Carter

As for contradictions in the Gospels, , try me

Do I 'ave to?

I know how that will go...I supply a contradiction, you post a why it is not a contradiction and at the same time say I need The Holy Ghost.

In the end nothing changes...You know what contradictions Im' talking about anyways...

The Lazarus claim doesn't need to be present in other Gospels because they record other raisings from the dead that are equally just as big. Chances are this occured during the time the 70 were sent out and John, being the most loved disicple, decided to stay with Jesus...thus he would hve been the only witness.

Maybe... *shrugs*

I mean, gosh, if the argument from absense works, why do you believe in blind evolution?

Blind? I don't. But I assume you mean without a God/designer? Mostly, because I know evience for parts of it, and I see more evidence for it that for YEC...The rest is culture. I'm not afraid to admit that. Beliefs you have because of family, upbringing ect.

As for admitting you're right... Iwas saying if I argued that George Washington was actually a Mexican you could not, under your logic, contradict me. I was showing your logic was faulty.

I know that.

No wonder George started an outer court forum. Half of the posters are outer their minds.

Not half....100%...the believers too...

So even though historical evidence validates he was born in Bethlehem and later moved to Nazareth, that he was born a virgin, and that He died on a cross....it's still made up?

Tell me historical evidence of his Virgin Birth, through The Holy Mother Mary. I don't know any but the two bible gospels, and how did they know if Mary was really a virgin...I don't think they have checked...

George Washington was actually Mexican, because the writers wanted to hide the fact he was because it ruined the image of white people. They wanted a strong white leader and not a Mexican leader. And this claim is valid because this is equivalent to your logic.

There are no protets of Jesus..There are of George Washington. Also, the longer something is ago, the more hazy any evidence becomes. Also, while it may not seem so to the believers, there are seeming contradictions in the gospels...Somethings are left out and added in some...Lazarus death/ressurection is only noted in John...While it was a very fgreat happening...Dead men don't rise everyday...

Hey BTW...You've just said Im' right because my logic is. Nice of you.

Yes, you would have to produce the manuscript for such a charge to carry any weight. Anyone can make the accusation that the stories were made up, but demonstrating that with credible evidence is a different story.

Indeed. And my biblical knowlege about Jesus being the prophesised Messiah or not is too swallow. I just didn't study the subject enough...I need to read the prophets but I never came furthen then History, Wisdom and Law. (First parts of the OT)

Yes a few maybe, but not to the degree that Jesus fulfilled them. To fulfill the number of prophecies that Jesus did, it would require the one doing the fulfilling to be in control of everything including including other people. Jesus' fulfillment was too specific

Prophets can be right about events and wrong about other things. There are prophets who were right outside of the bible and to me it is very possible that the bible prophets did 'see' the future, but not 100% true.

Question: Is Micah 5:2 a prophecy wich leads to Jesus?

The Bible escapes circular reasoning of explaination because it is really many books and or letters, written at different dates.

Hmm..not really all true. If a newer writer knows what older writers wrote, then you can base your newer writing on them. You can build on what those before you wrote.

Still it is never all circular reasoning.

But, of course, there is something missing, now isn't there? Yes, of course there is: for if the Holy Spirit doesn't live in your heart, how then will the Bible make sense to you?

Some parts make perfect sense. Proverbs has a lot of wisdom. other parts seem like complete nonsenmse though...

You can turn this point around, because you have the holy spirit and too much faith, you're making sense out of something that makes no sense.

If I use this trick, the entire holy spirit arguemt is turned into a "Yes.", "No." Yes!" "No!" "YES!" "NO!" YEEES!!!" "NOOO!!!" arguement and it seems impossible to escape from that.

Can we help you settle this matter?

I know I've argued too much even though I'm new... But please don't try to convert me...It won't work, others have tried and it will only turn every conversation with me into an a conversion attempt.

No, it is indeed circular reasoning, but not all is circular reasoning, because the biblke isn't writen as one book. To escpe the circular reasoning, you need differnt books, written at differnt dates.

How does a man fake being born in Bethlehem, being born of a virgin, and dying on a cross? That's quite an amazing achievement.

He doesn't...But the ones writing a Story about him could.

In order to make any number of prophecies come true, you would have to be in control of every event in your life, and you would also have to be able to control the actions and responses of others to you. You would have to be in control of where, when, and to whom you were born, for starters.

No...It's very possible to have a revelation that comes true without you controlling it.

But it is possible to control some actions into fullfilled prophecies.

not all the ones required to be the messiah can be faked.

Hi Cymba.

Maybe we should discuss this somewere else.

There's not much point in argueing about this.

You are correct.

But(There's always a but) while catastophic events can cause a great deal of things, they can't explain everything. And scientists are wrong at times. If they weren't, we'd be in trouble.

How big is the chance for faked prophesies?

How big is the chance prophecies can come into being without god?

I can't prove that the bible has faked prophy fullfillments, but I can prove it's very possible to fullfill prophecies without God.

The 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens is good evidence of catastrophic events that some scientists claim must take millions of years to happen, but only took days/months to form.

Aber...Nein. Du bist wong.

Some things take a lot of time, while others take not as much. And scientists are wrong too.

But no scientist claims an eruption takes millions of years.

How much?

In that regard, we can say that "hard science" (that which can be observed and repeated in the laboratory) has nothing to say about origins; that issue is beyond its scope. The various dating methods used on rocks are all subject to great inaccuracies due to assumptions that must be made in order to calibrate them. Fossils are of no help either. Only by first presuming the alleged slow progression of life from the simple to the complex can they date rocks by means of the fossils found in them. When a geologist is asked the age of a particular rock, he asks what fossils are found in it, then decides what epoch the rock must lie within. This is not science but tautology (circular reasoning).

It's true that Dating by fossils is the most used method, because that's the most cheap method. But Rocks have been dated with normal dating methods. It's true that they are subject to inaccuracies, but a million years younger or older still proves an old eath. Look up the K-T boundary...It has been dated a lot of times because it exists the world over and it's very easy to see what it is. And it was dated 65 million years ago almost perfectly. All the time.

So at the very least, we have no hard evidence that the earth is terribly old. Besides, who defines "old"? We can't argue for a "young" earth if we don't know what "old" is. The truth is that these are relative and highly-loaded terms. To me, anything older than me is "old". To the human race, anything before recorded history is "old". To science, nothing is either "old" or "young" outside of some other reference, such as recorded history

What you're saying is true, but I think it's safe to assume vja4him meant 6000-8000 years old or miljons.

I could not disagree more with my friend Carter.

I didn't say it was a test. I said that some people say it is one, hence why I said it's a common anwser. My own opinion is not to be found in my previous post here.

This is clearly not in league with what the God of Heaven and earth has to say about this either.

It is in league with science. Carefully tested science based on observations.

Not all sperm cells are the same. Otherwise differnt twins would never be possible.

That's not to say that God doesn't choose wich sperm cells hit the eggcell. He'd still be the crafter of the universe, but there's no way to prove that.

Because we are not trying to seek a truth that we do not know. We are not on a quest to discover truth. God not only made Himself known to men and even became a man, but has given us His Bible. We study the Bible not as a quest to seek truth, but to understand learn the Truth that has made itself know to us. That is the difference. Religion seeks for a "god" somewhere out there. In Christianity, God is the one who came to man. Every significant event in the Bible begins with God coming to man. God created Adam and walked with Adam, God came to Noah to build the Ark, God approached Abraham to created covenant, God came to Moses to be a deliverer, and so on. As you read throgh the Bible you do not find a God sitting aloof waiting for man to find Him. In every part of the Bible, you see God reaching out to man, culminating in sending of His Son Jesus to die for man. In the Bible you find God sparing no expense to bring man back into fellowship with Himself. This, you do not see in anywhere else.

So the Bible is there to under the Truth you already know? That seems completely contradictory to me.

I've see you do not make the Relationship point, but you do want to seperate Christianity from the wrd religion. Unfortunatly, it is one. Believing is Jesus, the only real requirement, is still following a religion. Take a look at the dictionary if you don't believe me.

On a side note, I feel that you are better at apologetics then most other online Christians I've debated.

Now...Prometheus, a Titan/God was a God person who really helped men acording to the Myths. He gave them fire, a cheated Zues to help them. And He suffered a painfull torture. No real savior like Jesus, but He did aproach men.

Azetc Gods all Sacrifised themselves to keep the Sun going... And they wanted to do that to help men.

There are more example. None of them paralel to Christianity, but none paralel to themselves too.

And...Not only does God try to help men, but He also curses them. Blesses and curses...But that's a different point.

The standard of goodness for the Christian is the moral code contained in the Bible. The problem is that the standard is unreachable by human effort. That is what separates Christianity from everything else. Doing good to meet the standard is pointless because your best effort is still stained with your sin. It is like handing someone a Rolex watch that is coated with tar, mud, dung, bacteria and blood.

God set the standard. He could have changed it and not had to bother with anything.

Well there is a difference. Islam claims to be the only way. Christianity does not. Rather we claim that JESUS is the only way. We do not claim that our religion will take you to heaven. One can go to church, tithe, be baptized, sing in the choir, teach a class, pray before every meal, celebrate every Christian holiday, and still go to hell. The Christian religion cannot save anyone. While Islam claims that their religion will save them, Christians make no such claim about our faith. Again, our "religion" is an out working of a living faith in the God of Scripture. Jesus claims that HE is the only way to the Father (John 14:6

Jesus and Christianity are almost the same. You can believe Jesus without being a Christian. And that doesn't have to include church fellowship.

Islam does not clam their religion will save them. Bad Muslims go to hell, with is much more fair than sending don't care people to hell and repenting child molesters to heaven. IMO of course.

I mentioned BB because you postulated it as a "beginning". But you do bring up an important point: that "science", for all its claims to the contrary, is not the final word about anything. So whenever you appeal to it, I am obligated to respond.

I know. I'm not a that big science fan. The subjects it deals with are intresting, but the method and kind of thinking behind it generates wrongs.

The laws of thermodynamics state that the universe is running down (which must include all matter) and will eventually reach the point of heat death. Running down down does not mean destroyed.

True. Sorry about my intial mistake.

I agree that the First Cause came from nothing. That's why it must be eternal. But it's at least as good "an explanation for something we don't know" as any other, and thus cannot simply be discounted.

Also True.

Which means you can't rule out that, at the very least, however many "gods" you decide upon, they must all have a singular set of attributes to have created a UNIverse.

Hmm...What about a compromise between them? Maybe they had massive debates for millions of years before they made a decision.

Agreed too.

Possible also that he is known. But who God is does not depend upon who people say he is; his reality cannot be dependent on our understanding. But if he is indeed the God of the Bible, he cannot be the god of any other religion by virtue of irreconcilable differences in attributes.

Or He changes. I know that stikes against Christianities teaching but maybe He's experimenting? Omnipotent but not omniscient?

While there are possibileties for you too be wrong, I think I still agree.

Again, people will disagree on many things, and this is true of every sphere of human thought. That the words of the Bible remain constant in spite of a multitude of fanciful interpretations give us more than mere opinion to go on, however. But in order for any group to call itself Christian, it must believe God's words. Faith is the make/break criterion for deciding a person's eternal destiny, whether in the OT or NT. This is quite clear.

Agreed.

What would you agree upon, without hedging later, that could not be written off as an illusion? After all, there is much fulfilled prophecy already, as can be seen at links on my web. Jesus even said, "If they won't believe Moses and the prophets, they won't even believe if someone rises from the dead". Jesus did rise from the dead, so why isn't that convincing? You doubt the event? Again, the evidence is presented at my web. A lot is gleaned from the research of Josh McDowell, who started out looking for the killing evidence against the resurrection. He was so overwhelmed by evidence to support it that he became a Christian. And he's not the only one that happened to. Something to consider.

I doubt the Event indeed and the truth of it. There are ways to apear dead and trick people.

I'll have to read trough your site again...

Aw, come on, cheap psychics and mediums can do that. But I would recommend taking the advice about at least keeping your eyes open, not with the attitude of demanding that God perform tricks for you, but with an honest seeking. Sometimes I think he takes his time just to test people's sincerety.

Mediums claim to do that...Maybe they are right But I found most mediums to be using obvious mind tricks. Still they can be right.

Well...I still have time.

You still have not demonstrated why it is "unfair" to compare Jesus to other religious figures like Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna, etc.

It is fair to compare Him, but it is unfair to say he's right because He supposedly said things other's don't even try to claim.

There is nothing debatable about His impact. No one has had more impact on the world than Jesus. As I said, history is divided by His very existence. Our calendars reflect that division. The apostles could not have had the courage to continue their missionary journals had it not been Christ empowering them to do so. Not even the apostles converted THAT much of the known world. Paul only had three missionary journeys and then spent the rest of His life in prison until he was martyred.

History is not divided by his existance. Our western way of recording History is dived by his exitance in numbers only. 10 BC and 10 AD are not more differnt from each other then 1980 and 2000. In fact they were much more similiar. Chinese and Muslim Calendars are differnt from ours.

And also...When exactly was Jesus born? And when exactly did He die? We don't really know that. The division is based on a guess.

Jesus the Person is part of a set of people who made His religion possible. He He not been there, No Christianity. But No St. Paul/Constantine and I think there would still be none. But that's a guess.

Why would His power be needed to reach a lot of people? Why couldn't they go on without it?

Buddists do amazing tyhings for their religion...Why can they do it alone and the aposteles couldn't?

Christianity is both different AND unique. It has qualities in it that no other religion has. Other religions are about quests to find God, or the quest for truth. In Christianity, God came looking for man. We don't have to search for Truth. Truth came seeking us, say "where art thou?"

Christians can't find/seek Truth? Tell me...Why do you have a Bible? Why bother to read it?

In other religions, God has to be appeased through hard work, good deeds, self-abasement. In Christianity, it is God who abased Himself. He became one of us, in the person of Jesus Christ and willingly died upon the cross for our sins, thus appeasing Himself. In Christianity, we cannot earn God's favor. We cannot appease God, or satisfy His justice.

Willingly? He followed His Fathers will and that's stated. He didn't really like it Himself.

And christianity also has works. Faith without works is dead.

Other religions teach that man is basically good, and simply needs to be more self aware/realized in order to live out that "goodness." In Christianity, man is a sinner, a hopeless wretch in the eyes of God, in need of a Savior. In Christianity, we have nothing to be proud of before God, nothing to boast about, nothing good to our credit. We are incapable of saving ourselves or offering anything good to the Lord. We have to have a Savior, otherwise we abide under God's wrath.

That's one of my biggest problems. Also, it depends were the standard for Goodness is.

In other religions, they see each other as basically the same. They compromise by offering the notion that they are simply different roads that lead to the same destination. Jesus, however does not offer Himself as one of many ways to God, but as the ONLY way. That makes Him unique. Jesus refuses to stand in the same line as Mohammed, or Buddha. He demands to be seen as God, and as the only Savior and hope for mankind. He does not allow us to see Him merely as different. He does not offer Himself as a prophet or as just a different religious figure. He is claims are completely unique and require all men to make a decision about Him.

Islam also is the only way. And maybe that is true...That thinking initiated a lot of evil into the world.

I'll have to study a few things about His claims before I can fully answer.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If matter exists, and it could not create itself, then it was caused by something else. The fact that matter is observed to always be "running down" is evidence that it has not always existed. But the First Cause is, by definition, uncaused, and therefore eternal. The reason we know something can't come from nothing is by observation, not logic. The reason we believe in a First Cause is by deduction.

Matter is not always running down. It can not be created nor destoyed. It can be converted into energy but nothing more.

But By observation, a First Cause also can not Come from nothing. It's an explanation for something we don't know.

Big Bang theory is being discredited by many scientists, and they are not creationists (see This Link). So it cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Science actually knows nothing at all about origins, since the origin of the universe was a single past event without human observation, and cannot be repeated in the laboratory. So "not knowing" and "blind faith" are the attributes of both sides of the coin.

Fully agreed. Exept that Scientists having problems with it doesn't mean it can't be assumed. There are always scientists having problems with something.

Order in the universe. Could 2 gods have cooperated to produce the single-minded design we observe? I suppose so, but we have no evidence of a multiplicity of sources.

No, but there's not evidence against it as well.

But what I was driving at is this: when we look at all the "gods" of all the religions, they have contradictory attributes, such that they cannot all be true. Only one of them can be the real God, otherwise he'd be a self-contradictory impossibility, as I tried to illustrate in my testimony.

No. It's very possible that the Real God, if He is there, is unknown. And varous Christian denominations disagree on things, some of wich have much impact on Who God is.

Even if it is the Christian God, than still it should be made clear wich version. Predestination or not? Works or Faith? What kind of Trinity? What kind of Wrath? Is Baptism needed or not? Hell or no Hell?

In any event, I'm simply relating my perspective, as are all other religions including atheism. The burning question is, how do we find the truth? The first thing each of us must do is define what it takes to prove something, or at least qualifiy it as highly likely. What is that for you? How would God "prove" Himself to you, without your writing it off as an illusion or something?

I agree tha Atheism is indeed a form of religion, altough it can be debated. Need a definition for religion first.

Some Prophecy fullfilled would make it true to me, or something that can't be an illusion. Something little, like writing readable for everybody, apearing out of nothingness. On a blackboard or something. Highly unlikely, but if it just apeared as with the second King of Babylon...Psychic Prayer would also do it for me. Somebody prays for an answer about me, something stupid and unknowable, like what kind of calendar is on my wall...I know that's tesing God, and it is not allowed but it would work.

I think that these questions do not have any clear answer. They are intresting questions but souls are things unrecognisable to science, and I don't believe the Bible has an answer.

A common answer to the question why unborn children die, from God's viewpoint, is that it is a test for the parents, and that the Soul is in Heaven and they shouldn't worry. I don't think that has a strong biblical foundation.

Biologically speaking...At times things go wrong. In a way it is a lottery, and we'd al be differnt if a differnt sperm hit the eggcell. But if we'd have a differnt think/soul is a question without an answer.

Please take a look at my testimony. I'm more of the analytical, philosophical type, so I approached this great quest from that angle. I'm not at all discounting the advice of the others, just offering another perspective.

I've taken a look at your testimony. Intresting read. Matter can not create itself. Agreed. So there must be a First Cause. Were did that come from? It has always been there. Something existing forever is just as unlogical as something coming from nothing.

And...We don't know about nothing. Big Bang theory seems to say that Nothing=>Something, but in fact it only says ???=>Something

Before a few seconds after the big bang we know of nothing. No facts about that time.

If people want to believe in God based on this, that's Ok for me. But inserting something somewere because you don't really know...

Also, I find the step: It has to be one God and not manny rather weird. Could you expand on that? What's wrong with two seperate Gods creating everything?

Why is it unfair? The rest of the world compares Jesus to peopple like Mohammed.

The bible says that Jesus said he was God. That's fundamentally differnt from what the Qu'ran says, namely that Muhammed had a revelation from God, presented to him by Gabri

Which is why all believers are to know and follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

I know. I just find that it's unfair to compare jesus with say, an Imam or even mohammed, because they are entirely differnt 'people'.

Our faith in Christ Jesus isn't faith in a mere human. There's no human being in the universe like the Lord Jesus Christ. He's unique in every way.

I seriously doubt His uniqueness.

The only way to KNOW if He's the truth, the way and the life...is to honestly ASK Him...If You are Lord and God, PLEASE show me the truth!

I did ask.

Jesus is the only Person who came to save others .He came as the Savior of the world.Jesus came as a mediator between man and God- to reconcile the world to God the creator.

That's not really true. There are more Gods who saved others.

I wouldn't want to live in Iran...But they have a point...

Religions and religious leaders/founders say: "Follow me and I'll show you the way" JESUS said: "I AM the Way"

They say: "Follow me and I'll show you the truth" JESUS said: "I AM the Truth"

They say: "Follow me and I'll show you the door" JESUS said: "I AM the Door"

They say: "Follow me and I'll show you eternal life" JESUS said: "I AM the Life"

They say: "Follow me and I'll show you peace" JESUS is the Prince of Peace

They say: "Follow me and we'll have peace on earth" The fact is that the world will not know true and everlasting peace until Jesus comes again!

Of course they say that. A christian pastor has to say the same thing, because only one who is founding a religion/sect can say something like 'I am the Truth'