REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Mercutio]

They are compatible....sometimes.

Most of the time "patriotism" in American churches just turns everything into civil religion.

[Valandil]

Bumped - to answer JD's question from the 'marriage' thread.

My answer is on post 178 on page 9 - and I had given the web address for the denominational web site, without actually posting a link.

[Nurvingiel]

*unbury*

http://www.nazarene.org/

I don't know why you didn't post a link though... it's totally relevant, and we're allowed.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

*unbury*

http://www.nazarene.org/

I don't know why you didn't post a link though... it's totally relevant, and we're allowed.

At the time I was still a bit new here and wasn't sure what was acceptable.

And I'm not sure if I had ever posted a link before.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That's only true if you throw out the latest known science that shows that BIRDS, NOT reptiles, are descendants from dinosaurs.

The way the dinosaurs went extinct is still very, very much up for debate. There are at least two theories for how they vanished. One theory is evolution to birds. Another theory is the astroid destruction. Videos I've seen on the subject of the dinosaurs describe the mystery surrounding their demise, mentioning both theories but concluding with the fact that no one really knows.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - Lief - just because something is written and corresponds to historical events - does NOT mean that you can base a science on it. It was thought for a long time that Homer's Odessey was completely fictional. Now many of the places have been found, along with Troy and the is even evidence that the battles were true. Does that mean we should believe that the Sirens and Cyclops were also true and that Zeus and all the gods were also true? JUst because there is correlation with historical events - doesn't make it 100% accurate.

Of course not. It lends credence though. Some of the Old Testament books are lawbooks. Some are histories. Many geneaologies are contained. The Jews took enormous care to preserve these manuscripts in their original form through the centuries. Their techniques were astoundingly demanding and intense to get everything right. Books accepted by the Jews as part of their Old Testament canon had to undergo highly rigorous testing. If there was any doubt as to their validity, they weren't accepted into the canon. The Old Testament was the history of the nation of Israel, and that history correlates with other histories from the time period. The Bible has been shown to be highly accurate many times.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Another example is that right now I'm reading The Princeton Murders. All the places are accurate - streets, parks, restaurants, coffee houses, buildings, - but the story is completely fictional. In a thousand years - if people find this book - they may actually think that these murders were real because all the places are real.

It's not like someone was doing a dig somewhere and just found one copy of the Old Testament and believed every word of it. It was a record of Israel's history. According to scholars and historians, the Bible is an extremely accurate witness to ancient times. The only problems that they have with it are the miracle accounts. Those are the only things that tarnish its reputation as a historical source book.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The way the dinosaurs went extinct is still very, very much up for debate. There are at least two theories for how they vanished. One theory is evolution to birds. Another theory is the astroid destruction. Videos I've seen on the subject of the dinosaurs describe the mystery surrounding their demise, mentioning both theories but concluding with the fact that no one really knows.

That is incorrect. Those theories are in no way opposed to one another. The dinosaurs were in the PROCESS of evolving into birds when the astroid hit. By the way - I did not mean you couldn't have discussed this in the evolution thread. But your bible stuff isn't science.

Of course not. It lends credence though. Some of the Old Testament books are lawbooks. Some are histories. Many geneaologies are contained. The Jews took enormous care to preserve these manuscripts in their original form through the centuries. Their techniques were astoundingly demanding and intense to get everything right. Books accepted by the Jews as part of their Old Testament canon had to undergo highly rigorous testing. If there was any doubt as to their validity, they weren't accepted into the canon. The Old Testament was the history of the nation of Israel, and that history correlates with other histories from the time period. The Bible has been shown to be highly accurate many times.

As it turns out - so has Homer's Oddessey - so what's your point? Many books accurately reflect the times they were written whoever - no one believes they are the word of god. I think the bible is just like any other book.

It's not like someone was doing a dig somewhere and just found one copy of the Old Testament and believed every word of it. It was a record of Israel's history. According to scholars and historians, the Bible is an extremely accurate witness to ancient times. The only problems that they have with it are the miracle accounts. Those are the only things that tarnish its reputation as a historical source book.

I never questioned the bible as a HISTORICAL account of things - I question it's validy as science. And actually - there is far mroe incorrect information in the bible than just the miracle parts. There is actually quite a lot that does not match up with the acheological evidence.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As it turns out - so has Homer's Oddessey - so what's your point? Many books accurately reflect the times they were written whoever - no one believes they are the word of god. I think the bible is just like any other book.

I never said that the historical accuracy alone proves it to be the Word of God. It simply lends credence.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I never questioned the bible as a HISTORICAL account of things - I question it's validy as science.

If we had changed the Bible's Psalms passage that said, "the Earth is stable on its foundations- it shall not be moved," in light of Galileo's evidence, we would have been proved wrong by the Theory of Relativity, according to which movement is defined by acceleration. If we had changed the scripture a century ago when science universally believed the continents had never moved and were not moving, we would have been proved wrong in the places where the scripture says, "the land was divided," and that in the beginning, "the oceans were all in one place." There even is a scripture that supports evolution by environmental change- "the land formed the creatures according to their kinds." If evolution by environment is accepted, then the land in the most literal way possible did form the creatures according to their kinds. Also the evolutionary sequence was accurate. Sea creatures first, then land creatures, and finally humans. Dinosaurs too are described in early Genesis. It's a very cool scientific part of the story . I love it.

In my opinion, the book of Revelation contains just as much astounding accuracy as Genesis does (though Genesis alone is awesome). It describes with amazing accuracy things that are possible today without miracles, even though at the time they were described, there was no way they could have known these things could happen by any means aside from the miraculous. It describes large scale chemical and nuclear warfare with appalling detail. There also is a scripture that in my opinion matches the modern ozone hole. The level of detail and accuracy available in Revelation is up to date now with modern technology, and more reliable then the highly fanciful End Times predictions available from other sources.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And actually - there is far mroe incorrect information in the bible than just the miracle parts. There is actually quite a lot that does not match up with the acheological evidence.

I know that there are some problems in the Old Testament pre-Solomon period.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If we had changed the Bible's Psalms passage that said, "the Earth is stable on its foundations- it shall not be moved," in light of Galileo's evidence, we would have been proved wrong by the Theory of Relativity, according to which movement is defined by acceleration. If we had changed the scripture a century ago when science universally believed the continents had never moved and were not moving, we would have been proved wrong in the places where the scripture says, "the land was divided," and that in the beginning, "the oceans were all in one place." There even is a scripture that supports evolution by environmental change- "the land formed the creatures according to their kinds." If evolution by environment is accepted, then the land in the most literal way possible did form the creatures according to their kinds. Also the evolutionary sequence was accurate. Sea creatures first, then land creatures, and finally humans. Dinosaurs too are described in early Genesis. It's a very cool scientific part of the story . I love it.

Dinosaurs aren't described in the bible - you take the part of "and they were made to crawl on their bellies" to mean that dinosaurs changed into reptiles. Except that science does NOT support this theory anymore, yet this is a perfect exampole of you trying to cling onto a belief because of the bible. Most palentologists have thrown out the dinosaur to reptile theory - because it is no longer supportable based on SCIENTIF evidence.

As for the continents and so forth and genesis - I suppose you will tell me next that the Tower of Babel is the truth and that's why we have different languages. it has nothign to do with the fact that they couldn't understand why people didn't speak the same so they came up with a cute little sorty for something they had no understanding of. Might it have just been that as peopel moved away from each other - languages evolved and changed? Which is actually what happened. English is a combination of languages and even old English you would need to translate - because language itself has evolved.

The Tower of babel is the same thing as the story of Genesis - a fictionalized account of something they didn't understand. No different than the greeks believing in Poseidon to explain the sea.

In my opinion, the book of Revelation contains just as much astounding accuracy as Genesis does (though Genesis alone is awesome). It describes with amazing accuracy things that are possible today without miracles, even though at the time they were described, there was no way they could have known these things could happen by any means aside from the miraculous. It describes large scale chemical and nuclear warfare with appalling detail. There also is a scripture that in my opinion matches the modern ozone hole. The level of detail and accuracy available in Revelation is up to date now with modern technology, and more reliable then the highly fanciful End Times predictions available from other sources.

Well then I hope you believe in Nostradamus too then. Because his predictions are JUST as facinating.

I know that there are some problems in the Old Testament pre-Solomon period.

There are problems with the whole bible that you refuse to acknowledge actually. There isn't even a clear picture of the New Testement and all the religious teachings, not to mention the gospels that aren't in there. Do you believe that Mary Magdalen was Jesus's wife and that they had a daughter named Sarah? Because there IS evidence of that too, although it isn't popular in the religious circles. And no - I'm not talking about the fictionalized account that is in the Da Vinci Code.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Dinosaurs aren't described in the bible - you take the part of "and they were made to crawl on their bellies" to mean that dinosaurs changed into reptiles. Except that science does NOT support this theory anymore, yet this is a perfect exampole of you trying to cling onto a belief because of the bible. Most palentologists have thrown out the dinosaur to reptile theory - because it is no longer supportable based on SCIENTIF evidence.

For the moment, jerseydevil. In many ways, science still has to catch up to the Bible . If the Bible were alterred to fix with whatever scientific theory is most prevalent in a given century, as I pointed out in my last post, it would be worthless by now.

Scientific understanding and theories change. Truth does not. There is only one true state that all matter is, was, and will be in. This true state, or as near to it as we can know, is what science attempts to uncover. Science attempts to expose the true state of reality. It has not "gotten there" yet. It self-admittedly has a long way to go. I am perfectly content with the fact that not all the Bible is perfectly matched up with current scientific understanding, because of this. I am very pleased though at how much of Genesis has been shown to be accurate, and I am convinced that we have more such surprises in store for us.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for the continents and so forth and genesis - I suppose you will tell me next that the Tower of Babel is the truth and that's why we have different languages. it has nothign to do with the fact that they couldn't understand why people didn't speak the same so they came up with a cute little sorty for something they had no understanding of. Might it have just been that as peopel moved away from each other - languages evolved and changed? Which is actually what happened. English is a combination of languages and even old English you would need to translate - because language itself has evolved.

I don't know anything about the evidence pertaining to the Tower of Babel.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The Tower of babel is the same thing as the story of Genesis - a fictionalized account of something they didn't understand. No different than the greeks believing in Poseidon to explain the sea.

In your opinion.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well then I hope you believe in Nostradamus too then. Because his predictions are JUST as facinating.

There is a difference. The predictions of Revelation and the descriptions of Genesis are fascinating, but they are only a few of the many evidences concerning Christianity's accuracy. Even if the predictions of Revelation seemed wild and far fetched, there still would be backing from them simply because of how much other evidence there is that Christianity is correct. If Christianity is correct-if the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ the Son of God-then it is natural to believe that the Book of Revelation is accurate too. This logically follows from the rest of Christianity being accurate. For the rest of Christianity being accurate, there are other evidences. As it is, Revelation is one of many.

I am not arguing that Nostradamus wasn't inspired by God at all. I don't know anything about Nostradamus, and I believe that God speaks to many people outside of the accounts described in the scripture.

I don't only believe that last . I know that it is true, because I have experienced God in that powerful way myself, as have countless other Christians. That spiritual experience is another strong evidence supporting Christianity.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There are problems with the whole bible that you refuse to acknowledge actually. There isn't even a clear picture of the New Testement and all the religious teachings, not to mention the gospels that aren't in there.

These were discarded for sound reasons. If they had been included in the Bible, you would find a lot more discord in the scripture and even several downright contradictions. The scriptures were selected with great care. The fact that so many gospels are not included in the Bible in fact should be an argument in favor of the Bible. It shows what care was taken in the choosing of the books.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Do you believe that Mary Magdalen was Jesus's wife and that they had a daughter named Sarah? Because there IS evidence of that too, although it isn't popular in the religious circles.

In the scriptures, there is no indication that they were anything more then close friends.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

And no - I'm not talking about the fictionalized account that is in the Da Vinci Code.

What is the evidence?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For the moment, jerseydevil. In many ways, science still has to catch up to the Bible . If the Bible were alterred to fix with whatever scientific theory is most prevalent in a given century, as I pointed out in my last post, it would be worthless by now.

Scientific understanding and theories change. Truth does not.

This is a prime example of why it is impossible to talk to people that are so blinded by their beliefs. Truth - what truth? The truth that the bible is completely on belief and has no basis in fact other than historical aspects - and many of those are questionable too. You may not agree - ang I know you don't. But the fact is - you really ave no idea who wrote the bible or what their motivations were. You merely take it on FAITH - with NO historical evidence as to who actually wrote the bible.

In my opinion - the bible is completely useless except in respect as an interesting fantasy novel and parablles on how to live a good life. of course there are many parables out there - such the brother's grimm and so forth that teach similar moral stories. The bible isn't unique in teaching morals. It just has a following of people who want to believe in mysticism.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

... Truth - what truth?...

Quoting scripture again I see...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Quoting scripture again I see...

Well it seems with people who are blinded by their faith - it's whatever the bible says - regardless if it makes any sense.

Hey - if I was going to choose a fantasy novel to worship and believe in - it wouldn't be the bible - the Silmarillion is much cooler.

[jerseydevil]

By the way -Lief - i wanted to quote something from the Simpsons that was on a couple of weeks ago. You say how great the bible is at telling how genesis is the truth and stuff. To give you some background information - Ned Flanders was tired of the filth on tv and in the movies - so he decided he would film his kids reenacted the bible stories and produce moves. They starte out with as Ned Flanders said - the murder of all time - Caine and Abel. Anyway -as the kids were getting ready to produce the movie and act out the parts - one of the kids asked. "So daddy if god made only adam and eve and they only had two sons - who did they have babies with - each other or with eve?"

By the way - talk about inconsistancies. First comes adam and eve - they produce two sons. Out of nowhere comes Cain's wife.. Where did Cain's wife come from - note that she is unnamed. They from them comes all these offspring. You can believe genesis and think that it's unquestionable if you wish - but the fact is it's extremely general and you can make anything out of it you wish.

BY the way - in Genesis - it says that there was flowering and fruit bearing trees. "let the earth burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant, and fruit trees with seeds inside the fruit, so that these seeds will produce the kinds of plants and fruits they came from." Contrary to this - science does not support this. These did not miraculously appear but came at a much later period in time. Not all plants came into being at one time. The fossil record shows distinct divisions between seeded plants, flowering plants and fruit plants.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

This is a prime example of why it is impossible to talk to people that are so blinded by their beliefs. Truth - what truth? The truth that the bible is completely on belief and has no basis in fact other than historical aspects - and many of those are questionable too. You may not agree - ang I know you don't. But the fact is - you really ave no idea who wrote the bible or what their motivations were. You merely take it on FAITH - with NO historical evidence as to who actually wrote the bible.

Which books do you have in mind? I know the evidence concerning authorship varies in strength depending upon which book you're talking about. The evidence concerning who wrote the New Testament books is, I believe, usually stronger then it is concerning the Old Testament ones because the books were written more recently. The evidence concerning either Old Testament or New Testament book authors is pretty strong. There have of course been challenges, but I think many of these have been discredited.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

In my opinion - the bible is completely useless except in respect as an interesting fantasy novel and parablles on how to live a good life. of course there are many parables out there - such the brother's grimm and so forth that teach similar moral stories. The bible isn't unique in teaching morals. It just has a following of people who want to believe in mysticism.

Who experience mysticism first hand, Jerseydevil. Some of us have seen spirits. Some of us have heard. Some of us have performed miracles, and all you have to do is look at the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to see solid evidence concerning how strongly valid our prophecies are. It is an experiential religion. The heart of the religion is Christ ALIVE NOW HERE.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Which books do you have in mind? I know the evidence concerning authorship varies in strength depending upon which book you're talking about. The evidence concerning who wrote the New Testament books is, I believe, usually stronger then it is concerning the Old Testament ones because the books were written more recently. The evidence concerning either Old Testament or New Testament book authors is pretty strong. There have of course been challenges, but I think many of these have been discredited.

You just have gotten done saying about how all the bible is so supported. As for challenges as to who wrote the bible - it's easy to discredit something that can't be proven. You can't say who actually wrote genesis, nor can you say who wrote the story noah. nor can you really say if the life of jesus as it is told in the bible is true or not. For instance - the bible basically says that Pilot washed his hands with jesus and didn't want to play a role in his execution - yet all HISTORICAL indications of pilot show that this would not have been the case.

Also - when people were crucified on the cross - they were left up there. They were not taken down - but were left up to rot. This also contradicts the bible. With this being the case and with Rome and the Jewish authoritiies being afraid of him beiing more powerful after death - I seriously doubt they would have given Jesus's followers special treatment and allowed them to take down his body, even if it was the sabbath.

In John - it also says that jesus told Thomas to place his fingers into his hands (tp feel the nail holes). The problem with this passage is that they didn't nail someone onto the cross by putting the nails in throught the hands - but instead through the wrists. So here again is an inconsistency with history.

Who experience mysticism first hand, Jerseydevil. Some of us have seen spirits. Some of us have heard. Some of us have performed miracles, and all you have to do is look at the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to see solid evidence concerning how strongly valid our prophecies are. It is an experiential religion. The heart of the religion is Christ ALIVE NOW HERE.

Sorry - the problem is that there is NOT solid evidence. BTW - have i told you about my ESP powers?

BTW - "Our prophesies"? Are you claiming to be the son of god? I didn't know you had prophesies. I know the BIBLE claims to have prophesies - but so do many things.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

By the way -Lief - i wanted to quote something from the Simpsons that was on a couple of weeks ago. You say how great the bible is at telling how genesis is the truth and stuff. To give you some background information - Ned Flanders was tired of the filth on tv and in the movies - so he decided he would film his kids reenacted the bible stories and produce moves. They starte out with as Ned Flanders said - the murder of all time - Caine and Abel. Anyway -as the kids were getting ready to produce the movie and act out the parts - one of the kids asked. "So daddy if god made only adam and eve and they only had two sons - who did they have babies with - each other or with eve?"

Let's look at the geneaology. Chapter 5, verses 3-5. "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

By the way - talk about inconsistancies. First comes adam and eve - they produce two sons. Out of nowhere comes Cain's wife.. Where did Cain's wife come from - note that she is unnamed. They from them comes all these offspring. You can believe genesis and think that it's unquestionable if you wish - but the fact is it's extremely general and you can make anything out of it you wish.

Following Adam, the geneaology continues thus: "When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died. When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan . . ."

It is obvious from the geneaology that Cain was not Adam's firstborn. The geneaology ignores everyone except the firstborn, moving from firstborn to firstborn on down the bloodline. Also, Adam had daughters. That is where these early wives came from.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BY the way - in Genesis - it says that there was flowering and fruit bearing trees. "let the earth burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant, and fruit trees with seeds inside the fruit, so that these seeds will produce the kinds of plants and fruits they came from." Contrary to this - science does not support this. These did not miraculously appear but came at a much later period in time. Not all plants came into being at one time. The fossil record shows distinct divisions between seeded plants, flowering plants and fruit plants.

I don't see any evidence from that scripture that they did come all at one time. No evidence unless you accept the literal 7 days. I view the days as different stages in God's creation, or different major occurrences or time periods. I think they are in chronological succession, and describing the Earth's early history.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Let's look at the geneaology. Chapter 5, verses 3-5. "When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died."

And you believe that? Why do you believe that ANYONE lived almost a thousand years when NO scientific evidence supports people living a thousand years?

This is really quite ridiculous - you act like this is all fact and just should be accepted as such.

It;s funy by the way - I had forgotten about that little part - that Adam, is said to have had seth - but then cain and Abel are left out of it.

BTW - Seth must have been a clone.

I don't see any evidence from that scripture that they did come all at one time. No evidence unless you accept the literal 7 days. I view the days as different stages in God's creation, or different major occurrences or time periods. I think they are in chronological succession, and describing the Earth's early history.

That's because you seem to try to fit science into the bible - so you seem to be able to slightly interpret the bible differently so you don't face the contradictions. It says right there that god created all the plant types at ONE TIME - not over a space of any period. But he said "let the earth burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant, and fruit trees with seeds inside the fruit, so that these seeds will produce the kinds of plants and fruits they came from." It doesn't have to be the third day. But he supposedly said this in one sentece. It would lead one to believe - if the bible were to be true - that all the plants sprang forth at one time.

BTW - you do realize that the REAL judgment day is when god comes down the second time. I seriously doubt anyone on this board would accept anyone claiming to be god today. Yet you have no problem believing that someone in ancient times was god and you don't understand why others don't.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It is obvious from the geneaology that Cain was not Adam's firstborn. The geneaology ignores everyone except the firstborn, moving from firstborn to firstborn on down the bloodline. Also, Adam had daughters. That is where these early wives came from.

What do you mean Cain wasn't Adam's firstborn? After him and eve were tossed out of eden - they had intercourse and begot cain - meaning "I have created" (Chapter 4). And the next child they had was Abel. Now you are saying that this first part is wrong and that cain and Abel were NOT the first born and that only the geaneology section is true.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when we try to defend the indefensible.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You just have gotten done saying about how all the bible is so supported. As for challenges as to who wrote the bible - it's easy to discredit something that can't be proven.

If you show that the evidence supporting the proposed author is actually seriously flawed evidence, you discredit the candidate. You can't do it just by saying, "you can't prove it! Ha ha!"

I can argue that way, but it's rather pointless. What I'm talking about is what evidence there is. Is there evidence or isn't there? If there isn't much evidence at all to support a candidate, he becomes discredited. That is the kind of discrediting that I'm talking about regarding these other people. A rigorous analysis of the evidence supporting the candidate is taken, particularly in comparison with the evidence supporting the accepted author, and a judgment is reached at the conclusion.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You can't say who actually wrote genesis, nor can you say who wrote the story noah.

That's part of Genesis. Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of Genesis. This was certainly believed in the New Testament times, and earlier. Some arguments against Mosaic authorship have been raised by some scholars who claim that the Pentateuch (The Law of Moses) came from four different sources and is a patchwork of stories, poems and laws. However, rigorous archaeological and literary research have undercut many of these arguments that once challenged Mosaic authorship.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

nor can you really say if the life of jesus as it is told in the bible is true or not. For instance - the bible basically says that Pilot washed his hands with jesus and didn't want to play a role in his execution - yet all HISTORICAL indications of pilot show that this would not have been the case.

Of course, when you are dealing with the Son of God, the rules logically could be tweaked a bit. When facing Pilot, Jesus behaved in a manner utterly different from any criminal Pilot can have encountered. Pilot probably had encountered some bravery before, but compared to Jesus' behavior in the scriptures, most such examples would fall short. Furthermore, the simple presence of godliness in a person I know can sometimes be felt. It could be that Pilot sensed in Jesus what I sometimes have felt in mature Christians. We're dealing with the Son of God, Jerseydevil. Normal behavior is often made abnormal when thrust into abnormal circumstances.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - when people were crucified on the cross - they were left up there. They were not taken down - but were left up to rot. This also contradicts the bible. With this being the case and with Rome and the Jewish authoritiies being afraid of him beiing more powerful after death - I seriously doubt they would have given Jesus's followers special treatment and allowed them to take down his body, even if it was the sabbath.

A detachment of professional Roman soldiers would have been enough to allay any such fears. They probably would remember something of how brave Jesus' followers were when they encountered him on Gethsemane . Roman soldiers also were professionals. They were highly trained and extremely tough men. They knew that if they failed their task, their lives were on the line. In fact, in the Roman military system, if even one person turned tail and ran, his entire company would be held accountable. If one person fled from the army, his entire company would be executed. Roman discipline was ruthless, and very effective. That the Pharisees and Pilot would have been afraid that these men might be overcome by a few cowardly, ragged fishermen is laughable.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

In John - it also says that jesus told Thomas to place his fingers into his hands (tp feel the nail holes). The problem with this passage is that they didn't nail someone onto the cross by putting the nails in throught the hands - but instead through the wrists. So here again is an inconsistency with history.

At the time that the scriptures were written, the wrist was considered to be a part of the hand.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Sorry - the problem is that there is NOT solid evidence. BTW - have i told you about my ESP powers?

As far as prophecy is concerned, in my opinion the evidence is irrefutable. Mathmeticians have calculated the odds of someone having fulfilled those prophecies by chance, and they are way beyond trillions to one. As for purposeful fulfillment, this is rendered impossible by many things about Jesus that he could not have controlled. These include the date of his birth and his lineage, the place of his birth, the manner of his death (betrayal and crucifixion). I bet I could come up with more things also that he could not have controlled.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - "Our prophesies"? Are you claiming to be the son of god? I didn't know you had prophesies.

I am a Christian. Our faith comes from the Jews. The Jews are the natural branch on the tree that is Christ. We Gentiles are an unnatural branch that has been grafted in. We have been made part of the "true Israel" described by Paul in the New Testament Epistles that encompasses Jew and Gentile alike. Even so, I have a share in the prophecies of the Jews.

The gift of prophecy is continuous, though. It didn't stop with Jesus, but continues through modern day, in its form of predicting the future as well as in its ways of bringing words of the Lord to whatever other situations may exist.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I know the BIBLE claims to have prophesies - but so do many things.

The Bible is the one book through which you can actually see those prophecies fulfilled. Some of the Old Testament prophecies were written many hundreds of years before Jesus' birth. They were miraculously fulfilled in his birth, ministry and death. The evidence supporting this is very strong.

[jerseydevil]

I'm going to bed and I have a lot of work to finish up on my website - I will address this though.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Of course, when you are dealing with the Son of God, the rules logically could be tweaked a bit. When facing Pilot, Jesus behaved in a manner utterly different from any criminal Pilot can have encountered. Pilot probably had encountered some bravery before, but compared to Jesus' behavior in the scriptures, most such examples would fall short. Furthermore, the simple presence of godliness in a person I know can sometimes be felt. It could be that Pilot sensed in Jesus what I sometimes have felt in mature Christians. We're dealing with the Son of God, Jerseydevil. Normal behavior is often made abnormal when thrust into abnormal circumstances.

NO - we're dealing with someone YOU believe to be the son of god. Again - this ai a belief - not fact, not something you can prove. You actually don't know if he was the son of god. No one even knows if there is a god or not. It's all what you believe.

As for your examples as to why Pilot would have treated jesus differently - you have no idea. Do you know how the the many prisoners before had come before pilot? This again is just you superimposing your belief on things that aren't stated. You know - my book on Churchill is larger than the entire Bible, as is Lord of the Rings.

Look at Masada. Archeologists have found evidence of the destruction, they found pieces of pottery with names on them that they feel show the the lottery that was used to determine who would kill who instead of surrendering. But archeologists - instead of finding a mass of skeletons - have only found 25. A far cry from the roughly 1000 who were supposed to have died there. This is an example of biblical exageration.

I love having the name Jersey DEVIL during talks like this.