[quote]JPBear wrote:
Here are some neat scientific facts in the Bible (from wayofthemaster.com):
[/quote]
the bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
Camels don’t divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
The earth won’t be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
The world’s language didn’t evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9; and
A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)
I will trust the textual critics on this one when they state that we are 99.9999% sure we have the full Bible.
the .0001% is because of those small copyist errors on the numbers.
Can you clarify for me if you are including the Old Testament in this claim? Would you be willing to provide a source?[/quote]
yeah, it has been a while since I looked at my notes. The actual number is 99.5(still impressive) and it is for the NT.
The OT.
Before the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls the oldest copy we had was from around 900 A.D.
When we found the DSS instead of having massive changes done to it. It remained almost untouched outside of some small spelling differences, and a few numbers being off. (I.E. copyist errors)
As for sources
The student of the history of Jesus is, from the point of view of textual criticism, on vastly safer ground than the student of the life of Julius Caesar or indeed of any other figure of ancient history.
~Moreland
Most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds than is available for the New Testament.
~Moreland
Compare that with the second-best-documented ancient historical manuscript, Homer?s Iliad, with 643 copies.7 And remember that most ancient historical works have far fewer existing manuscripts than that one does (usually fewer than 10). New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger remarked, ?In contrast with these figures [of other ancient manuscripts], the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of his material.?~Metzger
As far as who quoted that specifically It was Geisler who gave the credit to Metzger.
This argument is from a skeptic that isn’t arguing for the statements being genuine. He accepts them as that, but argues that his references to Christ are based on Early church tradition.
It is more specifically aimed at etdav.
There is inconclusive evidence that Tacitus had independent sources. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, writing in 115 CE, explicitly states that Nero prosecuted the Christians in order to draw attention away from himself for Rome’s devastating fire of 64 CE:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.[82]
Scholarly debate surrounding this passage has been mainly concerned with Tacitus’ sources and not with the authorship of the passage (e.g., whether it is an interpolation) or its reliability.[83] Various scenarios have been proposed to explain how Tacitus got his information. One possibility is that Tacitus learned the information from another historian he trusted (e.g., Josephus). Another possibility (suggested by Harris) is that he obtained the information from Pliny the Younger. According to Harris, “Tacitus was an intimate friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny and was therefore probably acquainted with the problems Pliny encountered with the Christians during his governorship in Bithynia - Pontus (c. A.D. 110-112).”[84] (Defenders of this position may note that Tacitus was also governing in Asia in the very same years as Pliny’s encounters with Christians [112-113], making communication between them on the event very likely.)[85] Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling mention a related possibility; they state that Tacitus’ information “is probably based on the police interrogation of Christians.”[86] Yet another possibility (suggested by Habermas and defended by McDowell and Wilson) is that Tacitus obtained the information from official documents.[87] (I shall say more about this possibility below.) It is also possible that the information was common knowledge. Finally, there is the view (defended by Wells, France, and Sanders) that Tacitus simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.[88] The bottom line is this: given that Tacitus did not identify his source(s), we simply don’t know how Tacitus obtained his information. Holding himself admits, “Truthfully, there is no way to tell” where Tacitus obtained his information about Jesus.[89] Therefore, we can’t use Annals XV.47 as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
McDowell and Wilson disagree. They give nine reasons for believing that “Tacitus had information other than what he heard from Christians”, which may be briefly summarized as follows: (i) Tacitus does not say he was repeating information obtained from other sources; (ii) “both Justin and Tertullian challenged their readers to go read for themselves the official secular documents;” (iii) as a Roman Senator, Tacitus had access to official records; (iv) on other matters, Tacitus states that he used reliable sources and followed the majority of historians; (v) Tacitus is careful to record conflicts in his sources; (vi) he does not quote his sources uncritically; (vii) he qualifies his opinion when others do not; (viii) he distinguishes between rumor and fact; and (ix) even if Tacitus did not have independent sources concerning the historicity of Jesus, he still records the fact that Christians were willing to be martyred for their beliefs.[90]
As I argued above, it is certainly possible that Tacitus obtained his information from independent sources. But have McDowell and Wilson been able to show that it is probable that Tacitus did so? Let’s consider each of these reasons in turn. (i), (vii) and (viii) are simply beside the point. To be sure, all Tacitean scholars believe that Tacitus in general was a very reliable historian who was trustworthy, critical of his sources, and usually accurate.[91] But there are exceptions to this rule. Michael Grant, quoting Tacitean scholar R. Mellor, notes that Tacitus occasionally reported stories which were false historically[92] but were true in a literary sense[93] or a moral sense[94]. Turning to Mellor, we read that
Besides relaying unverifiable rumors, Tacitus occasionally reported a rumor or report that he knew was false. When reporting Augustus’s trip to be reconciled with his exiled grandson Agrippa, he alludes to a rumor that the emperor was killed by his wife Livia to prevent Agrippa’s reinstatement… All the components of such a tale foreshadow the murder of Claudius by his wife Agrippina to allow her son Nero to succeed before the emperor reverted to his own son Brittanicus. Tacitus is content to use the rumors to besmirch by association Livia and Tiberius who, whatever their failings, never displayed the deranged malice of an Agrippina and a Nero. It is good literature but it can be irresponsible history.[95]
There is no good reason to believe that Tacitus conducted independent research concerning the historicity of Jesus. The context of the reference was simply to explain the origin of the term “Christians,” which was in turn made in the context of documenting Nero’s vices. Tacitus thus refers to “Christus” in the context of a moral attack on Nero. Remember that according to Michael Grant, this is the very type of story in which Tacitus might be willing to repeat unhistorical information. And if Tacitus were willing to repeat unhistorical information in such a context, surely he would be willing to repeat noncontroversial, incidental, historically accurate information (such as the historicity of Jesus) without verifying the matter firsthand. Besides, in the context of the passage, it is unclear that Tacitus (or anyone else for that matter) would have even thought to investigate whether “Christus” actually existed, especially given that Tacitus called Christianity a “pernicious superstition.” (To make an analogy, although I am extremely skeptical of Mormonism, I’m willing to take the Mormon explanation for the origin of the term “Mormon” at face value!) As Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, states:
Christianity is not part of Tacitus’s history. Except for the one reference in the Annales, he shows no interest in the new movement. When he adverts to Christians in the book it is not because he is interested in Christianity as such or aimed to inform his readers about the new religion, as, for example, he did in a lengthy discussion in another work, the Histories (5.1-13), but because he wished to make a point about the extent of Nero’s vanity and the magnitude of his vices, and to display the crimes he committed against the Roman people.[96]
That Tacitus was uninterested in Christianity is confirmed by Mellor:
For a man who served as governor of Asia his knowledge of Jews and Christians is woefully (and unnecessarily) confused, since the Jewish historian Josephus lived in Rome and Tacitus’s good friend Pliny knew something of the Christians. But Tacitus is contemptuous of all easterners–Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians alike–and he clearly thought them unworthy of the curiosity and research he lavised on court intrigues.[97]
Mellor concludes that Tacitus “scorned or merely ignored” the Jews, Christians, and other religious groups.[98] Since the historicity of Jesus was not in doubt at the time Tacitus wrote and since Tacitus’ reference to Christus is entirely incidental, Tacitus would have had no motive for investigating the historicity of Jesus. As far as Tacitus and his “political peers” would have been concerned, the fact that Tacitus did not investigate the historicity of Jesus would have been no strike against Tacitus’ “prestige and honor.”[99] On the contrary, Tacitus still would have been considered to be exhibiting high standards of professionalism and integrity at the time he wrote![100]
As for (ii), I have already addressed both Justin’s reference to an alleged document, ‘Acts of Pilate,’ and Tertullian’s reference to Tiberius. Neither the evidence from Justin nor the information provided by Tertullian make it probable that official Roman records confirmed the historicity of Jesus. Moreover, the records may have been destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt.
Turning to (iii), Harris has doubted whether Tacitus would have had access to the imperial archives,[101] but Holding has convincingly argued that if Tacitus had wanted access to some record, he could have gotten it.[102] Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that Tacitus had a motive for accessing those records. Moreover, we do not even know whether official records (now lost) said anything about Jesus.
Concerning (iv) and (vi), Grant notes that Tacitus was only skeptical “on occasion,” that he “persistent[ly] and lamentabl[y]” accepted many rumors, and that he “conducted extremely little independent research, quite often [he] quotes the sources that were available to him,”[103] a fact that is consistent with the hypothesis that Tacitus simply repeated what he learned from Christian sources. Grant quotes the following excerpt from Goodyear:
One feature very damaging to Tacitus’s credit is the manner in which he employs rumores. Of course, a historian may properly report the state of public opinion at particular times, or use the views of contemporaries on major historical figures as a form of ‘indirect characterisation’ of them. But Tacitus often goes far beyond this.
He implants grave suspicions which he neither substantiates nor refutes. Their cumulative effect can be damning and distorting… Time and again Tacitus is ready with an unpleasant motive, susceptible neither of proof nor of disproof.[104]
Again, we simply don’t have enough data to justify the claim that Tacitus probably had independent sources for his information about Jesus.
(v) is a non sequitur, not to mention an argument from silence. The fact that Tacitus does not mention any conflict in his sources is just as probable on the hypothesis that Tacitus obtained his information from Roman records as it is on the hypothesis that Tacitus learned his information from Christian sources. On the latter hypothesis, this would simply imply that none of Tacitus’ Christian sources doubted their own reports, which is precisely what we would expect even if Tacitus had obtained his information from Christian sources. This is completely inconclusive.
Finally, (ix) is irrelevant to determining whether Tacitus had independent sources. Yes, Tacitus testifies that Christians were martyred for their beliefs. But his testimony can only provide independent confirmation if he had independent sources, the very point at issue. (Besides, there is no reason to believe that Christians had a choice in whether they were martyred. Thus, even if they were not willing to die, they would have died anyway. Note that Tacitus does not report whether any of them tried to escape by recanting. Moreover, initially only Christians who were “out of the closet” were seized; they were forced to reveal the others who were unknown or in hiding. Finally, from Pliny’s letters, we know that many Christians in 112 were ready to recant their beliefs in order to save their lives. And there is no evidence that Christians in 64 had any better evidence to base their faith on than Christians in 112.)[105]
In short, at best, McDowell and Wilson have presented an inconclusive case for believing that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. And contrary to what some apologists (not necessarily McDowell or Wilson) have suggested, it is not just ‘Christ-mythicists’ who deny that Tacitus provides independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus; indeed, there are numerous Christian scholars who do the same! For example, France writes, Annals XV.44 “cannot carry alone the weight of the role of ‘independent testimony’ with which it has often been invested.”[106] E.P. Sanders notes, “Roman sources that mention [Jesus] are all dependent on Christian reports.”[107] And William Lane Craig states that Tacitus’ statement is “no doubt dependent on Christian tradition.”[108]
Rebuttal concerning Josephus using a skeptical source.
(He is even an infidel)
concerning Josephus passage
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”
My answer would be as follows. Even if the passage were out of context, that would still not make it likely that the passage is an interpolation. It was common for ancient writers to insert extraneous texts or passages which seemingly interrupt the flow of the narrative (whereas today the material would be placed in a footnote):
and concerning the other passage
“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought it before the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.[17]”
“According to Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged.”[18] However, since there a few scholars who deny the authenticity of this passage, let’s consider the arguments for and against authenticity.”
All of these are from the same article concerning etdav.
I find it interesting that he is willing to accept this as authentic, and not out of character for Josephus.
I’m don’t want to give the impression that I don’t believe Jesus existed. In fact, I think there almost certainly was a “Jesus”. I also think there was a Julius Caesar, but I don’t think he was a god, either.
I’m just pointing out that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence either way. Neither side of the debate can claim to prove Jesus did or did not exist.
With that said, don’t you think it is a tiny bit mis-leading to cut up the article and rearrange it like you did? Doing so, and then tacking your conclusion onto the end of the parts you chose to quote gives the impression that Lowder agrees with McDowell’s conclusion that Josephus proves Jesus existed:
This is the last paragraph of the Josephus section by Lowder:
[quote]
In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. However, given the centuries-old debate over how much, if any, of the Testimonium is authentic, McDowell’s mere quotation of the full Testimonium (combined with an acknowledgement that the quotation is “hotly-disputed”) is simply inexcusable. By itself, the unqualified quotation of the Testimonium in ETDAV gives readers the misleading impression that, although there is some unspecified controversy concerning the passage, McDowell accepts the full authenticity of the Testimonium. Furthermore, since skepticism concerning the authenticity of the Testimonium is fairly widespread, I think McDowell did a disservice to his mostly Christian audience by not answering these objections. Indeed, if McDowell had made it clear in ETDAV that his own view is that the Testimonium is partially authentic, that would have answered most of the objections. Of course, McDowell and Wilson have discussed the objections at some length in their 1988 book, He Walked Among Us. But many of their arguments for authenticity are weak; their response to one of the objections against authenticity is incomplete; and they neglected what I consider to be a very serious objection against their view.[/quote]
Is nobody going to post their answer to the Easter Challenge (even if they do choose one to cut and paste)? It’s the most important day in Christianity. Tell us what happened.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Is nobody going to post their answer to the Easter Challenge (even if they do choose one to cut and paste)? It’s the most important day in Christianity. Tell us what happened.[/quote]
I am working on it, and saving it for one of our last topics to discuss.
I’m don’t want to give the impression that I don’t believe Jesus existed. In fact, I think there almost certainly was a “Jesus”. I also think there was a Julius Caesar, but I don’t think he was a god, either.
I’m just pointing out that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence either way. Neither side of the debate can claim to prove Jesus did or did not exist.
[/quote]
I am pointing out that Josephus shouldn’t be counted as a bad source even though some of his writing is under debate.
I didn’t think mcdowell was the point. Which is why I cut it up. I know full well he didn’t agree with his conclusion, and pointed out his flaws. That is why I referenced the full link too. I knew you would read it for your self.
My point in cutting those out was to post what Lowder thought about those parts of Josephus, and not what he thought about mcdowell’s work.
Exclude Mcdowell from this reference and you can clearly see my point. Not intended to be misleading. I just know if I had referenced holding you would have kicked it back at me.
Personally I think etdav is a great starting book for apologetics. In the end I find it to be a very basic primer to the subject.
As for my post being misleading. It wasn’t my intention. If I wanted to intentionally mislead anyone I wouldn’t have used that article. I would have found someone much more prejudice. The real fault that I can take on is not making my point clear enough. I do apologize for that.
I wasn’t trying to imply that it was intentionally misleading, just that someone skimming the thread could easily take it as agreement.
A lot of Christians will not dwelve into the writings of skeptics, and a lot of the pro-Christian websites use statements from very open minded skeptics like Lowder out of context. I just wanted to make it clear that Lowder wasn’t conceding everything to McDowell.
Scientists say there are millions of planets and galaxies, You’ve not seen them, but yet you believe it. It just stands to reason.
Are you serious? It doesn’t “just stand to reason.” There are these really neat things called “telescopes” that let us see far away. No one claims to know exactly how many stars or planets there are. More importantly, no one claims an invisible guy in the sky told them how many stars there are. http://www.sdss.org/
Still ones we can’t see, do you believe in them?
Gravity surely exists, you can not see it, yet you believe it. You can feel it and rely upon it.
I think that’s exactly what they are doing. The Onion? Great source! Maybe Maddox has writings you can qoute too.
Think about what else your mind cannot grasp. Mine cannot grasp plenty, Astrophysics, the way the stupid toilet works, my fiance. Don’t understand it, but certainly glad they exist.
You are arguing that it makes sense to believe in God because you have comprehension problems? How am I supposed to respond to that?
I could care less how you respond doogie. You address every point just to be an irritating prick and don’t address the topic at all.
How do 2 people fall in love? Did the pine tree really evolve from a big explosion of nothing and then without a brain or capacity of any kind figure out how to continue to survive the ages?
We were discussing Christianity. Try to keep up.
Do you talk like this in public? Tough guy! Another brave internet debater with all the answers in flippant and belligerent form. IF your’e ever in Lincoln look me up and we can discuss face to face maybe in a more civil tone on your part. Or maybe not.
Yet you ask Christians for proof of something that is not provable in a human sense.
No. I ask Christians to prove claims like:
"The most important thing to remember when reading the Bible is that it is infallible and complete revelation of God to man. It was written by God through men and does not contain mistakes or contradictions.
We must approach scripture with a correct central interpretive motif. That is, all scripture should be interpreted in light of certain central truths. These truths include the sovereignty of God, that all things are intended for God’s glory, and that the path of salvation for man is through grace by faith alone."
We don’t ask you to prove your FAITH, just your various claims:
“There are also many non-christian sources around the time of Jesus who verify that he did exist and was crucified.”
You ask them to tell you how love works. You ask them to know the mind of God.
I’m going to ask for a source for anyone asking Christians to tell them how love works. I hope you weren’t bearing false witness.
I certainly have never asked that.
It cannot be done. God, Faith, Truth. To prove them is not in the nature of the thing.
That’s what I said. Have your faith, don’t claim to have proof. No problems.
Well as long as the whole discussion and issue is on YOUR terms man. It is all about YOU. Won’t fit in your box?
You’d have made a great gladiator doogie. You never would have died. You’d just keep missing the point.
I wasn’t trying to imply that it was intentionally misleading, just that someone skimming the thread could easily take it as agreement.
A lot of Christians will not dwelve into the writings of skeptics, and a lot of the pro-Christian websites use statements from very open minded skeptics like Lowder out of context. I just wanted to make it clear that Lowder wasn’t conceding everything to McDowell.
[/quote]
Understood. I guess that will always be a problem with an internet conversation. Intent can get twisted very quickly by a third party.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks! Psalm 137:9
Ecclesiastes 10:1
Dead flies make a perfumer’s oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor.
“Better to live alone in a tumbledown shack than to share a mansion with a nagging spouse.” Proverbs 21:9
“Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun- all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes 9:9
Ezekiel 23:20:
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Malachi 2:3 (King James Version):
Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 (New International Version):
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
2 Kings 2:23-24 (The Message):
23Another time, Elisha was on his way to Bethel and some little kids came out from the town and taunted him, “What’s up, old baldhead! Out of our way, skinhead!”
24 Elisha turned, took one look at them, and cursed them in the name of GOD. Two bears charged out of the underbrush and knocked them about, ripping them limb from limb–forty-two children in all!
1 Samuel 25:22 (King James Version):
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
“Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)
“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
“Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.”
(Ephesians 6:5)
“Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colassians 3:22)
“Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. " (1 Peter 2:18)
The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adultress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes. Hosea 3:1
“I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that.” II Corinthians 11:1
[/quote]
Yet you ask Christians for proof of something that is not provable in a human sense. You ask them to tell you how love works. You ask them to know the mind of God. It cannot be done. God, Faith, Truth. To prove them is not in the nature of the thing.
“Faith is the assurance of things unseen. Faith is a firm and solid confidence of the heart, by means of which we rest surely in the mercy of God which is promised to us through the Gospel.”
“I certainly admit to them that faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit, illumined by whom we recognize God and the treasures of His kindness, and without whose light our mind is so blinded that it can see nothing; so dull that it can sense nothing of spiritual things. But for one blessing of God which they proclaim, we recognize three. For the first, the Lord teaches and instructs us by his Word. Secondly, he confirms it by the sacraments. Finally, he illumines our minds by the light of his Holy Spirit and opens our hearts for the Word and sacraments to enter in, which would otherwise only strike our ears and appear before our eyes, but not at all affect us within.”
[/quote]
I haven’t read or heard much of Ravi Zacharias, but I know he is highly regarded. RC Sproul is awesome. Same with John Macarthur. I have a Geneva Study Bible (compiled by Sproul), but I would love to get a Macarthur study Bible.
I listen to him sometimes in the morning on the local radio station. One of the most incredible minds I have ever seen.
[/quote]
I haven’t read or heard much of Ravi Zacharias, but I know he is highly regarded. RC Sproul is awesome. Same with John Macarthur. I have a Geneva Study Bible (compiled by Sproul), but I would love to get a Macarthur study Bible.
I listen to him sometimes in the morning on the local radio station. One of the most incredible minds I have ever seen.
Ravi or Sproul on the radio?
If it’s Ravi… “Here! Here!”[/quote]
Sproul in the AM. I think you can listen to his broadcast over the web too.
Before I spend maybe an hour typing up some scientific facts and references for Doogie:
What is it that we’re talking about exactly? That the Bible is a true and historical document, is that it?
What is the issue in question, exactly?
Anything you want to pick, we can go with.
This is what I was probably going to do:
–address a couple of Haney’s responses to the contradictions
–to study up on the textual critics Haney says state we are 99.9999% sure we have the full Bible (after being sure he meant “the full Bible” and not the New Testament)
–address Tacitus
–ask JPBear to provide a link for her Charles Spurgeon article so that I can see the sources (I can find many “Manuscript evidence for the New Testament” articles, just none written by Charles Spurgeon)
–Warn everyone NOT to click on the the wayofthemaster.com link JPBear provided. It will give you a migrane no matter what your beliefs are. It’s like the worst Growing Pains episode you could ever set out to write.
–Point out how sad it is that people have devoted their lives without even doing the VERY simple research it takes to find out Josephus is crap. To still be citing him as proof Jesus existed is pitiable.
–Point out to Stace22 why it is debatable
that Jesus considered himself to be god.
–Finally, ask again, for any Christian on the site to answer the Easter Challenge. I don’t care if it is cut and pasted, but there has to be something for me to respond to (beside a list of links).
I want to be clear about my motivations. First, I get pissy when people say they can “prove” the Bible. These tend to be people who only look at one side of things (because there faith is so shaky). People who think it is “telling” that I was on infidels.org. People who are willing to just take other Christian’s “word” on the many controversies rather than doing any actual research.
I’m not trying to get someone to say,
“Holy crap! I’ve wasted my life! It’s all a farce!” I would feel terrible if someone lost their faith over something I posted or linked to or cut and pasted. If anything, it would be great for me to find that faith again. It’s a terrific sensation to believe you are walking around with God on your shoulder. I just can’t stand people saying they have “proof”.
Second, I really enjoy arguing on the internet about all kinds of things because it forces me keep looking information on both sides to try and keep up my side of the issue. I would never sit down and research anything I was curious about as thoroughly as I do when someone is leading me through half the information. Sometimes I will be a prick in order to keep the other side interested/fired up (and sometimes that backfires and they quit), but I don’t really take anything online personally.
It’s nice to go back and forth with people who do more than post Bible verses to validate the Bible(yes, I’m looking at you Zeb and BigBif).
I’ve never understood what they think that will accomplish. If you have faith because of something you witnessed, more power to you. Share your tale. If you felt God move your heart, who am I to question that. But to just post verse after verse that boil down to “I believe this book because this book told me to believe it” is a bit whacky. I’m sure over the years that tactic has driven thousands of people who were on the fence about the whole Christianity thing running away as fast as possible.
[/quote]
So what is next on the hit parade? Are you still wanting to talk about some of my contradictions? or are we moving on?
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
I’m sure that there are others. Buddha wasn’t one of them.
Solomon Grundy[/quote]
Absolutely. I was trying to point out that a lot of kooks have claimed to be Buddha, not that Buddha claimed to be God. I definitely wasn’t clear enough.