Bible

[~~ angelique ~~]

it is not wrong to question and not take things at face value but demand proof?????

yes...Woden had a good point there. If you hear something and it dosn't line up with God's word...then don't believe it...in a way, yes...demand proof, which is the Word of God. Doctrine has to be backed up with the word of God. The Doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) is the only doctrin that Christians should be interested in. Every other doctrine has to be questioned. If it dosn't line up with God's word...leave it alone.

Walking in Victory,

J

Just a question. How can you tell whether or not something is God's word unless you question it? Someone could easily get up on a pulpit wearing a priest's frock and give out a speech that sounded similar to God's word, but was actually quite different.

Now, obviously as an atheist I don't believe that God has an intention any more than I believe that the Jade Emperor of Heaven has an intention, but if you believed that he did exist and thus did have some kind of desires about the world, then surely the only way to ensure that you were doing his bidding would be to question absolutely every source so you could be sure it was God's word, right?

Hmm.. You bring up a good point. Is the only way to be sure is to question? And, if so, how much should one reasonably do so?

How would you propose to prove that the bible was or was not Gods word? Can we put God on the stand? This is the basis of being a Christian, living by faith.

idk... maybe look at what Paul did? I have been looking at some of what he spoke @ Mars Hill. What do you think?

[OneLight]

idk... maybe look at what Paul did? I have been looking at some of what he spoke @ Mars Hill. What do you think?

Anything specific yo are referring to?

[~~ angelique ~~]

idk... maybe look at what Paul did? I have been looking at some of what he spoke @ Mars Hill. What do you think?

Anything specific yo are referring to?

For me personally, I am looking into how Paul talked to them about the altar to the unknown God and the surrounding situations leading up to the discussion. Having a Wiccan understanding in a lot of areas, I find the reference to the altars facinating and worth looking into; specifically, how he talked to them about it. He acted like a lawyer in presenting his case at mars hill so, I figure this is a good one to look at. From what I have looked up thus far, Paul seems to be good at answering questions with gentiles and jews.

The other thing is that I found a passage in Isaiah that says, "come let us reason together" - reason meaning to discuss like in a court case. So, I am curious about this. Is that clearer?

[Trusting Jesus]

You can read historians such as Josephus and see what he has to say about it. Why would Paul allow himself to be beaten many times and beheaded for a lie? Why would Peter allow himselfe to be crucified for a lie? Why would Stephen allow himself to be stoned to death for a lie? Why would the Roman guards around the tomb of Jesus lie about rolling the stone away (the body of Jesus was gone and they were responsible - they were in trouble no matter what). Through the ages men, women, and children have been put to death for believing the Bible, and they could have saved themselves by saying they didn't believe.

It comes down to faith. Humans throughout the years have done awful things in the name of God (the Crusades for instance), but when a person reads and understands the Bible, it is the love of God that we see. God loved us and stepped into His creation to save us. That is love.

<>< ><>

Nathele

[OneLight]

idk... maybe look at what Paul did? I have been looking at some of what he spoke @ Mars Hill. What do you think?

Anything specific yo are referring to?

For me personally, I am looking into how Paul talked to them about the altar to the unknown God and the surrounding situations leading up to the discussion. Having a Wiccan understanding in a lot of areas, I find the reference to the altars facinating and worth looking into; specifically, how he talked to them about it. He acted like a lawyer in presenting his case at mars hill so, I figure this is a good one to look at. From what I have looked up thus far, Paul seems to be good at answering questions with gentiles and jews.

The other thing is that I found a passage in Isaiah that says, "come let us reason together" - reason meaning to discuss like in a court case. So, I am curious about this. Is that clearer?

Lots! Paul addressed them about the "unknown God" because they never heard of Jesus; therefor, He was unknown to them. I like the way Paul puts it; "Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands." That is why Paul stressed about the true God not being a statue. He said "we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man

[HeatherEljohari]

It was Jacob who wrestled with Jesus. Jacob had been, well, and interesting character. He hadn't been a shining example of a Godly man. But the wrestling match taught him a lesson. He needed God. Yes, at any time our Lord could have won, but He allowed Jacob to fight until he realized that he needed God. It was then -- when Jacob gave into God -- that God was able to use him and gave him a new name - Israel. Jacob means "heal catcher" or "surplanter". Israel means "God prevails".

As for Saul, he really did see Samuel. It's a very interesting story with many lessons in it, but it really was Samuel.

<>< ><>

Nathele

Also if you read the story about Jacob. He ended up with a limp the rest of his life... sometimes we wrestle with God and his choices before God has to face us with some kind of demonstration to show us that we arent right and without him were nothing. Now mind you he carried that limp the rest of his life, so that battle he fought will never be forgotten.

Heatherxxx

[Guest shiloh357]

You can read historians such as Josephus and see what he has to say about it. Why would Paul allow himself to be beaten many times and beheaded for a lie? Why would Peter allow himselfe to be crucified for a lie? Why would Stephen allow himself to be stoned to death for a lie? Why would the Roman guards around the tomb of Jesus lie about rolling the stone away (the body of Jesus was gone and they were responsible - they were in trouble no matter what). Through the ages men, women, and children have been put to death for believing the Bible, and they could have saved themselves by saying they didn't believe.

It comes down to faith. Humans throughout the years have done awful things in the name of God (the Crusades for instance), but when a person reads and understands the Bible, it is the love of God that we see. God loved us and stepped into His creation to save us. That is love.

<>< ><>

Nathele

This is a good point. It also adds validity to the disciple's testimony that they had indeed seen Jesus alive after His resurrection.

No one would willingly undergo persecution, torture, public vilification and certain death just to proclaim something they KNEW was not true. All they would have had to have done is simply admit they made the whole thing up and just disappear into the shadows of time, never to be heard from again, and Christianity would have been choked out of existance within the first year of its existance.

[Guest shiloh357]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the Bible. God is not threatened by questions and challenges.

The problem stems from unrealistic standards of "proof" being demanded of those who do not believe. I don't know how many times we have been asked questions that are unreasonable and that no one could possibly have an answer to, and then our inability to provide an answer is seen as some kind of triumph.

As long as questions are reasonable AND are accompanied by a sincere willingness to examine fairly and reasonably any evidence provided, then questions can and should be entertained.

Here is an example of what I mean. I for one, am not a scientist. While I find certain aspects of science interesting, I am not well-versed in it, therefore, attempting to challenge me in a "creation/evolution" debate is unreasonable. It would be just as unreasonable to expect an atheist who is an expert in Imunochemistry to be able to debate the finer points of a theological concept like the hypostatic union.

Questions that cannot be answered definitively and which it is obvious that no real answer beyond a personal opinion exists, are unreasonable if such questions are being asked as a basis for discrediting Christianity.

I would also add that not every Christian is an expert on Christianity, and just because a Christian cannot answer a question at a particular moment, does not mean that an answer does not exist and their inability to answer at that moment should not be used a blugeoning tool against them.

One final point. A lot of people are pretty loose with the word "proof." We cannot "prove" the existance of God, nor the historicity of the supernatural events in the Bible. Expecting "proof" of God's existance is unreasonable and should not be part of any debate on Christianity. However, we can provide evidence and we can demonstrate that our's is not a blind faith devoid of any evidentiary claims. Asking God "prove" His existance by causing all cats to grow wings is silly, but I have seen it used on this board and it really lowers the dignity of the debate.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Feb 11 2008, 09:41 PM)

This is a good point. It also adds validity to the disciple's testimony that they had indeed seen Jesus alive after His resurrection.

No one would willingly undergo persecution, torture, public vilification and certain death just to proclaim something they KNEW was not true. All they would have had to have done is simply admit they made the whole thing up and just disappear into the shadows of time, never to be heard from again, and Christianity would have been choked out of existance within the first year of its existance.

People have done that for all kinds of things, though: Christianity, Islam, Comunism, their nation, National Socialism, Scientology. Buddhist monks have set themselves on fire in protest of the treatment of others. If a Japanese samurai disagreed with his lord's decision, he would sometimes disembowel himself in protest. Magda Goebbels killed her six youngest children because she believed that they could not live in a world without Hitler. No woman would willingly kill six of her children for something they KNEW was not true. She had plenty of opportunities to sneak the children out of Berlin into the the countryside where they would be safe. All she would have had to do was admit that her children living in an Allied-occupied Germany would have been better than them being dead.

You are missing the point. I realize that other people have died for their own causes. I did not say that the apostles dying for their proves Christianity to be true. All I said is that it gives validity to the testimony of the apostles that they were not dying for fairytale belief in a dead God. They claimed to be eyewitnesses of a resurrected man named Jesus whom the also claim to have seen ascend into heaven. Their willingness to die for that testimony adds weight to it, by any logical standard and cannot be discounted out of hand.

[Guest shiloh357]

It only adds credence to the strength of their belief. Not to whether or not they were correct in their belief.

That is what I said, basically. My point was that no one dies for something they KNOW is not true, which eliminates the argument that they just made the whole thing up. No one would go through years and years of torture and face almost certain death IF all they had to do was say, "yeah, we made the whole thing up." Faced with torture and death, holding to the lie would suddenly become quite overrated.

I could similarly argue that a Jehovah's Witness's willingness to die for their belief adds weight to it, or Lisa McPherson's willingness to die for scientology adds weight to her beliefs or Magda Goebbels willingness to die for her beliefs adds weight to the Truth of Naziism.

Yes, you could argue that.

It's inconsistent to say that a willingness to die for your beliefs strengthens testimony when the person dying is Christian, but not when the person is dying for some other cause.

Yes, that would be inconsistent IF that were what I were arguing, but as I stated you are still missing the point. I did not say that simply dying for a belief makes it more weighty than other beliefs. My point was that a willingness to die for what one believes adds weight to over and against the argument that the aposltes simply made up the whole story of the resurrection out of some selfish desire to perpetuate a religious movement.

It is also entirely possible for someone to be told something false and then, because they're gullible or whatever, believe it to be true. In that case, they will have as much faith in their convictions as anyone who knows what actually is true, since that is what they believe. It doesn't make them right though. There is such a thing as being just plain wrong.

That is true, but the apostles did not claim to that they were believing something they were told. They claimed to be eyewitnesses. Please note the following:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Peter 1:16-18)

Peter is referring to event in Matthew 17:1-5 when Jesus was transfigured in front of them and they saw Moses and Elijah appear with Him on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Also note the following:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

(John 1:14)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

(1 John 1:1-3)

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

(1 John 4:14)

Also, how do you weigh the merits of the testimony of those who believe he was an incarnate god vs those who think he was a false messiah

Well, that depends on the types of arguments raised against Him being God and/or being the Messiah. There is no blanket response that can cover all types of possible arguments that could be raised. I would weigh each argument against text of Scripture itself. I will say this much also: The ability to have such a debate would depend on how reasonable the opposition would be. For example, if the person rejecting the Messiahship or Deity of Jesus also rejects the Bible as a valid source of information and is unwilling to consider anything either the Old or New Testament has to say, then there is no reason to continue, as the Bible is my primary source material. It would be like expecting a lawyer to show up to trial and have to argue his case without the benefit of any of the available evidence he needs to support his case.

vs those who thought he was an important prophet (but not the messiah)

That is always an interesting one, for two reasons: Firstly, Jesus did not offer Himself as a merely a prophet. While operated in the ministry of a prophet, Jesus did not offer Himself as nothing more than just a great prophet. He offered Himself as both Savior and God. Which leads us to my second point, namely IF someone were to acknowledge Jesus as an "important" prophet, and I assume that such a view is accompanied by the assumption that He was at least a good man, then why would they disbelieve Him in the first place if He says He is God? I mean if Jesus as a prophet claims to be God, then either is a good man (and good men don't lie), and He is who He says He is, OR He did in fact lie, which if that is true, that would eliminate Jesus from an important prophet, since God would not endorse a man who is a false prophet.

vs those who think he was just a loony?

Well, if someone were to say, Jesus was just crazy, he suffered from delusions of grandeur, or had some other mental illness, it would be up to the person making that claim to provide the evidence. They would either knowingly or unknowingly place the burden of proof upon themselves to support such a claim.

The only way you can do it is by comparing various texts to see which ones are the most mutually supportive (with added weight given to contemporary texts) and to take those pieces to be the most accurate.

LIke that hasn't already been done? There over 25,000 pieces of ancient Greek New Testament references to Jesus both in the form of either copies of New Testament text or references to/quotations from those text in secular Greek manuscripts contemporary with the early chuch dating at the earliest to be around 125 A.D. As for discrepencies, most of them are either spelling/grammatical errors, or texts where words are reversed such as "Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ Jesus." Only a few genuine textual difficulties exist, but they are in obsure locations of the New Testament and do not bear on any part of Scripture that deals with any major Christian doctrine. There are so many references to the gospels outside the Bible in the first century alone, we can construct all four gospels entirely from extra-biblical citations, and they are in complete agreement with the ancient texts, themselves.

These 25,000 pieces of mansucript (some larger some smaller, some even just fragments) show amazing agreement and the pure volume of these manuscripts and the shortness of the time span between the time of the actual events and the earliest known copy is unheard of with respect to any other ancient writings. There is more evidence for the reliablity of the New Testament than there is for the writings of Plato, Pliny the Younger, Homer, etc. I mean, if you want to go on the grounds of textual evidence, you would have to call into question whether or not we really know if Plato wrote what is attributed to him. We only have seven copies and the earliest known copy of his writings dates to 1,200 after Plato is known to have lived. The earliest known copy of the New Testament dates to within just 50-60 years after the time period when the apostles are said to have been alive and writing said gospels.

You should also consider which texts are most likely to be recorded without bias: tax records, for example are probably a better indicator of demographics than eye-witness reports, no matter how vivid the eye-witness report is (this is because no government ever likes to see people messing with its money, but eyewitnesses can engage in all kinds of hyperbole).

Yes, and if we were dealing with demographics, you might have a point, but we are not. We are dealing the reliability of the apostles' testimony, not to mention the reliability of Jesus' testimony about Himself all which bears on the integrity of the Bible. While there are historical references to Jesus outside of the Bible, they do not offer any aargument for or against the validity of Jesus' claims about Himself. Given this subject matter, eyewitness accounts are vitally important testimony and cannot simply be brushed aside as unusable or unreliabile.