have seen the very spiritual mature; one of them posts here under the name "Truthlover." I'm sure I'm embarassing him but believe me when I tell you that a person at all concerned with spiritual truth, and not their own pride, would count themselves lucky if he chose to share his thoughts on this subject. Remember when you failed to establish that you had any eyewitness testimony whatsoever? That's still the case. Oh? You might want to reference your own "liberal journalist reporting methods" in that regard; Strobel was a journalist for the Chicago Tribune. Why? It's not like they were writing scriptures; they were writing letters to early churches. They had no expectation these letters would be bound in a Bible. Pride, pride, pride. I don't know why I thought I could learn anything from you; all you offer is the same recycled, discredited nonsense that passes for "apologetics" these days. I've read better from C.S. Lewis, for christ's sake, and he's widely regarded as one of the worst apologeticists in the Christian faith. You know, except to the people who lack enough discernment to see through his rhetorical nonsense and informal fallacies.