|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
and ive also read SOME of the books that are not part of the regular bible today, it goes against what Jesus teaches. its like this all 4 gospels said the same thing, if a 5th came along and said completely different it gets tossed aside, is that wrong? science does that everyday doesnt it? A scientist would want to know which, if either, of the two accounts was true before deciding which one to "toss aside".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
lets say some scientists date a rock 123,000,000122,000,000 123,500,000 123,000,000 817,192,213 which one would be considered wrong? At that point you'd make more measurements. And you'd try to replicate the methodology of the fifth measurement. And you'd calibrate your measuring equipment. Oh, and you'd also check to see whether this was, in fact, the same rock. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To be fair, he has half a point, it's just that the analogy doesn't quite work.
Certainly we would judge the most likely hypothesis to be that the fifth date was wrong --- pending further investigation. When it comes to the Gospels, the sort of "further investigation" we'd want to do would be rather difficult. Perhaps we should drop the whole rock analogy, it's not helping.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
ok now WHY isnt the New testament part of the Canon? Have you ever heard of Judaism?
and where do you get these facts? how could people write what jesus said WORD for WORD many decades after his death? What makes you think they did write what Jesus said word for word.
and what makes you say its unknown people, John clearly states HE wrote John, i dont follow your logic Or, alternatively, someone else clearly states that John wrote John. The apocryphal Book of John the Evangelist also states clearly that it's written by John, and it is, moreover, in the first person, which is more than can be said of the Gospel of John --- but you don't accept the authenticity of the B.o.J.t.E, do you? I, John, your brother and partaker in tribulation, and that shall be also a partaker in the kingdom of heaven, when I lay upon breast of our Lord Jesus Christ and said unto him: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? [and] he answered and said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish: then Satan entered unto him and he sought how he might betray me ... It says it's by John, but in fact its author is unknown.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
plus, that reasoning would bite you in the butt. Then how can you personally believe anything to be facts with what your saying
By evidence extrinsic to the book in which I read a supposed "fact". In the case of the Gospel of John, there just isn't the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
im not sure if its PRIOR to 100 CE....whats CE? anwyay i dunno if it is but i have read texts of Roman guards writing about Jesus ... You really haven't. Memory can play odd tricks on you, perhaps what you read was a fictionalised account. --- Here's a Christian author writing about early non-biblical references to Jesus (Note: he may be wrong about the Babylonian Talmud). If any evidence of the sort you refer to existed, he'd have put it in. I hope this helps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
...*looks up extrinsic*.... what is the book you read? I mean any book. If I want to know whether something is fact or fiction, I can look at evidence external to the book. There's no point looking in the book, because many fictional or fraudulent books claim to be factual or genuine.
what evidence you lookin for in the Gospel of John again? It's not a question of evidence in John, but of evidence outside John. I guess the best evidence for John writing the Gospel attributed to him is that early Christians accepted it as genuine. (The earliest I can find is about 150 AD). But I don't know on what basis they accepted it as genuine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I FOUND IT!!! his name was Josephus, it was in the site you recommended... And he wasn't a Roman guard, he was a Jewish historian. You see, your memory was playing tricks on you.
LOL!!! OK so you are in my mind and know what i saw and didnt?! I don't have to be in your mind to know that you didn't just see a pig flying past your window.
thanks for that website Sure thing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Of course, if that was a true account of what atheists think, you wouldn't need to give it, you'd just have to wait for atheists to post on this thread and argue in the way you describe.
The only reason it's necessary for you to recite this nonsense is because it's untrue. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
sorta, i knew it was someone out of the bible tho i don't think josphious was in the bible By "out of the Bible" he means "not in the Bible". I guess he should have written "outside" instead of "out".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
makes sense, but....the bible is supposedly God inspired, but anything outside the bible is NOT Godly inspired so how can we use fraudulent data as proof of the bible? its like saying lets go ask a baby how a computer works! lol I think you've misunderstood me. My example of how I might check up on whether John really wrote the Gospel of John was that if I was living in his time, I might just find him and ask him. If he said "yes", then would this be "fraudulent data"? Sheesh, just go outside and look at a tree. It is not in the Bible. Is it "fraudulent data"? --- I'd like you to look at some of your posts:
then what about Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death? what about 200 other people who documented their accounts of meeting with Jesus? how much more do you need? im not sure if its PRIOR to 100 CE....whats CE? anwyay i dunno if it is but i have read texts of Roman guards writing about Jesus, ugh i forgot his name...ill have to look for it again. I FOUND IT!!! his name was Josephus, it was in the site you recommended... sorta, i knew it was someone out of the bible tho You start off with "200 people", and "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death" --- and you end up with one guy, Josephus, who was born several years after the Crucifiction. I don't wish to act all holier-than-thou, but I think your behaviour is wrong in two ways. First, by saying this stuff you might have fooled someone into thinking that these "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death" really existed, in which case you'd have been (unintentionally) spreading a lie. Secondly, you wish to spread the Gospel, do you not? Well, when you put up arguments this flimsy for Christianity, you're not making the Christian faith look good. When you defend the faith by talking about "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death", and it turns out that they don't actually exist, then that makes your whole position look foolish. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Whoever wrote the GoJ, it wasn’t any who was around Jesus and the disciples. John baptized Jesus, how could he have not been even near Jesus? Er ... * coughs tactfully * ... John the Evangelist and John the Baptist were two completely different people.
but then, does that destroy the validity of Josephus even after he was born "several" years after Jesus' death? i mean thats closer that 2000 years No, it doesn't destroy his evidentary value, but it does mean you were wrong when you claimed there were contemporary non-Biblical sources.
When you defend the faith by talking about "Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death", and it turns out that they don't actually exist, then that makes your whole position look foolish. well...not really considering how im saying that i just begun learning and am....again 19 years old and you guys are proffessors and such. I say nothing of your age, but I would make the point that if you've "just begun learning" about the Bible, then you're not the ideal person to demonstrate its divine origins to us "professors" and whatnot.
instead of saying, "it's ok thats what we are here for" you say "try looking up your info before acting like you know everything" ....very nice.... Well, it's what I do. If I advise you to check the facts before you start lecturing people about them, this is something I do myself. I have found it to be good advice, it stops me from saying things I regret. What are we here for? Well, I'm happy to answer questions. If you'd asked "what is the non-Biblical evidence for Jesus?" I'd have been happy to tell you without any remarks you might find hurtful. Instead, you come on these forums and starting telling us what the non-Biblical evidence for Jesus is, and getting it completely wrong. I have pointed out the problems with this as tactfully as I can. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The rocks, living things, the cosmos as well as human history, by observation, can be interpreted in whatever manner suits the fancy, but the words of the Bible are like your word "different." They mean what they say about the rocks, living things, the cosmos and human history. And yet I notice that there is rather more agreement on the age of the Earth amongst geologists (of whatever faith or none) than there is amongst Christians, or even amongst creationists. It is, apparently, much easier to reinterpret the Bible than to re-interpret the rocks. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If we Christians/creationists had one model programmed into our brains all the way up from pre-school through university doctorate we'd likely think alike also. Fortunately for science, "programming" can't stand up to repeated exposure to the facts. For example, the people who discovered that the Earth was old were all "programmed" to believe that it was young: but they studied the facts of geology. In the same way, people such as Glenn Morton and Steve Robertson were "programmed" by the cult of YEC to believe the Earth was young; and were both taught geology at the Institute for Creationist Research; but this faith couldn't stand up to actual contact with the evidence. To quote Glenn Morton:
quote: You may, therefore, lay aside your paranoid fears that geologists have merely been "programmed" to think that the Earth is old. They know it from repeated contact with the evidence; if the facts didn't fit, they'd be the first to notice. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024