Theology IV

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by ElizabethAnnRoger

yeah, luckely, the pope (peter) decided that gentiles were allowed. From then on out they had to b circumsized. And God planned that for health reasons. So funny how our little agreement with God was actually planned with the thoughts of our health lol.

Ummm..inked, Gwai...I know you're usually deeply involved in your own theological niceties, but... a little help with Church history...

Or is it ignorance is cool, if it leads to the right beliefs?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Secondly... read what she said... I wasn't denying the existence of a man who was known as Jesus and the inspiration for Jesus Christ in the Bible, I was questioning whether or not he was truly the "son of God" and Messiah... It is in that area that the evidence is lacking. The Bible does not count as evidence. Those who are Muslim agree that a man named Jesus existed, but they do not think he was the Messiah... so my opinion is both well-founded and on topic.

What does that opinion matter, unless it's backed by evidence? The Muslims originated in the 7th century AD. The New Testament was written in the first. Muhammad was born in a tribal territory in Arabia. The Gospels were written by two of Jesus' original disciples and two other Early Church Christians who had access to the original disciples. Mark was thoroughly taught by Peter, and Luke wrote in the beginning of his Gospel that he was doing everything he could to construct an orderly and accurate account of the events that occurred involving Jesus. The Muslims had nowhere near the same level of access to accurate information that the writers of the Scripture had, so their late-developed deviations from orthodoxy are not compelling evidence.

There is a LOT of reason to believe the Scripture. I'll list some of the evidences:

1) The fact that it includes loads of embarrassing statements about the leaders of the Early Church, the disciples, is one important evidence. Most people trying to draw in support for their movement aren't so brutally honest about their leaders. There are other facts they revealed that would have been embarrassing to them in their own time- such as the fact that shepherds were the original witnesses of the miracles surrounding the Nativity, and that women (considered unreliable in any Jewish court at the time) are reported as the first witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. Also, Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" require some theological explaining for Christians. They aren't the sort of thing you report if you're willing to downplay damaging facts or exaggerate cool ones for the sake of your message.

There are lots of things in the scripture itself that show the authors of the Bible were doing their best to be as accurate as they could be.

2) The New Testament also refers to some spectacular miracles witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people, the kinds of things people could easily refute if trying, if those events were false. The Jews of that time period were hoping for a military Messiah who would save them from the Romans, so most of them didn't accept the message of Christ crucified, but the disciples still had to watch their facts as they knew any falsehood in their claims would be seized upon by the Pharisees to discredit Jesus. That's why, in the Bible, they commonly discuss miracles that were seen by large numbers of people. It strengthened the testimony that the people they were writing for could fact check these common knowledge events if they were curious.

Contemporary non-Christian historians like Josephus wrote about Jesus' large followings and the belief that he had performed many miracles that filled much of Israel. We also have records from the Pharisees in the Talmud, and they refer to Jesus as a sorcerer who used the power of demons to work signs. That's the same charge they're recorded as making of him in the Gospels, but we have it from their own writings, which shows that in their own time period they were unable to refute his marvels (just as the Gospels say), even though they had every motive to do so. They used the "demon" explanation instead.

3) In addition to these evidences for the accuracy of the New Testament, we have the very important fact that all the disciples except John and Judas died for their faith in Christ, according to the best information available from that time period about their fates. The only deviation in sources is over how some of them were martyred- not whether or not they were martyred.

"People have died for all kinds of different beliefs; that doesn't make them true," I'm sure you're thinking of saying. While that is true, I expect you'll agree that people don't tend to die for what they know to be a lie. The disciples had to know whether or not what they were saying was true, because they claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus!

So they knew how accurate or inaccurate their claims were, firsthand. The fact that all 10 of the men taken for their beliefs was willing to accept death in agonizingly painful ways, several times after torture, and did not give up their story is incredible. Normally, even if all 10 were telling the truth, we would expect at least one of them would buckle and recant. But to have 10 men willing to be tortured to death rather than recant lends incredible weight to their testimony. It shows that they were intensely convinced of the truth of their testimony, and were also astoundingly brave.

The fact that we have the testimony of people who proved their conviction of the truth of their eyewitness testimony under torture is an extremely powerful evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament. Thus it is very logical to read the New Testament as what they were convinced had occurred.

I read a story on BBC News, I think, a couple years ago suggesting that Jesus' walking on water might have been him standing on an ice drift. People come up with things like this to try to explain the events in the New Testament because the evidence that it records what the disciples truly were convinced they had seen is so strong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

I'm taking a religion course now, which is pretty much history of world religions. There's another class I want to take too, philosophy of religion. A lot of stuff I learned myself though. I read a good chunk of the bible when I was younger, and I got pretty into Catholicism for a while. I figured "If this is true, I think I better devote my life a lot more to God!" But, that just made me take it seriously, research, question, and eventually come to realize that I just couldn't believe it anymore.

I think that either you weren't asking the right people or sources for answers (perhaps they didn't know enough?) or you weren't looking carefully enough, for there are glorious answers to all the questions I've heard raised in challenge to Christianity for years!

Most people would really benefit, I think, from reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel or some of the other Christian apologetics books out there. There is so much information out there backing the truth of Christianity. It's an incredible wealth of evidence. I really encourage you to sift through it some more.

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There is a LOT of reason to believe the Scripture. I'll list some of the evidences:

These are mostly circumstantial, but good reasons nonetheless. Many of the same reasons I used to tell myself when I was questioning my faith.

I don't doubt that people who wrote the books of the New Testament were sincere. That doesn't mean they were right. People will believe a lot of things if they want to badly enough.

About the miracles witnessed by large amounts of people, I don't have an answer to that one without making a lot of assumptions. I will look into it. (Been reading the Bible for fun off and on lately, will make a note to look through the Gospels.)

Also, the ice drift thing is just dumb.

Anyway, even supposing Jesus performed miracles (verified by many people), which seems to be the only convincing reason you've given, that doesn't necessarily mean everything else is true. That doesn't make him the Son of God. None of that sounds very convincing to me in the bigger picture of the world. No apocalypse, no huge paradigm shift. I don't know what was the point. Maybe you have an idea?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

These are mostly circumstantial, but good reasons nonetheless. Many of the same reasons I used to tell myself when I was questioning my faith.

I don't doubt that people who wrote the books of the New Testament were sincere. That doesn't mean they were right. People will believe a lot of things if they want to badly enough.

About the miracles witnessed by large amounts of people, I don't have an answer to that one without making a lot of assumptions. I will look into it. (Been reading the Bible for fun off and on lately, will make a note to look through the Gospels.)

Well, here are some places to read about this. John 12:17 says that a "crowd" was with Jesus when he raised Lazarus (John 11). Matthew 9 describes the healing of a paralytic in front of a "crowd" (v. 8). In Matthew 14:13-21, we read of Jesus miraculously feeding 5,000 men, "besides women and children" (v. 21). And then he repeats this miracle in Matthew 15, feeding 4,000 men "besides women and children" (v. 38). That chapter also describes healings of lame, blind, crippled and mute people, "and many others" in front of "great crowds" (v. 30). But then in Matthew 16:1-4, we read a case where he refuses to give a sign to the Pharisees and Sadducees, because of their unbelief. In 1 Corinthians 15:6, we read that Jesus appeared to 500 disciples at once.

There probably are more such accounts in the Gospels- I only looked in Matthew and John, and didn't really do so with an intent at being thorough. Those were big signs, though.

There are actually much bigger signs in modern times, as it happens. Have you ever looked up the miraculous signs at Fatima or Zeitoun? If you haven't, I recommend googling those online.

Originally Posted by katya

Also, the ice drift thing is just dumb.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by katya

Anyway, even supposing Jesus performed miracles (verified by many people), which seems to be the only convincing reason you've given,

Oh, I wasn't trying to prove there that Jesus was the Son of God. I was offering evidence supporting the accuracy of the New Testament's historical accounts, not its theology (though I agree with you that the miracle evidence does lend support to Jesus' theological claims).

Originally Posted by katya

that doesn't necessarily mean everything else is true. That doesn't make him the Son of God.

The great evidence for Jesus' identity as the Son of God (something I wasn't trying to provide evidenciary support for earlier- I was just providing evidence for the accuracy of the New Testament) is his resurrection from the dead and ascension into Heaven. According to the Gospel of Matthew, the priests asked that guards be put in front of the tomb to keep Christ's body from being stolen (Matthew 27:62-66). These guards had an awful encounter with an angel that opened Jesus' tomb, according to Matthew 28. After that, the priests paid them to say that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus while they were asleep on watch. That explanation for the absence of the body was apparently a commonly known one among the Jews at the time Matthew wrote his Gospel (Matt. 28:15).

That story circulated in that time period had some major holes in it, of course, such as the fact that if Roman soldiers failed on watch, their lives were forfeit, so they tended not to fall asleep on duty. If the Christians were lying about there having been a group of guards, readers of Matthew would have been puzzled by that reference to what was supposed to be common knowledge: "this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."

Aside from the presence of guards, we have also the fact that Jesus' disciples claimed they saw Jesus and then died for their conviction. It's hard for eleven people to dream up the presence of a man who has a body that can not only hang around with you talking, but can also break your bread (Luke 24:30) and eat your food (Luke 24:42-43). John 20:24-29 describes how Thomas was convinced, while an extreme skeptic, of the reality of Jesus' resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15 includes a list of the people Jesus appeared to. The Gospels and Acts go into more detail on some of these meetings. But his resurrection and ascension really are the most important evidences for his divinity. They strongly establish that his power comes from God.

If the disciples had made it up, they wouldn't have all died horrifyingly excrutiating deaths for this story.

Plus, another important evidence I haven't yet talked about is that the New Testament is prophesied in the Old. There are over 200 prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New. The Jews at the time of Jesus only recognized as prophecies of the Messiah about 70 of those, and Jesus fulfilled them powerfully. Many of these were entirely beyond his control to purposely fulfill them- such as the date he was born (the date of the Messiah's coming had been foretold with precision hundreds of years before in the Book of Daniel), the place he was born, his eventual betrayal, and the manner of his death. Statistics experts have gone over the 70 prophecies acknowledged in that time period, and have calculated the possibility of someone fulfilling it all by accident. The odds are MASSIVE against it. It was like 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or something. It was a monumental figure against random fulfillment- and several of the prophetic fulfillments could not have been preplanned by Jesus.

Originally Posted by katya

None of that sounds very convincing to me in the bigger picture of the world. No apocalypse, no huge paradigm shift. I don't know what was the point. Maybe you have an idea?

There was a huge paradigm shift. Have you ever read about how Christianity conquered the Roman Empire? It consumed the entire known world of the time, which means our Western world (Catholicism) and much of the East, through Orthodox Christianity. The peaceful conquest of the Roman Empire through evangelism, in spite of severe persecution, is one of the incredible events of history.

Christianity also brought along a high moral code which only fragments of had been previously taught around the world. It was a revelation that began like a human child, small, struggling its way out of the womb of Israel, its mother. For a time, a child remains an infant- but then it starts to grow. Now, 1/3 of the world's population claims to be Christian. Not that they are actually all sincere believers following Christ, but the change nonetheless is dramatic. The moral code they follow, when it is truly followed, also allows for some of the most beautiful lives of goodness the world has known. Which is, of course, what Jesus intended when he offered us his teachings.

Though I shouldn't emphasize too much here chosen acts of morality. It is Jesus' power, in our experience, that offers the grace to live lives of holiness.

I've only talked so far about the visible changes. The invisible changes are also tremendous. Jesus' death, we believe, purged all who follow him of their sins, and his resurrection raises them up to everlasting life. The experiences of forgiveness and transformation around the world, including incredible changes in the lives of criminals and vicious killers, that have resulted have beautified the surface of the world. That is the power of Jesus' blood, experienced in our day as it was 2,000 years ago in the accounts of the Book of Acts. People's souls are being changed. Saint Peter said, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

This assessment he gave was true. The other major religions of the world teach people to work their way up to God, whereas Christianity involves a God who grew up as an ordinary person in an ordinary environment (as most humans do), one who became truly one of us, and who through his love expressed on the cross transforms us if we follow him.

[Empress_Flynn]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh, I wasn't trying to prove there that Jesus was the Son of God. I was offering evidence supporting the accuracy of the New Testament's historical accounts, not its theology (though I agree with you that the miracle evidence does lend support to Jesus' theological claims).

Did you not really understand my post... because this was the whole point of it. I never said Jesus the man didn't exist... I said that there was little proof of him being the son of god, the messiah, whatever you want to call him. I think a man named Jesus did exist, that he did some good things, but I do not hold him up as the son of God or the messiah...

As for the New Testament evidence that you offer, I'm still not convinced of its accuracy. I know too much that has been changed, altered, outright false (in terms of the creation of the world), or that is contradictory within the text to hold it as concrete evidence.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

And that's only if Jesus existed at all!



Eh... circumcision really has no bearing on health... it's more an aesthetic thing...

Personally I quite like uncircumcised...

EF,
Sorry you missed the at the end of my response to this quotation. It was meant to indicate tongue in cheek at your above initial quotation and in regard to the theology of circumcision as opposed to personal preference for the state of circumcision.

I am not ignoring your subsequent posts, but have not had time to address them.

Please be patient. I will be back.....

[Empress_Flynn]

Well gosh it seems like one little eek face was supposed to mean a whole slew of things that weren't read into it!

Maybe next time we'll both be clearer

Looking forward to more healthy debate!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Don't hold your breath.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Did you not really understand my post... because this was the whole point of it. I never said Jesus the man didn't exist... I said that there was little proof of him being the son of god, the messiah, whatever you want to call him.

My post was intended to offer a good deal of evidence countering your claim that "the Bible does not count as evidence." If it's historically accurate, as I was making the case for it being in my post, it does indeed count as evidence. And in that case we have to deal with a Jesus that rose from the dead.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

As for the New Testament evidence that you offer, I'm still not convinced of its accuracy. I know too much that has been changed, altered, outright false (in terms of the creation of the world), or that is contradictory within the text to hold it as concrete evidence.

Such as?

This claim is often made, but whenever I've seen someone take a couple scriptures and make the case, it has turned out to be completely groundless.

Be careful to avoid falling into one of the major traps people fall into when arguing this, also: That if something isn't mentioned in one Gospel, that Gospel is claiming it didn't occur. If I told you for a while about someone's life but didn't mention some story in it, my omission of the story doesn't make anything else I said untrue.

The Creation story is the thing you honed in on, a logical place to start. In explaining about that, I'd like to draw your attention to two very important facts about Genesis 1.

1) Man is reported as being created on the sixth day (and on the seventh, God rested). Therefore he could not have seen any of the days that came before the one on which he was created. For him to know what happened on the previous five days, God must have told him.

Now, in what ways does God speak to people in the Bible? Commonly through dreams and visions, which use symbolic language. The number 7 is common in such symbolic language, a symbol of the perfection of God. See Revelation, a book that is entirely visions and which is PACKED with symbolic use of the number 7.

Genesis 1 would have had to have been revealed to man, and God's revelation VERY often comes in dreams or visions, symbolic language. It's probable that that's what God did in Genesis 1. Logically speaking.

2) Genesis supports the Theory of Evolution. Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

The land, or environment, did create the different kinds of creatures, according to the Theory of Evolution. This verse doesn't say God went "poof" and there they were, but that the land created them- exactly what scientists say.

[Empress_Flynn]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My post was intended to offer a good deal of evidence countering your claim that "the Bible does not count as evidence." If it's historically accurate, as I was making the case for it being in my post, it does indeed count as evidence. And in that case we have to deal with a Jesus that rose from the dead.

I still maintain that the Bible cannot and will never be able to count as evidence in the case of Jesus being the son of God. At least not on its own. Show me physical evidence, show me fossils, show me verifiable places, people, objects, and I would be more willing to believe.

Instead, what do we have? We have one book, written a long time ago by different people, with factual errors.

If we were to take this book as the be all and end all, as complete fact and solid evidence for the existence of Jesus as the Messiah, then that would have to mean that all other religions of the world were wrong. This is a statement I will never be willing to make because I don't think any of them are wrong. I don't think any of them are right either, but I do think people should be allowed to worship as they choose.

Not to mention that religion has the ultimate proof even of existence of God, which would be paramount to proving everything else. That is something that must be taken on faith because there is no proof.

Such as?

This claim is often made, but whenever I've seen someone take a couple scriptures and make the case, it has turned out to be completely groundless.

Be careful to avoid falling into one of the major traps people fall into when arguing this, also: That if something isn't mentioned in one Gospel, that Gospel is claiming it didn't occur. If I told you for a while about someone's life but didn't mention some story in it, my omission of the story doesn't make anything else I said untrue.

I never made a claim like the one you've mentioned: the common trap people fall into. I don't see a lack of mention in one gospel of something that happened in another to be a contradiction... that would be ridiculous.

However, I know there have been date changes... the date of the birth of Christ for example was not originally December 25th. I believe it was in March... but when converting from the old pagan religion to Christianity, some of the dates were changed to correspond with old Pagan holy days to make it easier on the people.

I mean, come on, that's a big thing to just fib about...

I also know that little things like what is commonly known as "the number of the beast" or 666 were altered in those gospels that were published. A completely unpublished section of the Bible was discovered in which this number was actually 616, not 666...

These things may not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but when you add up all the little things that were changed... how can you truly trust some of the rest?

2) Genesis supports the Theory of Evolution. Genesis 1:24 says:

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

The land, or environment, did create the different kinds of creatures, according to the Theory of Evolution. This verse doesn't say God went "poof" and there they were, but that the land created them- exactly what scientists say.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not seeing how that really supports evolution. Yes, it says the lands makes the creatures, but it doesn't say "and let those creatures each change and develop overtime as is needed to adapt to the surroundings."

Plus, that's not the only aspect of creationism that is suspect... the Earth is millions and millions of years old... the Bible accounts for how much of that? Oh yeah... a few thousand. It just doesn't add up! We have concrete physical proof about the age of the Earth if we accept the theory of a creation other than a godly one... all we have in favor of Creationism is that Bible again...

[BeardofPants]

You might as well take a chill pill, EF, he ain't gonna come 'round to your way of thinking.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I find it rather doubtful that Jesus existed at all.

[Empress_Flynn]

Lol... I really don't care if he does come around to my thinking... in fact, I like that there is a diversity of beliefs in the world...

I just don't like it when there's no acknowledgment of differing beliefs...

I'm more inclined to believe in his non existence than his existence, myself, but there's always the possibility...

It just irks me that people use the Bible as concrete proof of that!

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

You might as well take a chill pill, EF, he ain't gonna come 'round to your way of thinking.

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I find it rather doubtful that Jesus existed at all.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Lol... I really don't care if he does come around to my thinking... in fact, I like that there is a diversity of beliefs in the world...

I just don't like it when there's no acknowledgment of differing beliefs...

I'm more inclined to believe in his non existence than his existence, myself, but there's always the possibility...

It just irks me that people use the Bible as concrete proof of that!

Eagerly shakes BoP and EF's hands, nodding and saying "Yes, yes, yes! Bravo!"

[Empress_Flynn]

*feels her entire body shaken to bits in Coffee's vigorous handshake*

Yay

[BeardofPants]

Oi guv, you've just shaken me tits clean 'orf.

[katya]

BoP- LOL wtf

Ok Lief, so you're pretty much primarily using the bible as proof of itself. The words of the bible come off as sounding undeniably sincere. But how much of the events are supposed to be taken symbolically? How much of it has been altered over time? I think I'm going to need more outside evidence to be convinced.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There was a huge paradigm shift. Have you ever read about how Christianity conquered the Roman Empire?

Somewhat. Here's the story as I have heard it. Jesus picked up a few followers. Many people were attracted to the religion (whether or not they believed it) for some of the following reasons: it's cheap (you don't need bulls to slaughter like in Mithraism), women were given a lot of equality so it sounded nice to them and also they weren't killed as frequently so their population grew, you didn't have to be circumcised or follow Jewish law, also you don't have to worry about worshiping a lot of other gods. Overall an attractive religion.

Then along comes Constantine, I'm sure you know the story of how he made Christianity legal and how it became the official religion. He was looking for a great unifier, and Christianity seemed like something convenient to use. He made it beneficial for people to become Christians.

The church pretty much starts going downhill and away from Jesus' teachings fast. Churches become political and financial. Arbitrary doctrines are decided upon. Things like the Crusades happen.

Anyway what I'm getting at is, it's not like suddenly everyone is saved and turns to Jesus. The ones who do seem to do so for earthly reasons the same as anything else. War and violence are still widespread. Not all Christians even believe it or follow Jesus' simple commandments of love, especially as Christianity becomes compulsory. There are instances (many, I'm sure) of good Christians who do really follow Jesus but no more than there are good Muslims and Buddhists and Jews.

About the invisible changes: are you saying Jesus died horribly so that we would be forgiven of our sins? Is this the explanation people came up with when Jesus didn't follow through on the rest of what he was supposed to do, as the Messiah? I think it's a very strange thing to believe. First, why should we be born sinful? It's terribly unfair. Second, why should Jesus have to suffer for us? That sounds kind of unfair too. It sound like we're suddenly off the hook. Why didn't it just start out that way, that we be saved through faith in the Jewish God? Third, what about the people who never hear in their life about a guy named Jesus? Are they not saved because they can't believe in him? Why would He come along to just one area of the world? It just doesn't feel right to me.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince anyone either way, I'm mostly just trying to throw ideas out there and play devil's advocate and see if anyone can change my mind about anything.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

I still maintain that the Bible cannot and will never be able to count as evidence in the case of Jesus being the son of God. At least not on its own. Show me physical evidence, show me fossils, show me verifiable places, people, objects, and I would be more willing to believe.

I'm not convinced of that, frankly. I've never met anyone that open-minded.

But I did provide you and katya a series of evidences in post 262 supporting the reliability of the New Testament. Your main response was to change the topic by pointing out a handful of supposed contradictions . . . but in any other ancient history manuscript, a handful of contradictions (just assuming for the sake of argument that they're real) by no means invalidate the accuracy of the rest of the account. The existence of contradictions would be a valid argument against the New Testament being inerrant, but I wasn't trying to prove that the Bible was inerrant. I was setting up a case for its being overall very historically accurate. Certainly historically reliable about big things, such as eyewitness testimony about the resurrected Jesus that the eyewitnesses were laying down their lives for.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Instead, what do we have? We have one book, written a long time ago by different people, with factual errors.

Factual errors exist in countless history books and ancient history manuscripts. That does not invalidate them as overall unreliable books. If factual errors were discovered in the New Testament, that would not discredit major themes, messages or historical events described in the books except those found to be in error. If I tell you I went to the bank and signed a check for $150, and you went to the bank and found that no check for $150 had been sent, that wouldn't discredit my having gone to the bank and signed a check. It would only show that I was wrong about the precise amount of money I'd paid.

Now, if you came back and told me there was no check for that amount of money sent, and I told you there sure was, and I'd be willing to bet you $1000 that there was, suddenly it's very clear that I am convinced of what I said. Even if wrong.

The disciples, ten of them, made that bet a million times over. They were willing to die under torture and refused to change their story. People do that when they are convinced that they are telling the truth.

You asked for evidence outside of the Bible itself- that is a big one from outside of the Bible itself (though at least one of these deaths -- maybe two -- is recorded in the New Testament, I believe).

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

If we were to take this book as the be all and end all, as complete fact and solid evidence for the existence of Jesus as the Messiah, then that would have to mean that all other religions of the world were wrong. This is a statement I will never be willing to make because I don't think any of them are wrong. I don't think any of them are right either, but I do think people should be allowed to worship as they choose.

I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. Suppose your final stated belief is true, and all people should indeed be allowed to worship as they choose. It doesn't follow from that that all religious are neither right nor wrong. What is that middle ground anyway? How can a belief about the state of reality be neither right nor wrong (unless it's partly right and partly wrong, which is possible, but which is still a composition of rights and wrongs, not a negation of both)?

Also, the Scripture is far from the only source of evidence supporting Jesus' claims. We also have the writings of the Early Church Fathers, who received their teaching from the apostles, so we have the testimony of Jesus' early supporters and the successors of the people he gave his teachings to.

We also have writings from contemporary non-Christian historians and from the Jews themselves about Jesus. There's a lot of evidence you're conveniently sliding by.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Not to mention that religion has the ultimate proof even of existence of God, which would be paramount to proving everything else. That is something that must be taken on faith because there is no proof.

There is lots of evidence. Miracles are still going on in the 21st century. For some of the big 20th century ones, google "Fatima" (witnessed by tens of thousands of people and reported in many newspapers) or "Zeitoun" (witnessed by millions of people and filmed by the international press).

I can get you more big physical, verifiable evidences like that. Those two cases I offered are some of the most spectacular, but there are many other big and spectacular ones.

There are other evidences . . . I can just go on and on on this topic, but it tends to not be of any use. People are incredibly closed.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

I never made a claim like the one you've mentioned: the common trap people fall into. I don't see a lack of mention in one gospel of something that happened in another to be a contradiction... that would be ridiculous.

Agreed, and I know you didn't. It's just a lot of non-Christians do, so I just thought I'd warn you in advance.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

However, I know there have been date changes... the date of the birth of Christ for example was not originally December 25th. I believe it was in March... but when converting from the old pagan religion to Christianity, some of the dates were changed to correspond with old Pagan holy days to make it easier on the people.

I mean, come on, that's a big thing to just fib about...

First of all, that's not something that happened in the scripture. So it's not an error in the Bible. The Bible is silent on the precise day or month of Jesus' birth.

Second, the Church did not "fib" when they made December 25th the day Jesus' birth was celebrated. They chose repeatedly to celebrate Christian holy days on the dates of pagan festivals to turn pagans from their customary idolatrous practices to events celebration God. They did not pretend, to my knowledge, that December 25th was the actual day Jesus had been born.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

I also know that little things like what is commonly known as "the number of the beast" or 666 were altered in those gospels that were published. A completely unpublished section of the Bible was discovered in which this number was actually 616, not 666...

We have writings from Irenaeus about the Book of Revelation that date to a century prior to the 616 document, and he wrote that the 616 was a transcribing error made by some Greeks. It is no wonder that most Bibles don't include that version.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

These things may not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but when you add up all the little things that were changed... how can you truly trust some of the rest?

It's nonsense to say that because a tiny handful of things are wrong, all the rest is unreliable. Especially when large parts of the New Testament can be verified through non-Christian contemporary historians and writers. And that is the case.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not seeing how that really supports evolution. Yes, it says the lands makes the creatures, but it doesn't say "and let those creatures each change and develop overtime as is needed to adapt to the surroundings."

It's not a textbook! But that doesn't make its description of what happened inaccurate in the least! It says the land developed the creatures "according to their kinds," making each species the way it is. "Over time" is taken for granted- it would have to take SOME amount of time for this transformation of animals by the environment to take place, whether a few seconds or millions of years (the Bible doesn't specify). In any case, this is a support for evolution's principle of environment changing the species.

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Plus, that's not the only aspect of creationism that is suspect... the Earth is millions and millions of years old... the Bible accounts for how much of that? Oh yeah... a few thousand. It just doesn't add up! We have concrete physical proof about the age of the Earth if we accept the theory of a creation other than a godly one... all we have in favor of Creationism is that Bible again...

I already explained this in point 1 of post 270.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Empress_Flynn

Lol... I really don't care if he does come around to my thinking... in fact, I like that there is a diversity of beliefs in the world...

I just don't like it when there's no acknowledgment of differing beliefs...

I'm more inclined to believe in his non existence than his existence, myself, but there's always the possibility...

It just irks me that people use the Bible as concrete proof of that!

It irks me how people assume there is no evidence supporting the reliability of the New Testament when they know nothing about what the contemporary non-Christian writers had to say about what was going on in Israel at that time. And they have not done much if any research on the Bible, which often they have not even read! It's ridiculous. Though it is natural that we think that way, because we often grow up surrounded by people who believe that way. It's the voice of a culture and it's the voice of ignorance. It has little or nothing in common with knowledge or reason. It's essentially a pack mentality.

[ElizabethAnnRoger]

jeez poor ef is getting quoted to the limit...
so why do ppl think that their church is the right one when they all branched from the one church...roman catholic church! everyone makes up wat they want to believe and break off from this to this to this. has anyone notcied that the catholic church is the only church that has been around for 2000 yrs? and that ppl branch off from it? maybe?