Has Your life been better since becoming a Christian?

[systemstrike_7]

Well, nonetheless, I still can't believe it without having a firm foundation. In my eyes, it all seems very sketchy. And it seems that people have to go to great lengths to reconcile some of the challenges to Christianity.

[Floatingaxe]

2 Timothy 2:19

Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

1 Timothy 6:19

In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

The knowledge of God through Christ Jesus is our firm foundation!

The great lengths that people actually go to in order to avoid God's free gift is what boggles MY mind! The only challenge to Christianity is between the ears. You can think your way right into Hell. come to Jesus by faith, and let Him speak peace and truth to your heart. You will never regret it!

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE(shiloh357 @ Jan 20 2007, 08:41 AM)

Well you can check around at websites dedicated to Christian apologetics. You did not merely ask for info. I gave you info. You asked to see a 125 A.D. copy. What I said is common knowledge in the theological community. Here is a website that has pictures of some fragments of said manuscripts, it is a start I suppose>>>Ancient NT Manuscripts

Interesting site. I compared it to a secular site, and found that they have different conclusions on many of the same documents. And these earliest copies are fragments. We can gain no information on how alike they are with the copies we have now from a few sentences.

Well I did not say that the ONLY 125 A.D. manuscripts are fragments. There may be more than just the fragment I presented. I simply offered the resource I have available at this time. Scholars disagree, but it comes down to who can present the best evidence and to support their assertions. Just because you can find someone who disagrees, it does not automatically discredit the sources I provided. I am not a manuscript authority, but neither are you. What you need to do is test your assertions about the accuracy of the manuscripts with genuine authorities, and see how well your arguments fare. It is easy to get on a messageboard and argue with people in a forum where offering meaningful evidentiary support is next to impossible, and most of the people are not experts in the field. What I have found is that folks that hold your position rarely test their assumptions against real experts. I would also point out that going back further, we have many ancient copies of the Old Testament, the most famous being the complete book of Isaiah found at Qumran, which is now housed in The Shrine of the Book in Israel, and it shows the accuracy of our modern renditions of book of Isaiah.

QUOTE

Why would they have turned him into a legend, given that the "legend" was costing them their lives. If they consciously turned Jesus into a legend, human nature being what it is, would not have caused them to die for something/someone they had ficitionalized or embellished. No one would willingly undergo, torture and imprisonment and a slow, agonizing death for something they don't really believe in, or know is not true. As for Paul, he claims not only to have seen and spoken to Jesus on the road to Damascus, but to have been taken up into heaven, at one point, in 2 Corinthians 12.

I sometimes wonder if Paul is just a mere liar. Alot of literary scholars believe he is, without a doubt. He no doubt invented Christianity as we know it. Please point to me some non Pauline scripture that has Jesus telling us to throw away the old testament laws. I'm begging at this point.

Paul did not invent Christianity, nor did he ever tell anyone to throw away the OT laws. That is nothing but a grotesque reading of Paul. Paul states in Romans 3:31 that the Law is not made void, by our faith, but rather, is established by it. Paul taught the Law is holy, just and good in Romans 7:12, and later in verse 22, Paul states that he delights in the law. What people misunderstand about Paul is that he did not have a word for our modern term, "legalism." "Legalism" contrary to what people think, is not a biblical word. It completely English in origin. It requires a study of the context to understand that when it appears that Paul is condemning the law itself, he is actually condemning the misapplication of it. In Galatians for example, Paul was not "anti-circumcision;" he was condemning the way it had been perverted as means of adding to salvation by Judaizers who said that circumcision was needed in addition to faith in Christ to enter the Kingdom. Paul and Jesus both condemned the misapplication of the Law. Paul performed sacrifices twice, that we know of, one of those sacrifices was performed in Acts 21 to PROVE that he was not calling on people to abandon the Torah/Law. He claimed to be a Pharisee in the book of Acts, late in his life, and his enemies did not provide any arguments that he was no longer Jewish.

Gnosticism is not a specific religion or practise. I don't know where you got this information, but this is a few of many DIFFERENT beliefs.

Yeah I know... I said that already. I told you that there are variations and different kinds of gnosticism.

Some gnostic cults merely believe that Jesus never claimed to be God. Some (such as the Jewish Christianity) merely practise Jewish Law, but still believe everything else about Jesus. And yes, the church named this "cult" heretical and gnostic. There isn't a gnostic bible, or a gnostic set of rules that you have to follow to join the gnostic club. In all reality, gnosticism is just a set of beliefs that vary or add on to the norm.

I realize that, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is that you have yet to present the evidence that John's gospel is "gnostic."

QUOTE

Nothing you have said lends in credence to your assertion. I am Jewish. I forgotten more about anti-Semitism than people like you know. I know anti-Semitism when I read it, and see it. I have been the victim of it. John's gospel presents a Jewish Jesus who was Torah observant, and any claim of anti-Semitism is just blowing smoke. John focuses more on Jesus outright claims to being God than do the synoptic writers, but so what? The synoptic writers demonstrate and reveal a Jesus who had the power to forgive sins, who had personal power over death, and who even received worship from men. Jesus demonstrates Himself to be God just as much in the synoptics.

I'm not going to argue about the anti-semitism in John. If you can please find an article or essay written by a literary critic, you will find that they come to the same conclusion. I suggest you read "Jesus and Yahweh; The Divine Names" by Harold Bloom. He is probably the best literary critic to ever walk the face of the earth and he takes an unbiased view into the bible.

Whatever... The claims of anti-Semitism are just made up, those who claim it exists in John are just blowing smoke. I know what it looks like, and what it is. People will believe anything no matter how ridiculous or off-the-wall, if it seeks to discredit the Bible.

QUOTE

As I said, none of the "evidence" you provide speaks to the issue of Gnosticism. All you are doing is blowing smoke and parroting what you have heard other critics say. I doubt you really know what you are talking about.

I'll put it this way. After I became a Christian, I decided to start reading the bible. Well, after I had read the New Testament in its entirety, I could not believe that this was divinely inspired. I wish I could believe that the bible is infallible. But my common sense begs me otherwise.

So, what in the New Testament is it that denies inspiration or infallibility? What is the actual textual evidence you discovered? I am not interested in what some guy says in an article.

It's not that they aren't in agreement, its the fact that Paul has decided to record no information of the LIFE of Jesus.

Irrelevant.

It would seem that Paul only believes in a Jesus that died, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven. Of course he draws from the Torah!! But you have to remember that Paul got all of his information from a vision!

Well, that is wrong for two reasons. Number one, if Paul believed that Jesus died, then He would have to believe that Jesus lived as well. Why would Paul need to write a biography about Jesus? Why is that necessary to establish his credibility?

Second of all. Paul did not get all of His information from a vision. Paul does not say that. Paul said that he did not receive the gospel but by revelation of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but Jesus would have taught Paul every He taught the disciples in Luke 24: 25-27, 44-47. Jesus said that the OT was all about Him. So even if Paul did receive direct instruction from Jesus, it would still have been out of the Scriptures, as Jesus is always referring to Scriptures. Not everything Paul ever said or wrote was from a vision or direct revelation from Christ. Paul writes and quotes significantly from the Old Testament. In fact, if someone, a Jew perhaps, wanted to test Paul as to the accuracy of His teaching, Paul only had one authority and it would have been the OT. Everything in the NT is written out of OT knowledge.

Acts has Paul meeting with the disciples directly after the conversion on the road to damascus. Well, Paul says they met three years after the event. Why the contradiction? Did the author of Acts not want the people to think that Paul was independtly preaching his own message of salvation without the help of the disciples?

No, you need to read a bit more. Paul met with the disciples in Damascus immediately after his conversion. His meeting with Peter occurred after three years. The disciples in Damascus is not a reference to THE disciples, as in the original 12. There were many more than 12, and they were in cities all over the place. It is not a contradiction; you are simply misunderstanding the text.

Well Paul has no problem with this. He often boasts about his vision. Apparently, he doesn't need the disciples. I would have to argue that the synoptic gospels were written around Paul's teachings. The synoptics, and especially John, were written on the basis of John's teachings, and then used oral tradition to fill in the gap. We all now how mixed up oral tradition can get. Have you ever played that game where you stand in a circle and someone whispers some story to their neighbor? You then proceed to tell the person next to you and you keep going until it makes the full circle back to the originator. Well, it never fails that the story get horribly messed up, and this is in a period of maybe 10 minutes!! Think about a decade! Or a half century!

1. Paul is not "boasting" in or about his vision. When Paul speaks of his vision on the Road to Damascus, he is simply giving his testimony. You are unfairly assigning motive to Paul. Haven't you ever done or said something, and had someone claim that you had a malicious reason for saying what you said, even though your motive was in fact, pure? That is what you are doing to Paul.

2. Yeah I have heard the oral tradition tripe before, and it does not hold water because again, we have enough surviving manuscripts to compare over several centuries and aside from some spelling errors, there is nothing that exists to support the idea that we are engaging in a game of "Telephone."

[maguschris]

I'm not saying his word is fallible. I'm saying that the people who wrote and copied and translated his story over hundreds of years are fallible. Some with sloppy handwriting, some with lazy eyes, some with shaky fingers, some with agendas of their own. When the canon was accepted, it was judged upon how much each gospel conformed to the church's own beliefs.

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept.

In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript.

Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible.

Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible.

You can't say that truthfully

Proof? Ok.

A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees.

B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible

C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read.

D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations.

conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally)

Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys.

Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM.

[Floatingaxe]

You do need to believe that God's Word is perfect and infallible, as He says it is, or you make Him out to be a liar, tacitly, of course.

How can you possible preach the truth to people if you don't believe it all is the truth? What kind of a witness is that?

PS: What Shiloh has posted is the truth.

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm not saying his word is fallible. I'm saying that the people who wrote and copied and translated his story over hundreds of years are fallible. Some with sloppy handwriting, some with lazy eyes, some with shaky fingers, some with agendas of their own. When the canon was accepted, it was judged upon how much each gospel conformed to the church's own beliefs.

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept.

In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript.

Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible.

Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible.

You can't say that truthfully

Proof? Ok.

A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees.

B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible

C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read.

D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations.

conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally)

Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys.

Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM.

Well you completely avoided the substance of what I said. There are plenty of ancient authors contemporary with the writers of the Bible, but we have less textual evidence for their accuracy of their writings, but no one challenges the accuracy of what we have from Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Plato, etc. Only the Bible, which despite having more textual evidence is still doubted as accurate. It seems that that a standard for the Bible is demanded which is not demanded for other ancient documents when it comes to accuracy in transmission.

Nothing you have presented in any refutes the accuracy the Scriptures.

[maguschris]

I'm not saying his word is fallible. I'm saying that the people who wrote and copied and translated his story over hundreds of years are fallible. Some with sloppy handwriting, some with lazy eyes, some with shaky fingers, some with agendas of their own. When the canon was accepted, it was judged upon how much each gospel conformed to the church's own beliefs.

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept.

In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript.

Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible.

Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible.

You can't say that truthfully

Proof? Ok.

A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees.

B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible

C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read.

D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations.

conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally)

Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys.

Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM.

Well you completely avoided the substance of what I said. There are plenty of ancient authors contemporary with the writers of the Bible, but we have less textual evidence for their accuracy of their writings, but no one challenges the accuracy of what we have from Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Plato, etc. Only the Bible, which despite having more textual evidence is still doubted as accurate. It seems that that a standard for the Bible is demanded which is not demanded for other ancient documents when it comes to accuracy in transmission.

Nothing you have presented in any refutes the accuracy the Scriptures.

Well apparently everything has to be spelled out...

look we are not discussing the accuracy of other ancient texts so, no wonder no one is questioning it in this thread. I'm SURE there are people out there that do, so the blanket statement that "no one does" is inherently false, because you do not know everyone in the world, therefore you cannot say that.

Also, if some books are in one kind of Bible why are they not in another. this is OBVIOUSLY an error somewhere. Since I have just proven that not all of the Bibles in the world are perfect and equal and containt he exact content, your claim that they do is logically false.

[Floatingaxe]

I'm not saying his word is fallible. I'm saying that the people who wrote and copied and translated his story over hundreds of years are fallible. Some with sloppy handwriting, some with lazy eyes, some with shaky fingers, some with agendas of their own. When the canon was accepted, it was judged upon how much each gospel conformed to the church's own beliefs.

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept.

In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript.

Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible.

Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible.

You can't say that truthfully

Proof? Ok.

A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees.

B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible

C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read.

D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations.

conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally)

Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys.

Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM.

Well you completely avoided the substance of what I said. There are plenty of ancient authors contemporary with the writers of the Bible, but we have less textual evidence for their accuracy of their writings, but no one challenges the accuracy of what we have from Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Plato, etc. Only the Bible, which despite having more textual evidence is still doubted as accurate. It seems that that a standard for the Bible is demanded which is not demanded for other ancient documents when it comes to accuracy in transmission.

Nothing you have presented in any refutes the accuracy the Scriptures.

Well apparently everything has to be spelled out...

look we are not discussing the accuracy of other ancient texts so, no wonder no one is questioning it in this thread. I'm SURE there are people out there that do, so the blanket statement that "no one does" is inherently false, because you do not know everyone in the world, therefore you cannot say that.

Also, if some books are in one kind of Bible why are they not in another. this is OBVIOUSLY an error somewhere. Since I have just proven that not all of the Bibles in the world are perfect and equal and containt he exact content, your claim that they do is logically false.

ERROR SOMEWHERE? No, just that many people who are scholarly about the Word and happen to know the "author" are smarter than you! You can't prove your way out of a paper bag.

You mean you can't pinpoint the exact error? Awwww!

[maguschris]

I'm not saying his word is fallible. I'm saying that the people who wrote and copied and translated his story over hundreds of years are fallible. Some with sloppy handwriting, some with lazy eyes, some with shaky fingers, some with agendas of their own. When the canon was accepted, it was judged upon how much each gospel conformed to the church's own beliefs.

Actually there are over 25,000 copies of the NT alone, and aside from some spelling errors, when these mansuscripts are compared, there is no variation. That is simple historical fact, that a lot of people who are not personally familiar with the manuscript evidence are not willing accept.

In fact, the Bible has more ancient manuscript evidence to support it's accuracy than do the writings of say, Plato or Pliny the Younger. The earliest copies of the NT go back to around 125 A.D. That means that there is only a 25 year time span between the earliest known copy and the original manuscript.

Compare that to the Tetralogies of Plato who lived in the 5th centry B.C. The earliest copy of the Tetralogies is 900 A.D. That is a time span of at least 1,200 years between the earliest known copy and the original, AND we only have 20 early manuscripts. Yet people will put more faith in the writings of Plato than the Bible.

Aristotle, Euripides, Demosthsenes, Pliny the Younger, Homer, Suetonius, Sophocles etc., none of the writings of these men of the ancient world have anywhere near the manuscript support for accuracy that the Bible has, and the timespan between their originals and the earliest known copies are far greater than the Bible.

You can't say that truthfully

Proof? Ok.

A. The African Bible contains two more books than the American Bible. These include Enoch and Jubilees.

B. The catholic Bible contains more books than the protestant Bible

C. The original NT manuscripts are nowhere to be found, the last I read.

D. The information contained in the manuscripts were passed down orally for generations.

conclusion: we have no idea if what we are reading today is exactly the same as it was when they were first created, let alone thought up (being passed down orally)

Honestly though it doesn't matter to me. I don't need every single little thing to be 100% accurate in the Bible for me to believe. Personal relationship with Jesus remember guys.

Oh and P.S. I really dont give a rats butt what member group you put me in. I AM believer (a believer with questions, but still a believer) And I really dont find it fair that I can't access parts of this forum. The thread to ask for help for example and other features like PM.

Well you completely avoided the substance of what I said. There are plenty of ancient authors contemporary with the writers of the Bible, but we have less textual evidence for their accuracy of their writings, but no one challenges the accuracy of what we have from Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Plato, etc. Only the Bible, which despite having more textual evidence is still doubted as accurate. It seems that that a standard for the Bible is demanded which is not demanded for other ancient documents when it comes to accuracy in transmission.

Nothing you have presented in any refutes the accuracy the Scriptures.

Well apparently everything has to be spelled out...

look we are not discussing the accuracy of other ancient texts so, no wonder no one is questioning it in this thread. I'm SURE there are people out there that do, so the blanket statement that "no one does" is inherently false, because you do not know everyone in the world, therefore you cannot say that.

Also, if some books are in one kind of Bible why are they not in another. this is OBVIOUSLY an error somewhere. Since I have just proven that not all of the Bibles in the world are perfect and equal and containt he exact content, your claim that they do is logically false.

ERROR SOMEWHERE? No, just that many people who are scholarly about the Wordf and happen to know the "author" are smarter than you! You can't prove your way out of a paper bag.

You mean you can't pinpoint the exact error? Awwww!

O ok well at least im not runnign around the forum calling people dumb. and uh you have no idea what my IQ is, thank you very much. And uh then what is your explanation of different books in the Bible between the American protestant, catholic, and African Bibles?

[Floatingaxe]

As you said elsewhere, you don't really care that much, so it isn't worthy enough a question for me to go researching an answer for. If I really considered you a seeker, maybe I would.

Suffice it to say, I trust the canon the way it has been decided. I have read parts of the books included in the Catholic Bible and they are clearly not inspired works, and God does not speak to us through them.