[quote]doogie wrote:
–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.
[/quote]
When you have a relationship with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit lives in you, this external evidence is more for interest’s sake than anything. Neither do I think that you or anyone else would be converted on the basis of this evidence.
By the way Doogie, I feel bad that I said I was done arguing with you about these things. (Well, I admit that I don’t really want to argue) I was exasperated mostly at the other thread (post here to accept Jesus), but I should not have taken it out on you. You have been very nice and pose honest questions. I’m sorry.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
haney wrote:
–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.
When you have a relationship with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit lives in you, this external evidence is more for interest’s sake than anything. Neither do I think that you or anyone else would be converted on the basis of this evidence.[/quote]
for clarification that is a reply to doogie, and not me.
[quote]haney wrote:
JPBear wrote:
haney wrote:
–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.
When you have a relationship with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit lives in you, this external evidence is more for interest’s sake than anything. Neither do I think that you or anyone else would be converted on the basis of this evidence.
for clarification that is a reply to doogie, and not me.[/quote]
I fixed it.
Oh, this is getting too good. But where did the “favorite bible verses” go. 
I’m going to sit back and watch… and do my research on the side.
On a different note: is anyone familiar with Ravi Zachorias? (spelling?)
He has some excellent points on many, many, many of the topics discussed here and more…
[quote]Stace22 wrote:
Oh, this is getting too good. But where did the “favorite bible verses” go.
I’m going to sit back and watch… and do my research on the side.
On a different note: is anyone familiar with Ravi Zachorias? (spelling?)
He has some excellent points on many, many, many of the topics discussed here and more…[/quote]
Yeah, a lot of different guys have done things similiar. It is usually though very layman oriented, and not much use when you get to the actual criticism of the text.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Stace22 wrote:
Doogie, is all of your evidence unbiased and objective?
just wondering…
I answered this right above as you were asking it probably.[/quote]
Scientists say there are millions of planets and galaxies, You’ve not seen them, but yet you believe it. It just stands to reason.
Gravity surely exists, you can not see it, yet you believe it. You can feel it and rely upon it.
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.
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?
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.”
From some of the writings of Calvin.
I do poorly at explaining it also. There are others that are far more gifted. Some have been mentioned here. Chuck Swindoll, Ravi Zacharious…etc… (sorry if I butchered the spelling.)
[quote]Stace22 wrote:
Oh, this is getting too good. But where did the “favorite bible verses” go.
I’m going to sit back and watch… and do my research on the side.
On a different note: is anyone familiar with Ravi Zachorias? (spelling?)
He has some excellent points on many, many, many of the topics discussed here and more…[/quote]
I frequent his website. Ihe has an archive of radio programs. I prefer to listen that way so that I can rewind to make sure that I understood what he said. If anyone is looking for an intellectual dbate on Christianity, he is your man.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
Stace22 wrote:
Oh, this is getting too good. But where did the “favorite bible verses” go.
I’m going to sit back and watch… and do my research on the side.
On a different note: is anyone familiar with Ravi Zachorias? (spelling?)
He has some excellent points on many, many, many of the topics discussed here and more…
I frequent his website. Ihe has an archive of radio programs. I prefer to listen that way so that I can rewind to make sure that I understood what he said. If anyone is looking for an intellectual dbate on Christianity, he is your man.
Me Solomon Grundy
[/quote]
Don’t forget RC Sproul in the mix for great scholars…
I think his website is ligonier.org
Scientists say there are millions of planets and galaxies, You’ve not seen them, but yet you believe it. It just stands to reason.
Gravity surely exists, you can not see it, yet you believe it. You can feel it and rely upon it.
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.
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?
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.”
From some of the writings of Calvin.
I do poorly at explaining it also. There are others that are far more gifted. Some have been mentioned here. Chuck Swindoll, Ravi Zacharious…etc… (sorry if I butchered the spelling.)[/quote]
Good Post!
[quote]haney wrote:
Don’t forget RC Sproul in the mix for great scholars…
I think his website is ligonier.org
[/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.
[quote]JPBear wrote:
haney wrote:
Don’t forget RC Sproul in the mix for great scholars…
I think his website is ligonier.org
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.[/quote]
I listen to him sometimes in the morning on the local radio station. One of the most incredible minds I have ever seen.
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]
All subterfuge and lies. How much of it do you believe yourself doogie? Are you such a deceiver that you are self-deceived?
Prov. 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.
I use scripture because:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - deep that, don’t miss it…
2Tim:3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
You proved early in this thread that you have plenty of knowledge about the christian faith. Therefore it is a waste of time to argue with you, an un-believer, the scriptures, that you use in a blasphemous manor.
And, contrary to your statement above, It seems like you would indeed delight in undermining others faith. This is why I warned you to have a care in my first post. It still apllies. God is not mocked.
Matt 18:6 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and to be drown in the depths of the sea.
As far your “intellect” goes:
You know as well as any here that none can prove to you what God has ordained must be received by faith.
1cor 1:18-21
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written,
?I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.?
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
There are many hard facts that support the Christian faith. But to have a relationship with the Jesus requires faith. God made the rules, and He supplies every need for the sincere seeker. If you truely want more than to endlessly run your mouth, you might begin by treating scripture reverently now that I have shown you it’s divine connection, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. God wants to do that, you are the only one in the way.
Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me.
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.
All subterfuge and lies. How much of it do you believe yourself doogie? Are you such a deceiver that you are self-deceived?
Prov. 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.
I use scripture because:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - deep that, don’t miss it…
2Tim:3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
You proved early in this thread that you have plenty of knowledge about the christian faith. Therefore it is a waste of time to argue with you, an un-believer, the scriptures, that you use in a blasphemous manor.
And, contrary to your statement above, It seems like you would indeed delight in undermining others faith. This is why I warned you to have a care in my first post. It still apllies. God is not mocked.
Matt 18:6 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and to be drown in the depths of the sea.
As far your “intellect” goes:
You know as well as any here that none can prove to you what God has ordained must be received by faith.
1cor 1:18-21
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written,
?I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.?
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
There are many hard facts that support the Christian faith. But to have a relationship with the Jesus requires faith. God made the rules, and He supplies every need for the sincere seeker. If you truely want more than to endlessly run your mouth, you might begin by treating scripture reverently now that I have shown you it’s divine connection, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. God wants to do that, you are the only one in the way.
Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me.[/quote]
Exceptional Post!
Haney,
Getting back to the contradictions discussions
You wrote, “I can’t answer that, but I think it is unfair of you to post something that you know can easily be explained away.” I never said it was easy to explain them.
In fact, the effort it must take to convince yourself that some of those rationalizations makes sense has got to be exhausting.
I still want to address the two creation stories in Gen 1 and 2.
First you went with:
When I pointed out that abbreviating has nothing to do with re-ordering, you posted this link:
http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html
Because I do have a level of respect for you, I’m going to assume you know nothing about JP Holding/Robert Turkel and only skimmed his response. Any way, these are links that demonstrate what kind of Christian Turkel is:
http://the-anointed-one.com/dishonesty.htm
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/silpost.htm
http://the-anointed-one.com/quotes.html
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=1376&page=1&pp=16&highlight=jp+holding
http://the-anointed-one.com/tactics.htm
You later said, “Since there are many ways to interpret Genesis I am not going to bother with an explination. I will say that I find Augustine’s version of events absolutly fascinating.”
If you aren’t arguing that any one interpretation can be proven to be correct, I guess I don’t really need to address any of the other contradictions.
Can you clarify for me if you are including the Old Testament in this claim? Would you be willing to provide a source?
Tacitus
The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus is Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals at least 70 years after Jesus’s crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. “Christus” is mentioned in Book 15:44:
From the way in which this is written, Tacitus did not claim firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity. He is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are serious difficulties which in this passage that prevent it from being taken as genuine. No other report that Nero persecuted the Christians has ever emerged. Multitudes of Christians cannot have been in Rome in 60 AD, unless Christian is being used more widely than it is today–for example to mean messianic Jews rather than believers that the messiah had come in Jesus. The term “Christian” was not in common use in the first century. Nero was indifferent to the religions in his city, and did not need any group to be his scapegoat because the rumour that he started the fire was an early slander of an unpopular man.
Damning to the authenticity of this passage is that it is cited, among obvious fairy tales, almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (d 403 AD). Again, no one before had mentioned this part of Tacitus, and nor do contemporaries. It was probably not in the manuscripts of Tacitus at that time, but copyists in the Dark Ages might well have copied the passage from the Chronicle into the manuscript of Tacitus they were reproducing.
http://essenes.net/m12.htm#tacitus
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian, (c. 56-120 CE)
Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author’s value in proving an “historical” Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on “those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians.” Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called “Christiani.” In support of this contention, Nero’s famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these “most-hated” sectarians.
In any event, the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of “Christus” (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, “was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.” The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a “vast multitude at Rome,” were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a “vast multitude” of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no “vast multitude” of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely “nothing but the product of a Christian’s imagination in the fifth century.” Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius’s discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.
Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as “Christ.” Also, Pilate was not a “procurator” but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus “was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians.”
Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus’s works, even though one of this Church father’s main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.
The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text “bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do.” Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus’s other writings of “the least allusion to Christ or Christians.” In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author.
It is a peculiar and disturbing fact that the entire Annals attributed to Tacitus never existed until their discovery by Johannes de Spire, at Venice in 1468, and that this sole copy, purportedly made in the 8th century, was in his possession alone. The history of the Annals begins with the Italian calligrapher, Latin scholar and Papal secretary Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), who, writing in 1425, intimated the existence of unknown works by Tacitus supposedly at a Benedictine monastery in Hersfeld, Germany. “The Annals” was subsequently “discovered” in a copy of Tacitus’s Histories at the monastery, in the sixteenth century. This text was not named “Annals,” however, until 1544, by Beatus Rhenanus.
In 1878, the “excellent Latin scholar” WJ Ross wrote the book Tacitus and Bracciolini, which evinced that the entire Annals were a forgery in very flawed Latin by Bracciolini in the 15th century. Ross’s work was assailed by various clergymen, who claimed the main defect in his argument was that “one of the MSS. [manuscripts] of the Annals is at least as early as the XI century.” In reality, the critics had not actually read Ross’s book, in which Ross does indeed address this purported 11th century manuscript, which he shows was merely pronounced by dictum to be early. Interested readers are referred to Cutner and Ross’s books for further discussion of this debate, which includes, in Ross’s dissertation, a minute examination of the Latin of the Annals. Suffice it to say that the evidence is on the side of those who maintain the 15th century date, in that the Annals appear nowhere until that time.
In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, “none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations.” Drews considers the Tacitus passage in its entirety to be one of these forgeries that just suddenly showed up centuries later, and he expresses astonishment that “no one took any notice during the whole of the Middle Ages” of such an important passage. Says he:
No one, in fact, seems to have had the least suspicion of its existence until it was found in the sole copy at that time of Tacitus, the Codex Mediceus II, printed by Johann and his brother Wendelin von Speyer about 1470 at Venice, of which all the other manuscripts are copies.
The reason for this hoax may be the same as the countless others perpetrated over the millennia: The period when the Annals were discovered was one of manuscript-hunting, with huge amounts of money being offered for unearthing such texts, specifically those that bolstered the claims of Christianity. There is no question that poor, desperate and enterprising monks set about to fabricate manuscripts of this type. Bracciolini, a Papal secretary, was in the position to collect the “500 gold sequins” for his composition, which, it has been claimed was reworked by a monk at Hersfeld/Hirschfelde, “in imitation of a very old copy of the History of Tacitus.”
Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are “reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus” that does not even provide information other than “the etymology of the word Christian,” or they are compelled “to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus.” Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a “notorious impostor.”
It is evident that Tacitus’s remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle’s Creed–to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author’s scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an “historical” Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.
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.
All subterfuge and lies. How much of it do you believe yourself doogie? Are you such a deceiver that you are self-deceived?
Prov. 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.
I use scripture because:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - deep that, don’t miss it…
2Tim:3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
You proved early in this thread that you have plenty of knowledge about the christian faith. Therefore it is a waste of time to argue with you, an un-believer, the scriptures, that you use in a blasphemous manor.
And, contrary to your statement above, It seems like you would indeed delight in undermining others faith. This is why I warned you to have a care in my first post. It still apllies. God is not mocked.
Matt 18:6 But whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and to be drown in the depths of the sea.
As far your “intellect” goes:
You know as well as any here that none can prove to you what God has ordained must be received by faith.
1cor 1:18-21
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written,
?I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.?
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
There are many hard facts that support the Christian faith. But to have a relationship with the Jesus requires faith. God made the rules, and He supplies every need for the sincere seeker. If you truely want more than to endlessly run your mouth, you might begin by treating scripture reverently now that I have shown you it’s divine connection, and ask God to reveal Himself to you. God wants to do that, you are the only one in the way.
Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with me.
Exceptional Post!
[/quote]
Indeed! Exquisite!
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Scientists say there are millions of planets and galaxies, You’ve not seen them, but yet you believe it. It just stands to reason.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
Gravity surely exists, you can not see it, yet you believe it. You can feel it and rely upon it. [/quote]
Wow. I can drop stuff and watch it fall down. No one claims to have a complete answer of gravity. Theories are proposed tested, adjusted, tested, adjusted. No one expects us to accept their explanation on faith. idrewthis.org - contact with domain owner | Epik.com
The Onion | America's Finest News Source.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
You are arguing that it makes sense to believe in God because you have comprehension problems? How am I supposed to respond to that?
We were discussing Christianity. Try to keep up.
[quote]
Yet you ask Christians for proof of something that is not provable in a human sense.[/quote]
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.”
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.
That’s what I said. Have your faith, don’t claim to have proof. No problems.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Haney,
Getting back to the contradictions discussions
You wrote, “I can’t answer that, but I think it is unfair of you to post something that you know can easily be explained away.” I never said it was easy to explain them.
[/quote]
That is out of context. I was referring to me agreeing with JP on how she interprets the Bible. I have never had a full discussion about how she views things. So I can’t answer that.
Isn’t that the way it is when you are looking for the truth?
I told you before that I don’t care for his attitude on most things, or how he deals with people. So yes I know, and have read much of his stuff. Alot of what he writes comes from Christian-thinktank.com also. However his work is what is at the crux. His take on G1, and G2 though is nothing new. Other writers have reconciled the two as well.
Now if you are looking to refute his claim then we can go forward.
I am not arguing that for Genesis. The reason why I am arguing that way for genesis, is because I have not decided personally which interpretation is correct.
A year ago I would have had a strict literl interpretation. Now I have a “I don’t know”, and I lean towards augustine’s. I.E. it being more metaphorical.
So that is why I am not arguing it.
I will debate G1 and G2 being a contradiction though.