Why you believe what you believe I

[Rían]

That's why I made that important note that the mud the children started out in had dangerous bacteria in it and was harmful to them.

There IS such a thing as good, healthy mud!

NOW - what to do, what to do? Do I continue on with my chronological plan, or do I comment on comments on earlier posts, which technically came after the other posts, but are comments on the earlier posts, so are they considered earlier or later ... *babbles off into the distance*

[Lief Erikson]

I love how you ask such good questions, Elemmire .

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Two questions:

Okay, unfortunately I have not researched the material of your two questions as thoroughly as I have the case of the New Testament. I will answer as best I'm able, but it will doubtless be not nearly so good or complete an answer as another better educated Christian could give you.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

1) What about the Old Testament?

When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, there was one aspect of what was discovered that was particularly marvelous to Christians. They discovered that the Massoretic writings were cared for with enormous precision. The Jews purposely destroyed those documents which grew too old, because they were considered less reliable. They were ultra-careful when copying an older document to make sure that not a single scratch of the pen went awry. They were the most perfectionist keepers imaginable, and they took care of Old Testament documents.

The oldest Old Testament writings were those written by Moses, the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is a single book that contained the five earliest books of the Bible. Literary evidence and archaeological research have consistently undercut most of the arguments against Mosaic authorship. I'm afraid I can't get into a great deal of details as to all the evidence, though. One of the difficulties of not being well enough informed .

Originally Posted by Elemmire

2) Okay, this one may be somewhat contraversial, but Bible discussion compelled me to bring it up. Christianity became the official religion in Rome because of Constantine, in about 300 AD, who, according to some historians at least, sought to use it as a religious and political uniting force for a failing Rome.

From what I've heard, though so far I haven't been able to find much documentation (since the Internet is oh so reliable ) the modern Bible itself was in part compiled by Constantine, whose motives were far more secular than religious. Therefore, much of what we know from the Bible is what Constantine decided was important for his subjects to believe. Do you see the conflict here?

Any insights into the more historical problems, or do I need to go back to history class ?

Okay, again, unfortunately I'm not so well informed on this as I would wish. However, I believe the actual correct way of saying it is that the modern Bible was compiled under Constantine, rather then by Constantine. It was a large assembly of church leaders that decided which books were to be included in the Bible. They decided based on content of the books, church tradition, and some other means. Unfortunately I don't remember them, offhand. Some of the books proposed for entry into the Bible contained things like polytheism, restriction of womens' rights, all kinds of off-target material. The church leaders removed those books. They used their own wisdom and discretion, and I believe they also followed the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They also chose from books that were consistently accepted as scriptural from church tradition.

I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer here. If you specify the arguments and evidence supporting the chance that Constantine manipulated which books were put in the Bible, I'll research it and bring you back an answer.

[Rían]

OK, I think at least I'll finish up Ñólendil's one post - there's 2 paragraphs left - then I'll just kinda go with the flow.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

God does not seem loving to a lot of people, including myself, when he damns people to Hell for eternity, however grievious and horrible the crimes and sins. And if God does not do it out of love, then it may bring to light the question of how good and just God is at all.

You could say that God is good, and there is no questioning that, and you could say that God is also mysterious. But the thing about that in terms of discussion is, you cannot share deepfelt convictions with others. I mean, no one can feel exactly what you feel. There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what I believe, and that's how it is," or "This is what it says in scripture, and if I feel I don't agree I will pray to God and wait for Him to reveal the truth to me." But there's not much practical discussion that can stem from that, and the statements aren't designed to encourage practical discussion. So you have to speak with the mind, even if you feel with the heart.

So that's why I think these philosophical problems I am bringing up are valid to discuss. If you follow through the issues, though, you may wonder, "Are these questions even practical to discuss intellectually?" Is God's justice real justice? I mean, look at where this question is coming from and what it is really asking. Of course if God has justice, then it must be real, and probably the only real justice. But what is God's justice, and how do we reconcile the Heaven/Hell model with the loving God idea? For many there is no contradiction here, but what about those people for whom the contradiction exists? Can damnation be a reality, can God love even those who he damns to hell?

These are the problems I am interested in.

I'm interested in them, too - I think they are very important questions, and I believe I would be right with you, Ñólendil, in preferring Hell to a Heaven I thought was unjust.

Let me answer the question by turning it around - can YOU come up with a solution? Here's the assumptions : God is loving, God is just (and I'm crossing my fingers that everyone knows that word! Sometimes when I say "God is just", I get people asking "He's just what? It's such a good word, I hate to lose it!) - ok, starting over - God is loving, God is just, God gives people free will (and no, Lief, I will NOT discuss free will with you until you do your homework assignment, you naughty boy!) - ok, starting over - God is loving, God is just, God gives people free will, salvation is freely available to all and no one can say they didn't have enough information to choose rightly. SO - what is to be done if someone really, truly does NOT want to acknowledge their sin and their need for God's redemption and the rightful authority of God over them? What can be done? Shall one unrepentant person, who wants to hang on to their sin, be given the right to hold the rest of the entire universe hostage? What other solution IS there? What other solution can there possibly BE?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Okay. I'll use "faith" from now on.

Faith also often is spoken of with incorrect meaning. People think Christians have "only faith" to rely on, just as they think Christians have "only belief". Belief, the whole belief, and nothing but the belief, so help me God . I have major, major problems with this view.

Take the Apostle Paul, for example. He had a light fall down on him from heaven, heard words, saw Jesus Christ resurrected. He performed miracles and had his faith verified daily. Yet he lived by faith. So that's the kind of faith I'm talking about. Faith that is backed up powerfully by personal experience and all manner of evidence.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

I have to admit, this is a better analogy than the alien one. I still have several problems with it. This one is less important, and deals primarily with the analogy, I think: I would consider my mother's friends to be her peers as well. However, unless I forget all my Christian schooling, according to Christianity, God is peerless, since he created everything and no created thing can be equal to it's creator (someone said that earlier... I can't find it now). Thus, no friends to anger.

Yeah. Well, I was referring to the presence of friends not because I think God has some peer like that who can argue with him if he does wrongly. I was referring to them simply as a form of evidence which can compel us to believe the mother will have something to back what she says. I simply was harking again to the existence of evidence.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Of course, and more importantly, you refer to a mother as someone known and loved. Now, if you had said "father," I could have more easily countered that statement. I don't know my father, and hardly ever have. If he had promised me a car, I would not know whether or not to believe him. I would have to assume that he loved me, but I would not know for sure...

I'm very, very sorry to hear that.

My mind does turn upon hearing these words to another rather neat possibility, though. Though you miss a marvelous experience of having an earthly father, you don't miss out on the opportunity of having a father. God is a father also, and he can be your father. You have definitely had a terrible experience of missing out on the wonderful experience of having a loving earthly father. Fathers are meant to interact with their children, love them and be an active part of their lives. God the Father is like that. You know how I referred to the Apostle Paul's experience of encountering God. Most people's experiences of encountering God for the first time aren't nearly that dramatic. However, they certainly are usually major turning points in their lives.

Originally Posted by Elemmire

God is also someone I can not claim to have personally known, of Him I know only what I have heard from ministers or read in a Bible. I am desperately trying to argue this from a Christian instead of an atheist point of view, but I don't think it's going to work, so I'll stop here.

I completely understand your point, and let me just say this. Many Christians have not experienced God personally, and some of them would even agree that all we have is belief. It is not true, though. God is a father, a real father, a father who is here now. When I say this, I mean a real father, a real, interactive father. Have you read the Bible? In that, you'll see God actively TALKING TO PEOPLE! He talks to people, he interacts marvelously in their lives. He spurs heroism that causes people to be willing to be martyred for him. They weren't martyred because they believed they would have eternal life that way. They were martyred because they would not deny the one that they knew intimately and loved with all their hearts. I'm talking about real, objective experience here. Jesus said, "he who asks receives, and he who seeks finds. To him who knocks, the door will be opened." He promised success to whoever searches truly for God. The one who seeks will find. And he won't just find a religion, or a faith, or happy comfort in the knowledge of the afterlife and that he has such a loving God. He finds a life transforming experience of a marvelous creator who will live with him, interact with him directly, love him, talk with him, give him gifts. Hmm. I'm describing my experience here; I know different people experience God in different ways. However, I can promise you that if you really wish for God to expose himself to you in an objective, not-belief-oriented way (preferrably as a father, I think), he will come to you. He will reveal himself to you. Pray that he will come into your life and mean it, and marvel in what you will experience and see.

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yeah. Well, I was referring to the presence of friends not because I think God has some peer like that who can argue with him if he does wrongly. I was referring to them simply as a form of evidence which can compel us to believe the mother will have something to back what she says. I simply was harking again to the existence of evidence.

I know you weren't referring to friends because God has peers. I'm pointing out that in my opinion, at least, that incongruity invalidates the analogy, because God has no peer. In other words, how does this serve as evidence?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My mind does turn upon hearing these words to another rather neat possibility, though. Though you miss a marvelous experience of having an earthly father, you don't miss out on the opportunity of having a father. God is a father also, and he can be your father. You have definitely had a terrible experience of missing out on the wonderful experience of having a loving earthly father. Fathers are meant to interact with their children, love them and be an active part of their lives. God the Father is like that. You know how I referred to the Apostle Paul's experience of encountering God. Most people's experiences of encountering God for the first time aren't nearly that dramatic. However, they certainly are usually major turning points in their lives.

Oh dear... I should have seen that one coming.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Have you read the Bible? In that, you'll see God actively TALKING TO PEOPLE! He talks to people, he interacts marvelously in their lives. He spurs heroism that causes people to be willing to be martyred for him.

Should have seen that too... Yes, I've read some of the Bible, but I've also read other religious works like the Tao Te Ching, along with countless mythological writings...

Why is the Bible the one book to go by?

hm...1:35am, this is getting rather circuitous... good night.

...who am I kidding... another half an hour it is

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

You mentioned in one of your posts that disbelief in God is not an option, when you come face to face with Him. On a personal note, however futile my attempt, I think I would try with all of my might to disbelieve, given the circumstances. And given the choice, I would choose Hell. I know these are extreme statements. But I really sympathized with Lucifer from Milton's Paradise Lost, and I thought Lucifer came up with some really good points in that story, when he spoke of the injustices of God. I could see myself taking a similar route of rebellion. There is an analogy in that book about someone rather being a beggar in Heaven than a king of Hell. I don't agree, when I think about it more deeply. Somehow I think if there is a Heaven and Hell, and a Judgement concerning the destination of souls to these places, a lot of my friends are in Hell, in the wrong. I say I would choose damnation because I feel I would choose it as a protest against the injustice of God in this matter, and the injustice of such a choice. When given the choice, I think I would realize that right and wrong transcend even God, or else I am very much in the wrong, and dedicated to it.

As far as Lucifer - well, I think it's important to look at motive when you analyze what someone is saying. For example, if my best friend of many years and I were standing facing each other on a bridge over some water (and the distance is surviveable if I jumped) and she suddenly got this look of horror on her face as she was looking over my shoulder, and said, "Jump NOW! NOW!", then I would probably jump. I know her heart. If I was with someone that hated me, I would probably think twice before jumping before looking behind me. Do you see what I mean?

Now I love Milton's Paradise Lost - as stunningly beautiful as The Lay of Leithian and The Lay of the Children of Hurin, IMO. So here's some passages that show Satan's heart, and that should be taken into account (IMO) when analyzing what he says:

passages spoken by Satan, from Paradise Lost
"And study of revenge, immortal hate" ...
"But ever to do ill our sole delight" ...
"Evil, be thou my good" ...
"For only in destroying I find ease" ...

This is NOT a good person frustrated by lack of justice.

And Satan's sin was wanting to be God - which is impossible. Shall a being be allowed to believe a lie? Or should the lie be exposed? Shall a rebellious being be allowed to continually impose pain on others, or shall there be an end to pain? Which is the just solution? The Bible states that God desires that ALL PEOPLE would come to Him - therefore, if there is ANY chance that a person WOULD do this, and God is all-knowing, then He would give them more chances! However, I think things finally get to a point where it is no more use giving someone a chance - they have fully and finally made up their minds - and God, in His wisdom, can see this. And that is the point where Hell is the only answer to what they have chosen.

God, in His wisdom and love, has decided that THIS is the right and just and loving answer : "So Heav'nly love shall outdo hellish hate."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You did shed a whole new light on the "Lamb of God" for me though, and for that I thank you.

You're welcome! I think it's a beautiful picture.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you just outlining that your world view is not narrow?
What do you have beyond the universe? I always thought of God and Heaven being part of the universe. Do you not think that, or is there something else beyond the universe?

God created the universe, so He is not part of the universe. The Bible teaches that the heavens and earth are so marred by sin that they will one day come to an end, and there will be a new heaven and new earth. Now I don't know if the heaven that's being spoken of is the same as where God "is", or if it even makes any sense to speak of where God "is". But God is a self-existent being - one that is UNCREATED and "was and is and is to come", as the Bible says.

You said earlier that you cannot redeem yourself from sin. I understood this as; if I lie, then to make up for it I give some money to someone in need, that good action doesn't erase the fact that I lied.

Yes, that's exactly it.
Now what you're talking about is a kind of restitution, which is different. It's a right response to having sinned; it's the outward sign of an acknowledgement of a wrong done and a desire to heal where you have hurt. A right restitution would be to ask forgiveness of the person you lied to and do whatever you can to take away the bad effects of your lie on their lives. But you're right - it doesn't take away the fact that you lied, and that there is a penalty, and rightly so, for doing this.

About the muddy children analogy, I think God will let them into the house, if only they wipe their feet first. But if you can't redeem yourself from sin, (there is no mat) how do you wipe your feet?

This is where the whole picture of the substitution comes into play - remember Adam and Eve and the animal skin covering, and Isaac going to his death and a ram being substituted instead, and sins being paid for not by those who sinned, but rather by the sacrifice of a pure and perfect lamb? God, who is righteous, requires that there be a price paid for sin. If God just waives the penalty, He is not righteous! (as we can faintly understand because we object to a pedophile getting off scot free) Yet as Edmund found out in the Narnia stories, there is more than one way to pay a debt ... So Jesus, because of His great love, voluntarily offers to pay our debt. Only a perfect sacrifice can be accepted - and He is sinless. And God's justice is satisfied, and we who accept Jesus's sacrifice are washed clean, or covered by HIS righteousness. And that's how redemption works - we, by our OWN works, CANNOT redeem ourselves, because of our sin; however, the only one that CAN redeem us, DOES redeem us, because of His great love for us. And all we have to do is accept His payment and acknowlege His rightful lordship over us. And what a Lord! What a King! How beautiful and good He is!

out of time again I'll try to finish your post tomorrow. Good night!

[Lief Erikson]

I'm going to ignore those things you said describing what you and RÃ*an were talking about, because my mind is rather fuzzy. The comments about liberals I'm also going to pass over for the moment, though for less good a reason . My response wouldn't be a very strong or effective one. Perhaps my mind again is just fuzzy, or perhaps you really have a good point, or perhaps I'm still a little too uneducated. Hmm. Back to the points I will respond to, though .

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Even in this example, what kind of choice is that? I acknowledge that it is a choice--but again, it's not much of a choice--surrender, or die.

I'll think about this.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Btw, I certainly agree that murderers and rapists can genuinely repent and go to Heaven. But I wanted to know what you or Rian believes would be involved for such a person to repent. I ask because I wonder if becoming a Christian is enough.

Depends what you mean by becoming Christian. There is a True Body of Christ, which includes all true believers. Then there are also the large numbers who claim to be Christians but don't really have Christ in their hearts.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

That is, can a murderer murder people until his dying day, be a Christian, and go to Heaven? Or is a murderer not really a Christian anyway? Certainly murder is not condoned by Christianity, by when does a murderer become a good Christian? What is required of him?

We are called not only to be believers but to be disciples. We accept the gift of God's grace, but then after we accept this grace, we can't go on living as though we aren't God's children! We need to rise from holiness to holiness. We need to act as disciples, to strive to follow Christ, to live Christ through our lives. Someone who consistently murders is clearly not heeding the fact that he should be following Christ. It is written in the scripture that "by their fruit, you shall know them." If someone is consistently murdering, they aren't bearing good fruit . They aren't showing that Christ is working in their lives. It's not just becoming a Christian, praying for forgiveness and then going about your normal life. It's becoming a follower, a disciple. It's about giving your life up for God daily, crucifying the sinful nature within you.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I should like to take this point in time, Lief, to mention that I agree with you! Yay! Your comments on the word-for-word bit, and that people aren't sent to Hell or Heaven based on belief/unbelief. Course I don't mind when we disagree, and I enjoy the discussion.

I greatly enjoy it too .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

Should have seen that too... Yes, I've read some of the Bible, but I've also read other religious works like the Tao Te Ching, along with countless mythological writings...

Why is the Bible the one book to go by?

1) Archaeology.

Archaeology has proven extremely instrumental in showing the accuracy of large parts of the Bible which beforehand were viewed as inaccurate. People pointed to different facts of history to show that the Bible was wrong in its accounts, and archaeology has consistently supported Biblical findings. New discoveries are still being made frequently which validate the Bible. The New Testament in particular has been backed up powerfully by archaeology, though the Old Testament also has had remarkable support.

2) Corroborative sources

The Assyrian writings back up some Old Testament accounts, and various other ancient historical tablets or writings back up the Old Testament. The New Testament accounts are powerfully backed up by ancient historians. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and others wrote of the events of the New Testament times. From corroborative nonChristian accounts that are broadly accepted by scholars, it can be shown that Jesus was believed to have performed miracles in his time, that large crowds followed him, that he was crucified, that his followers believed he was resurrected, and that the church spread far extremely rapidly with complete conviction in its followers. All this is shown simply from corroborative accounts from nonChristians. Even Jesus' enemies the Pharisees had some writings from that time period in which they accused Jesus of being involved in black magic. Clearly even his enemies could not deny his miraculous power. Corroborative historical sources are a strong evidence for the Old and New Testaments.

3) Mathematics

The Old Testament prophecies are an extremely powerful evidence for Christianity being the correct religion. There were many Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, and they were all fulfilled in Jesus. Even many writings from the Old Testament that were not taken as prophetic at Jesus' time were fulfilled in Jesus. However, we need look no further then those prophecies that everyone knew and believed were describing the Messiah. They prophecied the time of birth of the Messiah, the manner of his birth, his life and ministry, his performing miracles, the manner of his death, his resurrection from the dead. Mathmeticians have calculated that the odds of anyone fulfilling as many prophecies as Jesus did were virtually infinite against him. Possibilities such as purposeful fulfillment of prophecies, and other theories have been examined and discarded for many good reasons which I can get into.

4) Eyewitnesses

The people who witnessed Jesus doing these things are actually another extremely compelling evidence in favor of the Bible. Almost all of Jesus' immediate disciples gave up their lives for their beliefs. Many people of other religions have done the same, yet these people claimed to have actually seen Jesus resurrected. They claimed to have eaten with him, to have walked and talked with him. In short, they knew beyond the shadow of a doubt whether they were telling the truth or not. If they lied, they knew that they lied and were willing to die for the lie! The eyewitnesses held to an incredibly demanding code of moral behavior (the perfect life Jesus called them to), which further supports their testimony. The eyewitnesses must have had an extreme motivation to preach and carry out their ministry, the motivation inspired by zeal and extreme belief. If their accounts are not believed, then they had no incentive to carry out this ministry, for their ministry flew in the face of Jewish culture and religion and put them against all manner of authorities, causing them to be despised, hated, abused, persecuted and finally killed.



Hmm . . . there probably are other lines of evidence I'm missing out on. I think I've brought up most of the main ones. The most important evidence of all comes simply from coming into a personal relationship with Christ, however. When Christ speaks to me, it is a marvelous experience. I have spent much time rejoicing after God speaks to me, rejoicing out of simple delight at having such an interactive God as a friend.

[Nurvingiel]

Those are very compelling arguments for why the Bible is (short version) true. But just to point out - it doesn't undermine the validity of the holy scriptures or books of other religions.

About Mathematics, how does one find the predictions in the Bible? I assume you would at least have to be an accomplished Biblical scholar. What do you think about people saying 9/11 (or some modern disaster) was predicted in the Bible? That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me.

I was wondering how you, Rian, and anyone who cares to comment, feels about Biblical predictions (correctly discovered or otherwise).

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Those are very compelling arguments for why the Bible is (short version) true. But just to point out - it doesn't undermine the validity of the holy scriptures or books of other religions.

Not immediately. However, "a" leads to "b" leads to "c". Let's say that you accept what the evidence leans toward- that the Bible is divinely inspired and Jesus is literally the Son of God. If you accept this, you have a postulate from which to form theorems. You have a base from which to form conclusions and make judgments about reality. Logic takes over. If one finds that the writings of other religious books disagree with what you have accepted as true, then either you must review your postulate or you must believe that this part of this specific religious book is incorrect. Either that or you must interpret the writing from the religious book to mean something else which is in accord with your beliefs. Doing this kind of annoys me, though, for doing this one can make anything mean whatever he wants it to mean. If a teaching from a holy scripture contradicts your accepted holy scripture, you logically must conclude that the other holy scripture is wrong. This doesn't mean every part of that other holy scripture is wrong, certainly. But it means that at least this particular part is. Either that or your postulate is wrong.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

About Mathematics, how does one find the predictions in the Bible? I assume you would at least have to be an accomplished Biblical scholar.

Many of the predictions in the Bible are very clear as to their meanings. Everyone accepted at the time of Jesus that certain prophecies were referring to the Messiah. Some of them just from the way they were written were clearly referring to the Messiah. They talked about "God's servant" or "God's Anointed", predictively. They talked about when he would come, what he would do. Some scriptures really can be very clear. The entirety of Isaiah chapter 53 is an awesome prediction of the Messiah. I'll post it here, if you would like . I'd enjoy writing it .

We don't simply understand now after the fact what things were prophetic and which weren't. Many scriptures were taken at the time of Jesus as prophetic of the Messiah, and he fulfilled those. That's not counting the later ones.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What do you think about people saying 9/11 (or some modern disaster) was predicted in the Bible? That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me.

I have no difficulty, myself, with people looking to see whether current events really fit the prophecies. One reason why those prophecies were given was so that people would be able to understand the events occurring, when they occurred. I believe that, anyhow.

I don't know anything about the arguments for 9/11 being predicted in scripture. My first reaction is doubt. I won't dismiss anything out of hand without seeing what there is in favor of it, though.


Revelation

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I was wondering how you, Rian, and anyone who cares to comment, feels about Biblical predictions (correctly discovered or otherwise).

I also tend to automatically doubt somewhat those people who are saying that the End Times are happening around us. I've read Revelation a couple times, and I read in it of massive world-changing events that simply haven't happened yet. Though I do think the End Times are far more clearly at hand now then they were before. For example, in the scripture it talks about the world being consumed in fire. It is actually possible that this should literally happen now, because of nuclear warfare. It talks about waters being turned bitter, and many people dying from those waters- a clear reference to chemical warfare. It talks about the sea being turned to blood and all the living creatures in the sea dying. It talks about much of the plant life of the world being consumed. There are major events it describes which are actually possible in modern society to happen by modern causes. It talks about the moon turning to blood, which it definitely would appear to do, if a nuclear haze filled the atmosphere, or in reaction to fires. I've seen the sun turn to blood already, during the California fires that appeared here (not that that's a fulfillment of prophecy, but it did demonstrate to me how the prophecy might be fulfilled). It talked about demons torturing massive numbers of people in the world but not killing them. This could easily refer to nuclear radiation. It talked about the sky turning to darkness, another thing that easily could happen in the event of a nuclear war. There are loads of things that were predicted long ago, and surely seemed impossible in the time periods of the people who predicted those things. Now, however, in modern times, technology has caught up with prophecy. The predictions of events that would occur now seem like far more possible-even likely-realities for the relatively near future.

The predictions of the Bible had many purposes. They blessed the people who read them and believed them in their own times, but they most particularly blessed the people who experienced them at their fulfillment and afterward. My reaction to someone talking about the second coming of Christ and the fulfillment of the scriptures is immediately one of relative skepticism, because there have been endless numbers of false leads. I do see, though, that the prophecies of Revelation are steadily, steadily becoming more and more possible to come to pass in modern society. In fact, many of them are even likely now in modern society, whereas in the past, when they were written, they were clearly impossible unless the Lord performed astounding miracles.

So actually, the predictions of Revelation, even if they are not already fulfilled, I probably should include as another compelling evidence for the accuracy of Christianity. A rather frightening evidence, but compelling, all the same.

[Elfhelm]

accuracy schmaccuracy!

Herod died in 4 AD, Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 AD, so how could Jesus be born both while Herod was alive (Matt 2:1) and Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2)?

Does it matter? Isn't it far more important that we LOVE GOD, and LOVE ONE ANOTHER?

Besides, I heard that Matthew and Luke copied sections of Mark. And then there's all the books that were discarded by the early church fathers.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

God is loving, God is just, God gives people free will, salvation is freely available to all and no one can say they didn't have enough information to choose rightly.

i'd have to argue that one could say just that... some religions have very similar "moral" ideals as christianity (at least to the non-scholar, and most people are not scholars) but these religions don't espose the "christian" god, or even the concept of "sin"... in fact, judeism doesn't even view "sin" in the same way

the fact is, it is not "obvious" that christainity is correct... it is not even "obvious" how exactly christianity is supposed to be observed... or a whole lot more people would be following it... and following the same "flavor" of christianity

which either says that the christian god has not done a very good job spreading his word accurately, or the word in fact is just one of many human interpretations of a possible reality

and lets not forget the peoples throughout history who, due to geography were never exposed to christianity (i.e. native americans)... what did the christian god do for them?

btw, speaking of "possible realities", you never addressed my post #588

SO - what is to be done if someone really, truly does NOT want to acknowledge their sin and their need for God's redemption and the rightful authority of God over them? What can be done? Shall one unrepentant person, who wants to hang on to their sin, be given the right to hold the rest of the entire universe hostage? What other solution IS there? What other solution can there possibly BE?

i would think that a truely benevolent creator would keep trying... if every person is born with the capability to be "moral", it is only logical to assume that a god with endless time and resource could come up with a method to help a person eventually realize the benefit of this "morality" for themselves... why ever throw in the towel?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

accuracy schmaccuracy!

There's also problems with the time-frame of the slavery of the jews in Egypt. In the time of the Ramesses, big-scale pyramids were no longer being built. The last big pyramid projects were in the twelfth dynasty under an altogether different pharaoh. And they were nothing on the 3-4th dynasty projects under Chephren, et. al. Undoubtedly, Ramesses the second instigated several large scale building projects, but the fact of the matter is that he no longer had the resources that the earlier pharaohs had. Now, the problem is this: if the latter pharaohs did not under-take building projects to the scale of their predecessors, then the story in the bible must have taken place in an earlier time period, right? ... However, the egyptian expansionist policy did not really begin to take form UNTIL the eighteenth dynasty! This means, that during the time-periods where there WERE huge building projects being undertaken (generally attributed to the Old Kingdom 3-4th dynasties, and Middle Kingdom 12th), Egypt was Geographically and Socially isolated from the rest of the Middle East. And therein lies the problem.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Does it matter? Isn't it far more important that we LOVE GOD, and LOVE ONE ANOTHER?

Elfhelm, less sarcasm would be greatly appreciated. Thanks .

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Herod died in 4 AD, Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 AD, so how could Jesus be born both while Herod was alive (Matt 2:1) and Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2)?

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"That poses a significant problem," I pointed out, "because Herod died in 4 B.C., and Quirinius didn't begin ruling Syria until A.D. 6, conducting the census soon after that. There's a big gap there; how can you deal with such a major discrepancy in the dates?"

McRay knew I was raising an issue that archaeologists have wrestled with for years. He responded by saying, "An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call 'micrographic' letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cicilia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod."

Sir William Ramsay, the late archaeologist and professor at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England, said from various inscriptions that while there was only one Quiriniuys, he ruled Syria on two separate occasions, which would cover the time period of the earlier census. The census had a cycle of fourteen years, so this would deal with the apparent discrepancy quite nicely.

Other scholars have pointed out that Luke's text can actually be translated, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria," and that too would easily resolve the problem.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Besides, I heard that Matthew and Luke copied sections of Mark. And then there's all the books that were discarded by the early church fathers.

Matthew and Luke I believe did copy from Mark, though "copy" is not the right word to use. They did no direct copying. Word for word copying was not done. Their accounts went along the same lines as Mark, their books describing many of the same events. There are many possible reasons for this, one of which is that Mark was a close friend of Simon Peter, one of the very closest confidants of Jesus. They didn't work from Mark so much as purposely parallel it. Why do you bring this up?

The books that were discarded by the early church fathers were discarded for very good reasons. They had fallacies of various kinds, some of them theological. There was a very careful process that was used before a book was accepted as Biblical. If this were not true, the Bible would have been found invalid as a source book centuries ago.

Honestly, do you really think that the church fathers should have accepted every book that was proposed to them as infallible scripture?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

There's also problems with the time-frame of the slavery of the jews in Egypt. In the time of the Ramesses, big-scale pyramids were no longer being built. The last big pyramid projects were in the twelfth dynasty under an altogether different pharaoh. And they were nothing on the 3-4th dynasty projects under Chephren, et. al. Undoubtedly, Ramesses the second instigated several large scale building projects, but the fact of the matter is that he no longer had the resources that the earlier pharaohs had. Now, the problem is this: if the latter pharaohs did not under-take building projects to the scale of their predecessors, then the story in the bible must have taken place in an earlier time period, right? ... However, the egyptian expansionist policy did not really begin to take form UNTIL the eighteenth dynasty! This means, that during the time-periods where there WERE huge building projects being undertaken (generally attributed to the Old Kingdom 3-4th dynasties, and Middle Kingdom 12th), Egypt was Geographically and Socially isolated from the rest of the Middle East. And therein lies the problem.

I am convinced that there are problems with the current Egyptian chronology. I could get into a few of the evidences for this, but I don't really have time now.

The biggest single evidence is the dark age of the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period. There is a gap of around 560 years where there is virtually nothing from archaeology or any documentation in Egypt's timeline. There was no advancement, virtually no writing whatsoever. There is no indication as to why the sudden disappearance of all culture or anything worth recording occurred. The Egyptian culture just stops, and then centuries later, starts up again essentially where it left off.

Other countries had their timelines working from the Egyptian timeline. Among them also, there is a major dark age in which virtually nothing is discovered. There's no archaeology dated to the time period and no writings- or very, very, very, very little of both.

I could get into the issues more deeply, explaining how and why the error occurred, and all the evidence for how this error occurred, but not without getting into the theories my Dad has created. The only reason I know about this subject is because of all his research. I'm waiting for him to publish, so I'll just have to let your point stand without extreme objection. I will remark that pre-Solomon, there is between very little and zero backing for Old Testament records. This objection to the scripture does fall away though, when the timeline is fixed. The dates and all the events described in the Old Testament fit when the timeline gap is closed.

[BeardofPants]

Lief, in intermediate periods were times of historical, political, social upheaval. That's why they're intermediate periods. ::shrug:: The so-called lack of evidence from these upheavals is cos of the resultant restructuring of the geographical/economical/cultural barriers. I'm not too familair with the third intermediate period, as my specialty was the eighteenth dynastic period, with an interest in middle kingdom/second intermediate period, but I do know that the capital of Egypt tended to shift around during these periods, and massive destruction being undertaken by invading forces. There is no "sudden disappearance".

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Elfhelm, less sarcasm would be greatly appreciated.

That's not sarcasm. That's a real question. Is it not far more important to adhere to the teachings of Jesus than to argue about angels dancing on the heads of pins? Fundamentalism, which you seem to be espousing, seems just as fraught with interpretation as any other -ism. But to my mind there can be no doubt about what Jesus Himself actually taught.

But before any others quote me, let me repeat that I'm not a Christian. I'm just another person who loves to read all the great teachers.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Lief, in intermediate periods were times of historical, political, social upheaval. That's why they're intermediate periods. ::shrug:: The so-called lack of evidence from these upheavals is cos of the resultant restructuring of the geographical/economical/cultural barriers. I'm not too familair with the third intermediate period, as my specialty was the eighteenth dynastic period, with an interest in middle kingdom/second intermediate period, but I do know that the capital of Egypt tended to shift around during these periods, and massive destruction being undertaken by invading forces. There is no "sudden disappearance".

It seems impossible to me that these geographical/economical/cultural barriers would cause a virtual complete absence of all writing and architecture.

Recent studies of David Francis, a specialist in Persian-Greek relations, and Michael Vickers, Assistant Keeper of Antiquities at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, provide an example of how modern techniques of dating have actually shown that the Dark Age was longer them people previously had thought. They challenged virtually all the major criteria for dating Egyptian Art up to the 5th century BC! They argued consistently for later dates rather then earlier ones. According to Vicker, "The first incontrovertible "fixed point" in the Greek [archaeological] chronology is the Parthenon."

The chronologies of other nations were tied to the Egyptian chronology, hence they too experienced a major dark age at exactly the same period. Here is a list which is described in greater detail in Peter James book, The Centuries of Darkness. This is a quote from my father's unpublished book, which I do not intend to quote very often .

Originally written in "The Ultimate Chronological Question"
Pallottino showed a continuous progression from Apennine to Proto-Villanovan pottery in Rome, however, the pottery is archaeologically dated nearly 500 years apart.

In Sicily there is a 600 year "Dark Age" between 1250 BC and 650 BC. This is noted by the grave sites and associated pottery. Based on pottery, preceding 1200 BC is called the Thapsos Culture, which was followed by the Pantalica Culture (during the "Dark Ages."), followed by the Cassibile Culture during the time after the "Dark Ages." The spotted evidence of graves during the Panticala Culture indicates no such state of primitivity. The duration of the cultures during the Dark Ages is not supported by the pottery found.

Evidence from the Aeolian islands between Italy and Sicily would imply the Ausonian II pottery lasted for an impossibly-long period of 500 years.

In Malta, the Borg in-Nadur 2 pottery can be dated to 14th century BC, the Borg in-Nadur 3 pottery can be dated to 9th-Century Cassibile period settlement, but was also found in 7th century BC Punic finds, giving the same pottery style an impossibly long span of six hundred years or more.

There appear to be many "synchronisms" between Late Mycenaean civilization (14th - 12th century BC) and Late Geometric to Archaic periods (8th - 6th centuries BC)

The ivory work to Greece dated between 1175 BC and 850 BC are remarkably similar. Yet supposedly the ivory manufacture disappeared for those 300+ years.

There are strong similarities between the late Mycenaean (13th - 12th century BC), mature Geometric (late 9th - 8th century BC) and Proto-Attic (7th century BC).

Mycenaen Linear B writing disappears around early 12th century BC, followed by Greek alphabetic texts in the 8th century BC with no inbetween phase. Syro-Palestinian writing (1050 BC) resembles the Greek writing, implying a Syro-Palestinian birth of Greek writing instead of a Phoenician birth.

Construction of palaces and fortifications in Greece show a sharp decline in the Greek Dark Age period (1200 BC - 700 BC).

There is at least a 400 year discrepancy between the latest possible date of Troy (1127 BC) and the time of Troy VIII (700 BC). Yet there is every indication of continuity between the two times and no sign of a break in occupation. Furthermore, the local pottery of Troy VIII was the same type, 'Grey Minyan,' as used in Troy VIIb. The supposition is that its use continued for over 400 years. All these contradictions may help explain why scholars from the late 19th and early 20th century BC resisted the artificially long chronology resulting from the Sothic dating technique.

The Egyptian Dark Age also brought forth a Hittite Dark Age.




In addition to these studies which Peter James has collated, Immanuel Velikovsky pointed out another discrepancy. The Ras Shamra sepulchar chambers in northern Syria, dated to the fourteenth and fifteenth century BC are identical with similar sepulchral chambers found in Cyprus dated to the seventh and eighth centuries BC.

Here is a summary about the Dark Age, by Vinscent Desborough.

Originally written in "Greek Dark Ages"
. . . the changes that come about are little short of fantastic. The craftsmen and artists seem to vanish almost without trace: there is very little new stone construction of any sort, far less any massive edifices; the metal-worker's technique reverts to the primitive and the potter, except in the early stages, loses his purpose and inspiration; and the art of writing is forgotten. But the outstanding feature is that by the end of the twelfth century the population appears to have dwindled to about one-tenth of what it had been little over a century before.

All the civilization around the Mediterranean except Mesopotamia plunged into a centuries long Dark Age. Some have conjectured that a major world disaster occurred, while others try to explain it by the rise in the sea level and subsequent diminution of salt availability. No major world disaster is evident from the synchronized Israeli and Assyrian records, however. In fact, Israel was going through a golden age at this time period- the golden age of Solomon.

So the problem definitely exists, and not only in Egypt- throughout nearly all the civilization surrounding the Mediterranean. The difficulty goes back to chronology. If the chronology is shifted to remove the Dark Age, architecture, writing, art, and all forms of culture slide neatly together to show a continuing progression, rather then a black hole. Also, if the chronology is shifted to remove the Dark Age, immediately Biblical events prior to Solomon are found to be amazingly accurate, and other accounts from the other nations around the Mediterranean are found to make sense in a way that before they never seemed to.

Originally written in "The Ultimate Chronological Question"
Greek legends derive a more appropriate historical context when the time scales are adjusted. Greek legends make King Minos of Crete contemporary with the Trojan War, dated classically to between 1334 BC and 1135 BC. But Minoan architecture of Crete stopped around 1400 BC and the time of great palaces and wealth is between 1900 BC and 1650 BC. This suggests taht King Minos is misplaced in time by over 400 years. Greek legends also speak of an earlier destruction of Troy (approximately 100 years). Both destructions are not observed in the stratification layer currently associated with Troy, but are observed 500 to 600 years earlier. The earlier time period also fits Homer's description of the war much better.

I think that'll do for debating this subject; it's not at all my expertise. I can give you sources though for various aspects of the information I've related; my Dad has lots of footnotes in his writing.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

That's not sarcasm. That's a real question.

In that case I'll answer it. However, in my opinion, it's hardly worth answering.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Is it not far more important to adhere to the teachings of Jesus than to argue about angels dancing on the heads of pins?

Adhering to the teachings of Jesus is how we live our lives. Knowing the reasons why we live our lives the way we do is of course important. It's like asking, "which is more important? Knowing that jumping off a cliff will kill you, or being sure you don't jump off a cliff?" The two options you offer are intertwined. Knowing and doing should go together. If I know that Jesus' teachings are accurate (from research), I'd be very stupid to ignore them. If I didn't know they were accurate, I'd be very stupid to just follow them blindly without knowing a thing about whether they're accurate.

One ought to have some reason to believe what one does!

Christians do. :P It sounded to me like you were making a general insult to Christians in general, saying "they don't know about history or evidence or anything." That's why I was insulted.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Fundamentalism, which you seem to be espousing, seems just as fraught with interpretation as any other -ism.

Why do you say that?