I'll do my best to answer them here.

According to scripture of course.

Also other saints feel free to answer/add to discussion as well.

6/28/2011 9:11:17 PM

Move this to Chit Chat

6/28/2011 9:14:55 PM

If the mods want to move it they can.

6/28/2011 9:56:10 PM

OK I'll start.

Beyond growing up a in the United States and having Christianity and Catholicism be the only two reasonable religions that you might follow, what makes you believe Christianity is true, or that your religion is better than any other? (I understand there are other religions, but those seem like the biggies here in Amurca).

I mean, Christianity basis its beliefs off stuff like man was made from dust, woman was made from a rib, if it floods we can gather two of each animal and survive, people can walk on water, people can rise from the dead, etc etc etc..... If any other book made that claim we would call it utter bullshit, but for some reason the Bible has a following like none other.

So why believe the Bible, and what makes it any more believable than the Koran or any other religious text?

6/28/2011 10:04:43 PM

LOL you do realize that Catholics are Christians right?

6/28/2011 10:11:36 PM

^^And a stellar start to a TWW religion thread putting Christianity and Catholicism in two different groups, failing to realize that Catholicism is, in fact, part of Christianity.

And starting by asking why all Christians believe that everything in the Bible is fact is another terrible misnomer. Yes, Genesis is in nearly all Bibles. No, not everyone follows that verbatum.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/28/2011 10:11:44 PM

Christians believe in the new testament as a literalist historical document and the old testament as a a literal, non-literalist, symbolic yet factual document.

6/28/2011 10:16:33 PM

I am not going to get in a pissing contest about religion, frankly because I don't care. But yes, many people view Catholicism and Christianity as two very different things. Some don't. Who really gives a fuck, it has very little to do with the point of my question to the OP.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm

6/28/2011 10:35:24 PM

No offense, but that's kinda like me saying that I don't care about the NBA, then going into a Sports Talk NBA thread and asking how people could watch a sport largely orchestrated by NBA officials based on who winning would give them the most profits. (Come to think of it, I may have done that, but point still stands). You don't do it unless you are trying to start a pissing match (which I admittedly probably was).

And people view Catholicism and Christianity as different things like people believe that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist with a fake birth certificate trying to destroy America. The same people who view the two differently probably have never even heard of the Orthodox church, which should tell you a pretty good amount in-it-of-itself (the age-old Protestant vs. Catholic debate).

But I congratulate you on successfully derailing a thread and sticking to your guns beyond all reason.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 10:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/28/2011 10:48:13 PM

First I'd like to address an important issue. I do not consider everyone who calls themselves a Christian to be saved.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Matt 7:21

That being said, I believe there are saints (those who are saved) from every denomination and every people, the Jews as well. I do not recognize the Catholic church as the holy church of God, as this church is a collection of the saints. I can also understand why Feeble distinguishes between Catholicism and Christianity, that is not to say that denomination's don't share aspects of Catholicism and that some Catholics aren't saints.



So one of the main reasons, that I came to Jesus Christ was because Christianity was the only religion that offered a savior and did not redeem one based upon works but by faith, as has always been the case since the beginning of time:

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Romans 1:17

The reason why salvation is faith based is because no man could live up to the perfect standard of God after original sin.

"For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

Eccl 7:20

Thus none could be redeemed by doing good because by their own standard of even slight imperfection they have condemned themselves:


"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."

Pro 16:25

These are the reasons I believe.


So the reason that the Bible is so believable, is because within itself it has no inconsistencies and has many fulfilled prophecy. It can also be marked by very similar writing style, (mainly in the OT) which is the imparting of the Holy Spirit through the word of God upon the writer.

"Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD."

1 King 12:24

I'm sorry if the answers are rather brief but the questions are quite broad. Not a bad thing though, good questions.

6/28/2011 11:02:47 PM

Do you believe that free will of humanity and an omnipotent god are compatible concepts?

6/28/2011 11:21:27 PM

Yes, but it is difficult to understand the compatibility, due to the fact that eternity cannot be understood and exists outside of time.

6/28/2011 11:37:05 PM

Quote :

" It can also be marked by very similar writing style, (mainly in the OT) which is the imparting of the Holy Spirit through the word of God upon the writer. "

You basing this off of the original texts, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and whatever else they were written in?

Or are you saying that the dudes who translated Exodus did some similar translation work when they got to Psalms?

^
That's always frustrated me...the "it's beyond the comprehension of mere mortals" every time there's something that just doesn't make sense.




I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm really not at all the smug anti-Christian type. I can't accept it, though, especially not with enough confidence to base my life on it.

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 11:43 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on June 28, 2011 at 11:44 PM. Reason : ^]

6/28/2011 11:40:12 PM

Quote :

"Yes, but it is difficult to understand the compatibility, due to the fact that eternity cannot be understood and exists outside of time."

I don't see how it's hard to understand the compatibility. God knows our future actions, according to the Bible. If God knows our future actions, they must be pre-determined.

6/28/2011 11:56:36 PM

The Catholic church is the original church built by Peter. All the others are new churches that don't go all the way back to Jesus. You could say they are better because the real one is corrupted but you can't deny that there is only one holy and apostolic church.

6/29/2011 12:00:44 AM

1) If God looks out for Christians, why aren't Christians more successful in their goal of spreading Christianity, evidenced by a decrease in people identifying themselves as Christians? Shouldn't God be helping Christians, at the bare minimum, successfully spread his word? What does this failure mean about God? Does this mean God doesn't intervene in our lives?


2) If God's will is inevitable, why doesn't God Will for more people to become Christians? If God loves us, why does Revelations predict the downfall and doom of humanity? Does God choose not to fight the Devil, or does the Devil's power rival God's?

3) If God helps Christians, why doesn't God help Christians find stable relationships, evidenced by the dissimilar (and worse by some studies) divorce rates among Christians?

4) (if they say it's the work of the Devil that causes people to ignore Christ) Does that mean that the Devil's power rival's God?
OR
Why do other religions have miracles too?

5) When Moses visited the Pharoah, the Pharoah's god turned his scepter into a snake, does this mean other gods have miraculous powers too?

6) Did the native Americans/isolated people living in 4000BC all go to Hell?
if they say yes -> God seems pretty evil and cruel, get out of my house
if they say no -> Why would God make it easier for them to go to Heaven than modern-day man?
other arguments about what happened, you'll have to think on your feet

7) Mark and Luke both say that blaspheming The Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin, does that mean i should just not bother with Christ if I have ever at any point in my entire life disrespected the Holy Spirit?
(LUKE 12:10, MARK 3:29 if they ask)

8) Will I remember by atheist mother/father/brother/spouse in Heaven?
If YES: Won't that make me sad? Won't I miss them? etc...
if NO: Doesn't that change fundamentally who i am? Why would my life on earth matter if I lose everything that makes me, me?

6/29/2011 12:37:35 AM

1. free will of people to not become christians or deter others from being christians. Its amazing christianity has spread this much. How can something that was hunted down like al qaeda in its early day be practiced by billions today? How can christianity be in the far reaches of the planet? china?

2.free will again. we can choose god or the devil. he lets us make whatever choice we want. God chooses not to fight because the devil too has free will.

3. free will of people to sin, lust, cheat etc. free will of people to call it quits when marriage gets tough.

4. free will of the devil

5. old testament figurative language

6.purgatory

7.purgatory

Basically the concepts you need to look over are free will, purgatory and old testament literalism.

6/29/2011 2:02:30 AM

Questions about unicorns? I'll do my best to answer them here.

6/29/2011 7:55:08 AM

how did humanity begin with only 1 couple that had only 2 sons? and i thought incest was a sin?

6/29/2011 8:52:43 AM

Quote :

"I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm really not at all the smug anti-Christian type. I can't accept it, though, especially not with enough confidence to base my life on it."

You know, Duke, you can look at something and go "That doesn't make a bit of sense" without hemming and hawing over whether you're going to offend someone's sensibilities. You spend so much time demonizing and trying not to be a "evangelical atheist" that you're missing the forest for the trees.

Belief in dumb things is dumb and explaining how the beliefs are dumb is not offensive and even if it were it's worth it to convince people who believe in dumb things to figure it out. You know this, that's why you were compelled to bring it up and suggest that you can't accept it and you won't be basing your life on it.

Quote :

"Basically the concepts you need to look over are free will, purgatory and old testament literalism."

You mean made-up horseshit that raises more questions than it answers? Awesome. Why don't Christians just make up scientifically sound answers? If they *could* everyone would be a Christian. Because they cannot, there's no good reason to believe any of it.

Quote :

"how did humanity begin with only 1 couple that had only 2 sons? and i thought incest was a sin?"

Look. Genesis is wrong. Completely wrong. Not only is all of it not supported by the evidence, it is all specifically refuted by the evidence. Any reasonable Christian is just going to tell you that it's figurative. Otherwise they're not interested in evidence so asking them to explain why they believe it is completely and utterly pointless.


[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 9:37 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2011 9:28:28 AM

Quote :

"The Catholic church is the original church built by Peter. All the others are new churches that don't go all the way back to Jesus. You could say they are better because the real one is corrupted but you can't deny that there is only one holy and apostolic church."

Your right on one accord. There is only one holy church, but it is not made by the hands of man, nor is it the subjects of one denomination.

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready."

Rev 19:7 here speaks of the symbolic marriage of Christ, head of the church to the body, which is a collection of all the saints.

The Song of Songs is one large poem about the marriage of the church and Christ

"12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

Coll 1

The saints are not part of a church redeemed by the blood of Christ not by some man made institution.

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call."
Acts 2:39

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

Rev 5:9

I'll expand more on this later g2g to work.

6/29/2011 9:37:50 AM

Quote :

"Look. GenesisThe Bible is wrong. Completely wrong. Not only is all of it not supported by the evidence, it is all specifically refuted by the evidence. Any reasonable Christianperson is just going to tell you that it's figurative. Otherwise they're not interested in evidence so asking them to explain why they believe it is completely and utterly pointless. "

6/29/2011 9:46:29 AM

Here's my question: what if you spent all the time you wasted on a document outlining bronze age morality on studying mathematics instead?

6/29/2011 9:59:11 AM

I also just realized that everything moron wrote was copypasta. I'll do my best to answer it though.

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason : ]

6/29/2011 10:22:14 AM

Given your B.S. in Chemistry, how do you reconcile the age of the Earth with Scripture? What do you interpret the age of the Earth being in Scripture?

6/29/2011 10:31:09 AM

I don't feel like getting into a how old is the Earth argument, but according to scripture the current age of the Earth should be about 6000 years.


Now let's all pull our evidence together of which neither of us have any backing since we weren't at the creation of the Earth. You want to postulate ways for testing age, I'll find examples of times which those ways have failed. But please save me the trouble of doing so as it is not pertinent to scripture.

You make it sound like all scientists have to believe in the big bang theory.

6/29/2011 10:40:34 AM

You say you don't want to get into an argument, does that mean you do think that the world is 6000 years old?

Quote :

"Now let's all pull our evidence together of which neither of us have any backing since we weren't at the creation of the Earth."

You don't have to directly observe an event to have evidence of that event. Are you honestly suggesting that all the evidence given by the fields of Geology, Paleontology, CHEMISTRY, and Physics suggesting a world much much older than 6000 years old "has no backing?"

Quote :

"You want to postulate ways for testing age, I'll find examples of times which those ways have failed. But please save me the trouble of doing so as it is not pertinent to scripture."

Are you suggesting that the ways scientists use rock strata, tree rings, independent radiometric dating of many different elements and astronomy to date really old things is wrong? And you're suggesting that these entire fields of science are wrong because "you can find examples of in which those ways have failed?"

Finally, I didn't say a word about Big Bang Cosmology, I was just interested in knowing how old you thought the earth was.

Here's some copypasta regarding radiometric dating, emphasis mine:

Quote :

"Response: Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example: The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001). Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997). Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999). Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000). The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990)."

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2011 10:50:12 AM

Quote :

" You make it sound like all scientists have to believe in the big bang theory."

Obviously not, but I don't think any scientist could subscribe to "young Earth" creationism.

6/29/2011 10:58:25 AM

Why does God create people just to send them to hell? Seems like a dick move to me.

6/29/2011 11:17:05 AM

http://www.quickmeme.com/Advice-God/

6/29/2011 11:34:47 AM

My favorite was

"KNOWS THE FUTURE - GETS ANGRY ABOUT STUFF THAT HAPPENS"

6/29/2011 11:44:40 AM

^^ahahahaha

6/29/2011 11:48:49 AM

Did Jesus really kill another kid with lightning according to your faith?

What books do you accept and what is your view on the truthfulness and holiness of the ones you don't? What process did your faith go through to determine these?

6/29/2011 12:11:27 PM

Man this thread is like standing in front of a firing squad.

I'll answer questions for theDuke, rufus, mr frog, moron, E Man and wd3price.

Also:

Quote :

"Obviously not, but I don't think any scientist could subscribe to "young Earth" creationism."

You should not be so bound by societal norms to establish these sorts of absolutes.

6/29/2011 12:19:29 PM

Proof of free will? Try to do something bad and see if God stops you.

Quote :

"Why does God create people just to send them to hell? Seems like a dick move to me."

He gives us all choices throughout our lives. Right now, If I so wanted, I could get a gun and go on a shooting rampage. God wouldn't do anything to prevent me from doing that. I've chosen a path to hell.

Quote :

""Look. GenesisThe Bible is wrong. Completely wrong"

The old testament is a bunch of orally passed down stories that were a great way of explaining things back when there was no science. Nobody knew about radiometric dating or genetics for a very long time. People back int he day always used "bedtime stories" to explain things. The old testament is not literalist writing.

Example: "it was raining cats and dogs"
Literal: yes, it was raining really hard
Literalist: There weren't actually cats and dogs falling from the sky

The Old testament is just a bunch of this type of figurative language being used to explain things that may or may not have happened but the purpose or the "lesson" of each story holds the truth in the story.

There were no Adam and Eve. Its pretty obvious by now. God did, however create our souls in his image, seperate from all the other animals and we have inherently been sinners.

6/29/2011 12:20:09 PM

Quote :

"Proof of free will? Try to do something bad and see if God stops you."

Just wow.

Quote :

"He gives us all choices throughout our lives. Right now, If I so wanted, I could get a gun and go on a shooting rampage. God wouldn't do anything to prevent me from doing that. I've chosen a path to hell. "

But if at the some point you ask for forgiveness and legitimately repent, do you get punished?

And too bad about the folks getting shot, amirite? Did God know that you were going to go on a shooting rampage ahead of time?

[stuff about the OT not being literal]

Can the events that are described as occurring in the NT being interpreted literally?

And LeonIsPro, I'm hurt. Why don't I merit response?

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2011 12:26:01 PM

^^So you pick and choice what scripture is figurative and which is not?

This:

Quote :

"explaining things back when there was no science."

is true and thus explains things like, them calling bats "birds" and certain prophecy which had to be interpreted without a modern frame of reference.

An example would be the apocalypse in the Book of Daniel, (and in Revelation) are described in a rather wild fashion. This may be because the viewers of these prophecies did not have the reference for atom bombs, tanks, helicopters etc.


But saying this:

Quote :

"The old testament is not literalist writing."

Absolutely destroys all of scripture, sadly. Because if you say it is not literalism then you lose every prophecy of Jesus, or you merely make the OT say what you want it to say.

Quote :

"There were no Adam and Eve. Its pretty obvious by now. "

I'm not sure why any Christian would feel this is "obvious" or apparent. Are you instead postulating that there is some other creation that we were not told of? Did God create a bunch of people at once or are you saying he aided in creation from mud?

I certainly appreciate you sticking up for things in scripture but it seems like your view is conformed to much of what the world takes for granted as truth.

Stu you'd know I want to answer, but what am I going to say. This argument has been done a million times. I could look up the various testing and equations around radiometric age testing and postulate why they are very good at predicting certain time ranges but have error when predicting others, or I could offer different theories as to why the age of the Earth appears older than it actually is. But you're not going to listen, so why should I bother? You want to ask me something that pertains to scripture I'd be happy to answer though. You know you're my favorite person to talk about Christianity with in TSB.


I'll also answer the questions you posted in the above, or amend on E Man's if he answers.


[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : You're too quick Disco Stu.]

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 12:39 PM. Reason : You're too quick Disco Stu.]

6/29/2011 12:32:46 PM

I'm just saying, I know you must have studied radioactive decay in school.....

Leon, it's not that I won't listen to your reasons. It's that I would probably disregard them and rightfully so. If you had sound scientific reasons to think that the Earth was 6000 years old then scientists would believe that the Earth was 6000 years old. It's not science when you come to a conclusion (from Scripture, admittedly so) and then search for ways to poke holes in the science that disagrees with your conclusion.

Besides, my actual goal was to illustrate the difficulty of reconciling scientific (and generally accepted) fact with Scripture and E Man illustrates it perfectly. He has compartmentalized his understanding about the physical universe from his desire to believe in a miraculous Jesus. Most modern "Liberal" Christians are like this, but as you rightly point out it doesn't make sense from a scriptural perspective.

Without this compartmentalization you are forced to decide: is scientific inquiry right (not absolutely true before someone tries to get smart) and bronze age mythology wrong? Or is science wrong and bronze age mythology right?

I personally think the choice is an easy one, but some people don't.

6/29/2011 12:51:51 PM

I disagree that things are as black and white as you say. But let us end on discussion of this on the fact that there is much more contemporary scientific evidence supporting an older Earth, but to be honest I do not concern myself too much with the how old is the Earth question because I do not see the relevance to everyday life or future development.

6/29/2011 12:58:01 PM

Quote :

"But if at the some point you ask for forgiveness and legitimately repent, do you get punished?"

Very few people go directly to heaven without punishment

Quote :

"And too bad about the folks getting shot, amirite? Did God know that you were going to go on a shooting rampage ahead of time?"

I'd have to say yes since God knows everything.

Quote :

"Can the events that are described as occurring in the NT being interpreted literally?"

Pretty much. The NT is a historical record. The only things in them that aren't factual may just be caused by language translation errors or misunderstandings of the time. (like blood/red tide)

Quote :

"So you pick and choice what scripture is figurative and which is not?"

Its pretty clear the the old testament is story time. We don't know what parts of it are factual because its not a historical document like the books of the NT are. We do know that the whole world flooding never happened and other things like that.

Quote :

"Absolutely destroys all of scripture, sadly. Because if you say it is not literalism then you lose every prophecy of Jesus, or you merely make the OT say what you want it to say."

You don't lose that because that has been confirmed and we know it ended up being right. Not being literalist doesn't make it 100% mythical.

Quote :

"I'm not sure why any Christian would feel this is "obvious" or apparent. Are you instead postulating that there is some other creation that we were not told of? Did God create a bunch of people at once or are you saying he aided in creation from mud? "

The creation story serves a purpose that God created us out of his love blah blah blah. It does not explain accurately how it happened. Man used his understanding at the time to fill the story with false information so that it would be appealing/understandable to the masses. We now know that the world was not created in 7 days. We know that life on Earth evolved. We know that creation took billions of years and was much too complicated for biblical era people to understand. God controls everything so I would not be saying evolution happens by itself.

Quote :

"If you had sound scientific reasons to think that the Earth was 6000 years old then scientists would believe that the Earth was 6000 years old."

The problem with this is that it is SOO far off. Its not even anywhere in the ballpark. Its off by so many orders of magnitude from what ALL of the evidence shows. These same people don't believe there were dinosaurs. Basically they don't believe in science of any kind.

Quote :

"from his desire to believe in a miraculous Jesus"

The life of Jesus was a well-documented historical fact. Its not like something out of the old testament. Its as true as any other historical event like the holocaust, moon landing, tupac's death, etc.

6/29/2011 1:15:23 PM

radioactive decay is the devil

6/29/2011 1:25:45 PM

Quote :

"The life of Jesus was a well-documented historical fact. Its not like something out of the old testament. Its as true as any other historical event like the holocaust, moon landing, tupac's death, etc."

I don't accept this claim. Beyond the Bible, there is very little historical proof of Jesus even existing. Of his committing any miracles, absolutely none.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that the New Testament is historical record?

6/29/2011 1:28:19 PM

Quote :

"there is much more contemporary scientific evidence supporting an older Earth"

Well here is the understatement of the thread.

The evidence, not just that the Earth is 4-5 billion years old, but that the universe itself is 13.7 billion years ago is not just greater than other explanations, it is absolutely slam-you-in-the-face kind of overwhelming.

The degree that the application of reason and experimenting to the physical world has turned up well-supported answers over that of idle speculation from large parts of the rest of our population can not be understated. Not only did we decipher the 4 fundamental forces, but we've unified 2 of them, going on 3, which corresponds to well-defined points in the evolution of the universe. From geology to astronomy, to biology, even to smashing particles together in supercolliders we have found the same conclusions about the origins of the Earth we live on today, and these represent mind-bogglingly diverse methods, all supporting the same picture.

Quote :

"We know that life on Earth evolved. We know that creation took billions of years and was much too complicated for biblical era people to understand. God controls everything so I would not be saying evolution happens by itself. "

Right, this is the fundamental philosophy of the stuff. So much of it has been explained, and the trajectory of science is so clear, that "the God of the gaps" is plain wrong except for truly existentialist matters. Nobody can dispute that explanatory-wise we don't need God anymore, which applies to the yet-unknowns just as it does for the knowns.

6/29/2011 1:31:01 PM

Quote :

"I don't accept this claim. Beyond the Bible, there is very little historical proof of Jesus even existing. Of his committing any miracles, absolutely none. Out of curiosity, why do you think that the New Testament is historical record?"

Jewish, Roman and even muslim historians documented the life of Jesus in parallel with the Gospel.

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people
letters between the Roman Emperor and Pilate:
There is even testimony from Pilate regarding Jesus. Until recently many scholars felt that there was no proof for Pilate; recently they uncovered a stone with Pilates name in it discovered in archeological dig-thereby verifying there in fact was a Pontius Pilate...there are records of a centurion as well who in his recorded testimony states that "surely, this was the son of God..."

Literally thousands witnessed the resurrected Jesus over a period of at least thirty days. It's one of the best documented phenomena in history, which is remarkable when you consider it took place two thousand years ago.

Theres so much its really overwhelming.

6/29/2011 1:48:45 PM

was "the e man" recently somebody else?

6/29/2011 1:51:06 PM

So from your apologetics site we have:

1)Josephus, which is understood by scholars to have been altered at a later date by a Christian copyist.
2)Tacitus, mentioning other people mentioning Jesus.
3)Thallus, describing an eclipse.
4)Pliny, mentioning other people mentioning Christians.
5)The Talmud "Yeshu was hanged"? Honestly?
6)Lucian, mentioning Christians.

No one is disputing the fact that Christians existed decades after the supposed events of the Gospels, and that other people on the planet would have heard of the new Christians and their stories. But nothing corroborates the Resurrection besides the Bible (and subsequent Christian texts).

It's really not overwhelming if you take an honest look at it.

Quote :

"Literally thousands witnessed the resurrected Jesus over a period of at least thirty days. It's one of the best documented phenomena in history, which is remarkable when you consider it took place two thousand years ago."

But where is it documented beyond the Gospels (which were written decades later themselves?)

---------------------------------------------
Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian guru who in this and the past century is witnessed by thousands of people to commit similar miracles: healing people, making statues cry, even raising people from the dead.

This didn't happen thousands of years ago, it happened this year and in 10s of years ago. In the era of the Internet and cable news networks. Do you believe the claims?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 2:20 PM. Reason : sathya sai baba]

6/29/2011 1:57:52 PM

Quote :

"but to be honest I do not concern myself too much with the how old is the Earth question because I do not see the relevance to everyday life or future development."

it simple actually. if there the Bible is wrong about how old the Earth is then what is is it wrong about? Talking donkeys, spirits from heaven, talking snakes, resurrection, etc.

And one of my favorite comics....





[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM. Reason : wow this thread moves fast]

6/29/2011 2:38:42 PM

I forgot to mention that in addition to the Gospels being written decades after the supposed events described therein, we don't even have the original manuscripts of those.

6/29/2011 2:46:40 PM

I'll address what The E Man said first since it is the most troubling.


First this:

Quote :

"Very few people go directly to heaven without punishment"

I'm not really sure what this means, but wrath does not come upon saints from the Almighty. Chastisement will be brought upon saints and suffering is often a characteristics of saints, but both of these have a purpose to serve and bring saints closer to God, or to winnow out those who truly believe from those who believe merely from convenience.

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."

Rev 3:19

"Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, [so] the LORD thy God chasteneth thee."

Deut 8:5

"6For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?"

Hebrews 12

Quote :

"Pretty much. The NT is a historical record. The only things in them that aren't factual may just be caused by language translation errors or misunderstandings of the time. (like blood/red tide)"

I agree with this, though I don't exactly view the NT as a historical record, as much as I view it as an expanding of the OT as the means of salvation. What I mean to say is that the OT brought forth a need for salvation (through the law) and a prophecy of salvation, but the salvation was not manifested until Christ's death on the cross.

Quote :

"Its pretty clear the the old testament is story time. We don't know what parts of it are factual because its not a historical document like the books of the NT are. We do know that the whole world flooding never happened and other things like that."

Now this.... This I have mucho problem with. I'll skip the blatant question begging points that an atheist could ask this line of logical, and move on to the serious way which the scripture disagrees.


"12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. "

Romans 5

It's kind of difficult to question this line of logic, if you pick and choose, then you might as well be making your own religion out of thin air. Before I can answer this further I need you to answer these questions:


What was the purpose of the books of the Law (Genesis-Deutoronomy)?

Without Adam existing, your postulation, who then did God make the initial promise of salvation to:
"And I will put enmity between thee[serpent] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:15?




Do you think worldliness and Christianity can coincide as one? With certain exceptions being made for parts of the Bible you didn't think happened?

"They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. "

1 John 4

And then just one more question:

Quote :

"Man used his understanding at the time to fill the story with false information so that it would be appealing/understandable to the masses."

Why would God allow his book of truth to be polluted with an obvious falsehood used to appeal to the masses? This somewhat disgusts me as it assumes that God needed to adapt his story so that people would be tricked into following him.


"2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. "

Gen 2

If this didn't happen as you postulate, what is to say that this happened:

"So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands."

Exo 34:4

What keeps you from saying, "Well Moses could have just made that up," since by your definition sometimes when it says God did this, it's figurative, but other times when it says God did that it's fact.


I'll also answer Duke's quick questions.

Quote :

"You basing this off of the original texts, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and whatever else they were written in?"

I'm basing this off the fact that when someone is under the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament they will say: and the word of Jehovah came to me and said, etc. They are never saying the know the will of God by their own holiness, but are saying that they know it by revelation.

This is important (at least I think so) because it relates to the function of the trinity.

6/29/2011 5:52:58 PM

Quote :

"I don't feel like getting into a how old is the Earth argument, but according to scripture the current age of the Earth should be about 6000 years. Now let's all pull our evidence together of which neither of us have any backing since we weren't at the creation of the Earth. You want to postulate ways for testing age, I'll find examples of times which those ways have failed. But please save me the trouble of doing so as it is not pertinent to scripture."

crazy/delusional person alert!!!1

[Edited on June 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/29/2011 8:22:08 PM