PDA

View Full Version : Who wrote the Bible, and When?



Dolphan7
03-25-2008, 04:37 PM
LOL :sidelol:

Little info for you guys on the subject. At the time of Jesus' death there were 13 other religious sects claiming to have a deity or prophet at the head of their group.

The only difference between Jesus/Christianity and those sects is that no one in those groups claimed their prophet had been resurrected.

Remember, the Bible never speaks much of the resurrection itself. Only that Jesus meets a man on the road and tells him to spread the word of his return.

Now I wasnt there (and neither were ANYONE) so obviously this is speculation to an extent. Some have said Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier, this is probably the likeliest scenario.Under your premise - that no one was there-, why is your scenario the most likely? What is it based on? Woudn't all scenarios be equally likely or equally unlikely?

To me it is more likely that since the New Testament was written by either an Apostle of Jesus, a companion of one of the Apostles, or a close relative of Jesus, that what they wrote about their personal witness of events bears more credibility than anything else.

HaRdKoReXXX
03-25-2008, 05:36 PM
Under your premise - that no one was there-, why is your scenario the most likely? What is it based on? Woudn't all scenarios be equally likely or equally unlikely?

To me it is more likely that since the New Testament was written by either an Apostle of Jesus, a companion of one of the Apostles, or a close relative of Jesus, that what they wrote about their personal witness of events bears more credibility than anything else.

No one living today was there. The new testament was not written by any of those people you mentioned. It was a story that was told by those people and then retold over years and years until somone wrote it down.

Furthermore, the Bible itself was copied (by monks) from text that was not in the greatest of condition. They copied it the best they could, adding their own flavor and converting the translation to the best of their abilities.

So you see the Bible itself had evolved (no pun intended there) into an ever-growing manuscript each time it was copied.

So logically one would have to assume that since the Bible is not the word of God, but the word of God as told by man, then retold by man numerous times, Im basing his death/resurrection on the most likeliest of scenarios pertinent to the time of his life/death.

In this case, I give the opinion of the 'Roman Soldier" theory due to their presence in Jerusalem at the time. But this is just an opinion I claim none of it to be fact.

Dolphan7
03-25-2008, 06:04 PM
No one living today was there. The new testament was not written by any of those people you mentioned. It was a story that was told by those people and then retold over years and years until somone wrote it down.On what basis do you claim the known authors of the NT, are not actually the known authors?


Furthermore, the Bible itself was copied (by monks) from text that was not in the greatest of condition. They copied it the best they could, adding their own flavor and converting the translation to the best of their abilities.Really? Are you aware of the OT tradition of copying manuscripts?





Old Testament Quality Control


1. A Synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals.

2. They must be prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew.

3. These must be fastened together with strings from clean animals.

4. Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex.

5. The length of each column must not extend less than 48 or more than 60 lines, and the breadth must consist of 30 letters.

6. The whole copy must be first lined; and if three words were written without a line, it is worthless.

7. The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe.

8. An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least to deviate.

9. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him.

10. Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene.

11. Between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants.

12. Between every book, three lines.

13. The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so.

14. Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress.

15. Wash his whole body.

16. Not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink.

17. And should a king address him while writing that name, he must take no notice of him.

Manuscripts not copied following these rules were immediately burned. This method of copying was so stringent, manuscripts were given equal authority with the original immediately.




So you see the Bible itself had evolved (no pun intended there) into an ever-growing manuscript each time it was copied.

Not really. When we compared transcripts to the Dead Sea Scrolls, we found that the copying over thousands of years was 95-98% textually pure. The 3-5% error were spelling, punctuation and didn't alter the meaning of the text.



So logically one would have to assume that since the Bible is not the word of God, but the word of God as told by man, then retold by man numerous times, Im basing his death/resurrection on the most likeliest of scenarios pertinent to the time of his life/death.Logically speaking - if God exists, then He wouldn't allow men to corrupt His word, but would inspire men through the Holy Spirit to record accurately his Word. I mean what kind of a God would allow His word to be morphed into something he didn't mean it to say? Makes no sense logically.



In this case, I give the opinion of the 'Roman Soldier" theory due to their presence in Jerusalem at the time. But this is just an opinion I claim none of it to be fact.If this, and the above.... is your opinion, then that is one thing, and you are certainly entitled to it.

Joker2thief
03-25-2008, 10:17 PM
modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.

Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.

Dolphan7
03-26-2008, 12:57 AM
modern technology has proved the Bible wrong. That means that if there is a God, he didn't write the Bible and the Bible is not his word. If the Bible were the word of God and the Bible is wrong, then God is wrong. And if God can't be wrong, then the Bible, which is wrong, can't be the word of God.

Men who lived thousands of years ago wrote the Bible. The authors had limited knowledge of the nature of the universe and wrote the Bible based on what they believed at the time. They didn't know the Earth was round and that it orbited the Sun, which is a star among billions of stars in the galaxy which is but one galaxy in billions of galaxies that have existed for billions of years. To them, the world was flat. There was up and there was down and God lived in the sky. They didn't know the world was round and there was no such thing as "up". They didn't know that the sky was a thin layer of gas that surrounds the surface of this planet. We have been to the sky and we have been above the sky and God isn't living there.This is getting off topic to the original thread, but if you would like to create another thread stating exactly how science has proven the bible wrong, I would be very interested in reading about it. Please don't respond in this thread though. Thanks!

emeraldfin
03-26-2008, 08:16 AM
Some of the writings in the Bible are written 200 YEARS after Jesus Christ died.

HaRdKoReXXX
03-26-2008, 09:24 AM
Logically speaking - if God exists, then He wouldn't allow men to corrupt His word, but would inspire men through the Holy Spirit to record accurately his Word. I mean what kind of a God would allow His word to be morphed into something he didn't mean it to say? Makes no sense logically.

This is why I claim none of what I say to be fact and state it merely as opinion. Because there is no logical way for either to prove the other wrong, it'd be pretty redundant to try.

To the topic at hand, what kind of God allows his message to be morphed into something that kills, murders, commits genocide? Maybe not your God. But a God nonetheless.

Ive always been under the impression that it's a mans actions, not his beliefs that matter. So what if Jesus wasn't the son of God? Did he not live an important life? If it turns out he was the son of a Roman soldier does it make his actions any less important?

BTW, the reason I even brought up the 'Roman Soldier' theory because it was suggested several years ago by a very well respected historian who claimed evidence was found. Although I don't believe there was a enough found to substantiate his claim.

Dolphan7
03-26-2008, 12:58 PM
I have heard many different versions of the question about who wrote the Bible and when was it written. This thread if for those to express their views and why they hold those views.

The predominate view held by most Biblical and secular Scholars is that the NT was completed in the first century, the last being completed around 95 AD. It was written by one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus - as in Matthew and John and Paul, or a companion of those Apostles - as in Luke and Mark, or a relative of Jesus as in James, Jude. Most of the NT was written between 50 and 65 AD.

The OT was completed by around 400 BC, but was written over thousands of years of Jewish history. The OT was written by Prophets of God as in Moses who wrote the first 5 books, called the Torah/Pentateuch, sometime around 1400-1450 BC. Then there are the 12 Historical Books like Joshua, Judges, Samual, Kings, Chronicles. There are 5 Poetic Books like Psalms, Proverbs, Song Of Solomon. Last there are 17 prophetic books like Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekial Joel, Hosea. These are split into Major and Minor prophets. The OT was written between 1450 and 400 BC.

Mike13
03-26-2008, 02:11 PM
The OT was written by Prophets of God as in Moses who wrote the first 5 books,

Werent the creation stories written long after Moses had died?
So why would the Book of Genesis be credited to him?
Thats something thats been bugging me.

Dolphan7
03-26-2008, 04:03 PM
Werent the creation stories written long after Moses had died?
So why would the Book of Genesis be credited to him?
Thats something thats been bugging me.It has been widely accepted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT.

What I would ask is where do you get the idea that creation stories were written after he died? I would start there and find out where that is coming from first.

Mike13
03-26-2008, 10:33 PM
I just remember being told that most of the OT was written when the Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon.
I'm not sure what parts pecifically though, this was a while ago.

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 01:40 AM
I just remember being told that most of the OT was written when the Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon.
I'm not sure what parts pecifically though, this was a while ago.Many books of the OT reference the Captivity, but that does not mean that they were written during the Captivity. Daniel writes almost exclusively about the Captivity, his, and he could have penned it while in Babylon. But he also could have penned it when the Jews returned to Israel.

But as for most of the OT written during the Exile? No. There is no evidence to that end.

Miamian
03-27-2008, 05:23 AM
I just remember being told that most of the OT was written when the Hebrews were in captivity in Babylon.
I'm not sure what parts pecifically though, this was a while ago.I think that you're confusing the Pentateuch (Torah) with the Talmud. According to Jewish belief, Moses wrote the Torah at Sinai, dictated by G-d.

Pagan
03-27-2008, 06:48 AM
But as for most of the OT written during the Exile? No. There is no evidence to that end.
But by using your own logic for the existence of god:

You can't prove it wasn't written then, so it must have been, no? :tongue:

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-27-2008, 02:50 PM
Logically speaking - if God exists, then He wouldn't allow men to corrupt His word, but would inspire men through the Holy Spirit to record accurately his Word. I mean what kind of a God would allow His word to be morphed into something he didn't mean it to say? Makes no sense logically.


I guess it depends on what kind of God do you believe in. An overlord who rules with an iron fist or a dude who creates things and just lets it go to see what happens.

Logically speaking if God existed he would allow men to corrupt His word since he allows a Satan.

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 03:55 PM
Logically speaking if God existed he would allow men to corrupt His word since he allows a Satan.

That sounds logical to you?

God has no say in Satan's choice to rebel against God. Every being has free will, even Satan.

But.....

God has every say in His very own word being recorded accurately. That is His choice.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-27-2008, 04:42 PM
That sounds logical to you?

God has no say in Satan's choice to rebel against God. Every being has free will, even Satan.

But.....

God has every say in His very own word being recorded accurately. That is His choice.

Well that is true, however God also gave free will to man who wrote down his word.

Logically he can allow his word to be corrupted because the people writing down has free will.

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 05:15 PM
Well that is true, however God also gave free will to man who wrote down his word.

Logically he can allow his word to be corrupted because the people writing down has free will.

He can/could allow it, but he didn't, and that is the point. If His will and desire is to have His word recorded accurately, then that is what He will allow to happen. And that is what happened, otherwise it makes no sense.

Why would God want His very own word to be butchered? He wouldn't, and didn't.

His will and desire was to inspire men to accurately record God's words.

Through this we then can understand God's character and his feelings toward us. It allows us to understand his attributes and how we are to relate to him. What He considers important, and what isn't important. It allows us to understand that He loves us so much that He gave us a path to salvation, restoration, with Him through Jesus.

These are all important things for us to know, so why would God want that information to be misconstrued?

He doesn't, and He wouldn't and He didn't.

Edit: What this boils down to really is: Does God exist...or not?

If he doesn't, then the bible is irrelavent and the accuracy of it is inconsequential.

But if He does exist, then you can bet the bible is the accurate word of God.

padre31
03-27-2008, 05:45 PM
If i may offer this:

The Thread Starter "Who wrote the Bible" is a misnomer, no one "wrote the Bible" at least per se.

The Bible as we know it today was more "compiled" then "written" the works that have been republished in the Bible are ones that not only have Historical links, but also Provenance, the Pentatuch for example, was a widely circulated work long before the Constantinian Bible ever came into existence.

It is the same with the New Testament works, they were well known and widely read and commented upon before the Bible was compiled into what we have today.

Now it can be said that the exclusion of the Apocrayphia by Luther was "Writing the Bible" however, the missing chapters were not lost, and even the earliest Hebraic Works have a Masrah (sp) a master copy in which every single line is given a numerical value, making any obvious changes stand out to even the most casual scholar.

IMO one of the tragedies of History is the loss of the Constantinian Bible to the sands of time, that original copy would be priceless in comparing Then and Now, but like Tolkein's palantir's from Anorien, they are lost.

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 05:49 PM
But by using your own logic for the existence of god:

You can't prove it wasn't written then, so it must have been, no? :tongue:When attempting to prove "something" is true, or exists, anything that cannot completely and irrovocably disprove that "something" does indeed exist or is true...does in fact support the truth or existance of that something.

It doesn't prove it, but for lack of contrary evidence, it supports it.

The key word differentiator here is support vs proof. Two different things.

If I were to tell you that there is a coiled rattlesnake sitting under the driver seat of your new Mustang, you have no evidence to the contrary telling you that my statement isn't true. That fact supports my statement, it doesn't prove it, But it supports it. As far as you know there is a snake in your car......until you go out and find that:

1. There really was a snake in there. That would be "proof".
2. I was messing with you just to see if I could get you out of the house. That would be a practical joke.

:)

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-27-2008, 06:24 PM
He can/could allow it, but he didn't, and that is the point. If His will and desire is to have His word recorded accurately, then that is what He will allow to happen. And that is what happened, otherwise it makes no sense.

Why would God want His very own word to be butchered? He wouldn't, and didn't.

His will and desire was to inspire men to accurately record God's words.

Through this we then can understand God's character and his feelings toward us. It allows us to understand his attributes and how we are to relate to him. What He considers important, and what isn't important. It allows us to understand that He loves us so much that He gave us a path to salvation, restoration, with Him through Jesus.

These are all important things for us to know, so why would God want that information to be misconstrued?

He doesn't, and He wouldn't and He didn't.

Edit: What this boils down to really is: Does God exist...or not?

If he doesn't, then the bible is irrelavent and the accuracy of it is inconsequential.

But if He does exist, then you can bet the bible is the accurate word of God.

How do you know he wouldn't?

How do you know he didn't?

How do you know Satan didn't write the bible?

If he loves us, why do we need a path to salvation? THAT does not make logical sense.

Needing a path to salvation is conditional love which of course isn't actually love.

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 07:27 PM
How do you know he wouldn't?

How do you know he didn't?

How do you know Satan didn't write the bible?

If he loves us, why do we need a path to salvation? THAT does not make logical sense.

Needing a path to salvation is conditional love which of course isn't actually love.If God does exist, and created the universe, and the earth, and all life on earth........................I think He has every right to set the rules don't you think? He can set the moral absolutes. He can determine what is right and what is wrong. He can choose when, how, where, with whom, why and what he wants to communicate to us. Either through His written word, or through evidence of His creation which we an see all around us. It is through his word that we learn about his character and his attributes, his love, and yes his wrath, just like a father is seen by his kids, only we have just the written word, and creation.

What is the best and strongest example of unconditional Love? Answer: You love someone so much that you would give your life for them, so that they would be spared.

That is exactly what God did for us through Jesus Christ , His son. He loves us so much that he died for our sins.

We need a path to salvation becasue when God gave us free will - to choose to obey him and follow him, or to dis-obey him......we chose to disobey Him, which is a sin. It was our choice, not his. It required a response, which was punishment. God cannot stand sin. God is so pure, the purest of light, that the light from Him is so bright that it cannot be seen directly by man. God cannot allow sin near him. Therefore when we chose sin over God, we were forever seperated from him because of that sin. Nothing we can ever do will change that. We will always be sinners and therefore seperated from God. No sacrifice would ever be good enough whether that be animal or human. Until Jesus. He sacrificed himself, for us. He didn't have to, but he did. He was perfect, sinless, and yet paid the price for us. Now we have a path back to God. That is ultimate love. It does not get any better than that.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-27-2008, 08:21 PM
If God does exist, and created the universe, and the earth, and all life on earth........................I think He has every right to set the rules don't you think? He can set the moral absolutes. He can determine what is right and what is wrong. He can choose when, how, where, with whom, why and what he wants to communicate to us. Either through His written word, or through evidence of His creation which we an see all around us. It is through his word that we learn about his character and his attributes, his love, and yes his wrath, just like a father is seen by his kids, only we have just the written word, and creation.

See now you are not talking about logic, you are talking about faith.

God CAN do those things. It does not mean that it is logical.

Still with free will, the dude could write anything he wants. Unless god decides on when he can get a person to give up his free will. If God can do that, why doesn't he just do that with Satan or anyone who 'sin'.


What is the best and strongest example of unconditional Love? Answer: You love someone so much that you would give your life for them, so that they would be spared.

I totally disagree. The best and strongest example of unconditional love is that you love someone so much that they kill you and you still love them. Better yet, you love someone so much that even if they kill every member of your family and you still love them.

Unconditional love means love without conditions. That means love without caring if someone sinned. If you do not invite someone in your heart because of any reason, then you do not have unconditional love


That is exactly what God did for us through Jesus Christ , His son. He loves us so much that he died for our sins.

We need a path to salvation becasue when God gave us free will - to choose to obey him and follow him, or to dis-obey him......we chose to disobey Him, which is a sin. It was our choice, not his. It required a response, which was punishment. God cannot stand sin. God is so pure, the purest of light, that the light from Him is so bright that it cannot be seen directly by man. God cannot allow sin near him. Therefore when we chose sin over God, we were forever seperated from him because of that sin. Nothing we can ever do will change that. We will always be sinners and therefore seperated from God. No sacrifice would ever be good enough whether that be animal or human. Until Jesus. He sacrificed himself, for us. He didn't have to, but he did. He was perfect, sinless, and yet paid the price for us. Now we have a path back to God. That is ultimate love. It does not get any better than that.

That is not love. If I give you a knife and tell you, either stab the table or stab me and you stab me, is it really logical to get angry at you? Is it unconditional love for me to stab you back?

I know that is nonsensitcal, however saying that God gave us free will so we can choose to follow him or not and then saying that if we choose not, he will punish us forever because he loves us. You mentioned a father and a child. If I had a child who "sinned" against me and I killed him (in my opinion equivilent to blanking out of existance) or put him in time out FOREVER. No one would say I did it out of love.

You tried to speak logically, can you not see the logical problem with this? That isn't unconditional love. That is VERY conditional love. I can love you without condition. It is something that every human being is actually capable of. It is a choice that we have. Does that mean every human being on this earth is actually more loving than your god? Every human being on this earth has the choice of forgiveness. Everyone can forgive everyone for anything. Does that mean every human on this earth is more forgiving than god?

How did jesus pay a price? He went to heaven. Heaven from what I understand is an amazing place. Jesus being tortured on earth and going to heaven is as much as a sacrifice as me getting stabbed in my left arm and getting a million dollars a second. Unless heaven isn't such a glorious place after all.

Again, I am speaking logically.

Da 'Fins
03-27-2008, 10:26 PM
No one living today was there. The new testament was not written by any of those people you mentioned. It was a story that was told by those people and then retold over years and years until somone wrote it down.

Furthermore, the Bible itself was copied (by monks) from text that was not in the greatest of condition. They copied it the best they could, adding their own flavor and converting the translation to the best of their abilities.

So you see the Bible itself had evolved (no pun intended there) into an ever-growing manuscript each time it was copied.

So logically one would have to assume that since the Bible is not the word of God, but the word of God as told by man, then retold by man numerous times, Im basing his death/resurrection on the most likeliest of scenarios pertinent to the time of his life/death.

In this case, I give the opinion of the 'Roman Soldier" theory due to their presence in Jerusalem at the time. But this is just an opinion I claim none of it to be fact.

A patently untrue claim. There is no evidence for this kind of statement - it is a simple assertion and you simply don't know whereof you speak. The Bible has in now way "evolved"; those documents are the most well attested historical texts in ancient history from a documentary analysis - but in terms of the number of extant manuscripts (MSS) as well the time frame between the originals and the MSS. Further, your statement that the Bible changed each time it was copied is simply untrue. You have no evidence for that. There are over 5000 ancient Greek MSS, and when one includes Latin, Coptic and other languages, there are over 24,000 ancient MSS in existence. Scholars have demonstrated that these texts are all in fundamental agreement 98% of the time. The major questionable amendations are Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; and 1 John 5:7 in what is referred to as the "received text" (what the KJV is based on). Yet, scholars have been well aware of the questionable nature of all these texts for centuries - and any reputable English Bible recognizes these. But, in terms of actual agreement among the manuscripts there is impeccable consistency which indicates that through the centuries these MSS were not changed.

The actual differences between manuscripts are almost entirely with respect to word order - which is a meaningless issue in the Greek language. For a simple example: The phrase, "Jesus Loves Paul" could be written in at least fourteen different ways in Greek and each way would mean the same thing - here are a few examples:

᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον
᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον
ὁ Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον
ὁ Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον
Παῦλον Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
τὸν Παῦλον Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
Παῦλον ὁ Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
τὸν Παῦλον ὁ Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ
ἀγαπᾷ Ιησοῦς Παῦλον
ἀγαπᾷ Ιησοῦς τὸν Παῦλον

Every one of these Greek phrases say the same thing. Sometimes one will find agnostic scholars citing "numerous differences" but the reality is - these differences above are meaningless.

The texts have strong historical reliability - every piece of external historical information indicates the gospels were written by the authors listed (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). These texts were based on eyewitness testimony. And, there were living witnesses throughout this time that would corroborate whether this information was true.

The real question is whether you have the honesty to investigate the issues. And, whether you are willing to read scholarly works that support this information I've briefly supplied - not some straw man argument - but a true engagement with scholars. I suspect you have not read the following:

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

.

Or,

[B]Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.

And there are many other genuinely scholarly works that address these issues.

The question is, whether one has the integrity to expose himself or herself to the most scholarly works on both sides of the issue and give a fair hearing; or whether one simply wants to bury his or her head in the sand (on either side). I've read scholars on both sides of the issue and the criticisms are driven more by a priori bias than a fair investigation. If you are interested in that, I'd be happy to direct you to other works alongside those above. But, I would first challenge you to actually read those with an open mind.

Pagan
03-27-2008, 10:28 PM
When attempting to prove "something" is true, or exists, anything that cannot completely and irrovocably disprove that "something" does indeed exist or is true...does in fact support the truth or existance of that something.

It doesn't prove it, but for lack of contrary evidence, it supports it.
That's just totally ridiculous man....

If that's the case, then anyone can make any wild statement they want, and unless it's proven incorrect it's "supported"?

Nonsense, unless people are extremely naive.

Then again, it would make my "Care Bears" theory work now, wouldn't it? ;)

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 10:34 PM
See now you are not talking about logic, you are talking about faith.

God CAN do those things. It does not mean that it is logical.

Still with free will, the dude could write anything he wants. Unless god decides on when he can get a person to give up his free will. If God can do that, why doesn't he just do that with Satan or anyone who 'sin'.
Ah now you aren't trying to apply logic to God are you? Logic is a man made idea to help us understand things. It is a finite concept, of which it does not apply to an infinite being. The only time you can apply logic is in our understanding of Him. And of course I am talking about faith. There are many things I don't know about God, but that does not mean I don't know enough of Him to put that faith into the things I don't understand.

You seem to think that in order for God to utilize a person that they have to give up their free will. We don't. God uses people who already have a heart for Him, and are inspired, and God uses those type of people to accomplish His will. That is why he does not use Satan. Satan would be the last being in the universe who would want to help God.




I totally disagree. The best and strongest example of unconditional love is that you love someone so much that they kill you and you still love them. Better yet, you love someone so much that even if they kill every member of your family and you still love them. I think you are confusing love with forgiveness. You are talking about unconditional forgiveness, which has no basis in the bible. And even if you do forgive them, and love them, there are still consequences for their actions. There is justice. More on that later.



Unconditional love means love without conditions. That means love without caring if someone sinned. If you do not invite someone in your heart because of any reason, then you do not have unconditional love

That is not love. If I give you a knife and tell you, either stab the table or stab me and you stab me, is it really logical to get angry at you? Is it unconditional love for me to stab you back?
I love my kids unconditionally. There is nothing, I mean nothing, that they can or will ever do that will make me stop loving them. Nothing. That is unconditional love. But.....that does not mean that I won't punish them when they are bad, when they misbehave, when they disrespect me or their mother, etc.....This is how it is with God. He loves us unconditionally. There is nothing we can do that will make Him stop loving us. But He is also a God of Justice. Meaning there are consequences for our actions. There is a right and a wrong. When we do wrong we have to pay the price. God tells us that the wages of sin is death. Totally separated from God in H e double toothpicks. But he loves us so much that he gave His very own Son to die for our sins, a very piece of Himself, so that we may have everlasting life with Him for eternity. That is the ultimate act of Love.


I know that is nonsensitcal, however saying that God gave us free will so we can choose to follow him or not and then saying that if we choose not, he will punish us forever because he loves us. You mentioned a father and a child. If I had a child who "sinned" against me and I killed him (in my opinion equivilent to blanking out of existance) or put him in time out FOREVER. No one would say I did it out of love. You are missing the fact that God is not only a God of love, but a God of Justice. Please see the above explanation.



You tried to speak logically, can you not see the logical problem with this? That isn't unconditional love. That is VERY conditional love. I can love you without condition. It is something that every human being is actually capable of. It is a choice that we have. Does that mean every human being on this earth is actually more loving than your god? Every human being on this earth has the choice of forgiveness. Everyone can forgive everyone for anything. Does that mean every human on this earth is more forgiving than god?

How did jesus pay a price? He went to heaven. Heaven from what I understand is an amazing place. Jesus being tortured on earth and going to heaven is as much as a sacrifice as me getting stabbed in my left arm and getting a million dollars a second. Unless heaven isn't such a glorious place after all.

Again, I am speaking logically.You are having trouble I know because you don't understand the nature, character and attributes of the one and only living God.

Jesus was tortured before he died, He was killed in the most brutal fashion, and he died. He was fully man at that point in time, completely devoid of any deity, and completely and totally separated from God. He was dead for three days. That death, burrial and subsequent resurrection was the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. He did nothing wrong, but through the sinless and stainless blood of Jesus all our sins are washed away. Have you seen the Passion of the Christ? If you have then for you to say he didn't sacrifice himself, didn't pay a price is intellectually dishonest. If you have not seen the movie, I suggest you do at least once in your life. It probably isn't the exact representation, but it sure is darn close, and powerful. I won't watch it again!

Dolphan7
03-27-2008, 11:09 PM
That's just totally ridiculous man....

If that's the case, then anyone can make any wild statement they want, and unless it's proven incorrect it's "supported"?

Nonsense, unless people are extremely naive.

Then again, it would make my "Care Bears" theory work now, wouldn't it? ;)In a vacuum it makes perfect sense, but thankfully we are not in a vacuum.

In a vacuum you can claim that they exist er....scratch that.....let's not use carebears. Let's use Scientology becasue I know that that is something that you have certain views on.

L Ron says that Scientology, and all that crazy Zenu and Thetan stuff is true.

Now in avacuum we have no proof that Zenu and Thetans and all that stuff exists, so his statement that they are true is "supported". Not proven, but supported. Again lack of contrary proof is support. In a vacuum.

Now let's remove the Get Smart dome of Silence (vacuum) and now we look at other external factors that may shed some light on the truth or falsity of L Ron's claims. Once we do that we can see that there really is a lot of evidence that supports the fact that L Ron was a little on the crazy side. Then we look at a documented statement he made, that in order to make a lot of money all one had to do was create a religion (paraphrased). Then we know for sue he was just makin it all up.

Same with carebears. We know who created them. They don't claim them to be real. They are not real.

Same with God. In a vacuum, there isn't any evidence that disproves the existance of God, and so that supports the existance of God. Not prove, supports.

Remove Vacuum.

We still can't disprove the existance of God, although many have tried. So that supports His existance, but doesn't prove His existance. We can't prove God. Not in an ordinary sense. Not by science as God is outside the realm of scientific comprehension. But we can intellectually and logically show that he exists. We can do that by one of two ways: there are currently two mutually exclusive answers to our origins. A Evolution - chance... and B Creation - design.

1. If A is false, then isn't it logical to conclude that B is true? So any evidence disproving A, would naturally support and prove B would it not. Yes it would. We know Evolution is false.

2. The other way is to examine the evidence of our creation all around us. Everything we see begs of a designer. I don't want to get into all the details because there are literally hundreds of items to refer to and there isn't enough room here. But we can see from creation the existance of design, not chance. We can also examine the earth against biblical events like the Noahician flood and find that the physical evidence points to the biblcal account more than anything else. And there is also learnig about God through personal experience and this sense of aughtness that we all have about right and wrong. Where did that come from? God of course.

Of course the question is - who is the designer. Is it the God of the Bible. Is it Allah? Is it the Goddess of Wicca?:unsure:

That is for another thread. And you know who I say it is.:up:

Da 'Fins
03-27-2008, 11:10 PM
I won't quote all your points, Dupree, but I'll address your points in a broad fashion:

First, either Christianity is true or it is not. The foundation for belief in the Bible, and Christianity, is the life, claims, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, either these events happened essentially as the NT documents described them and therefore Jesus is who he said he was - and Christianity is true - or these events did not happen and the Christian way of life (as described in the Scriptures; not necessarily as described in the lives of many Christians or churches today) is an absolute waste of time.

If these things are true, then it may well be that either a) your logic and rationality are at fault; or b) your rather one-way, biased "take" on what is going on within the Bible (regarding hell, heaven, Jesus' death, etc.) is based on a casual and superficial reading or understanding of the texts. A simple example is, your view of hell as a "punishment' God has set up for those who choose to reject him. That is an overly simplistic and flawed perspective.

However, the evidence has led me to 'believe' that Jesus is who these documents claim he was (and one can easily extrapolate from that to the Bible as a whole). One fundamental point to note is that logic and faith are not incompatible. Nor are evidence and "faith"- everyone uses an "evidenced based faith" every day. We do things with others based on 'faith' or 'trust' that they are going to be trustworthy. A simple example will suffice: If I'm sitting in a restaurant and a man walks in off the street whom I've never met or seen before and do not know, and he asks me for the keys to my car to use it to drive to work, no rational person is going to trust that individual without some further information. That would be what one calls a "leap of faith" - with no rational basis. On the other hand, if it is my brother or a close friend who does this, I will completely trust him - that he is not going to steal my car or use it for some untoward purpose. That's still trust (I don't have a guarantee that he won't do something wrong with the car). But, I trust him because I've learned he is trustworthy. In fact, to carry the analogy a step further, some individuals do not even have to tell me what they want with the car - I trust them implicitly because of the "evidence" I've gleaned over the course of many years together.

Now, this is the kind of evidenced based faith that the Scriptures present - particularly the four Gospels and other NT documents. For the sake of argument, let's assume I've investigated this material and have come to believe, based on the eyewitness testimony and numerous other evidences within, the countless appearances to many different individuals, that Jesus was dead, buried, in the grave, and arose from the dead and is the Son of God - and, also, axiomatically - God exists. (by resurrection I mean not a resuscitation - for which there is no historical evidence; and, such would convince no one that this person was the son of God).

If that is true, then, I approach the Bible from an entirely different perspective. I "trust" in the promises of God and of Jesus. I trust that, even if, at a given point in time, I can't fully explain every particular "why?", God loves me because he demonstrated that love by a humbling of himself to live as a servant of man (just as a parent will do numerous things to demonstrate his/her love for one's children).

It does not mean that at that point I give up logic and reason. I still ask questions. I still seek to work out the reasonings within the Scripture. But, my perspective has changed dramatically. There are "reasons" now to show trust. It works very much like the child parent relationship. Allow another over simplified and imperfect analogy (but it makes the point):

When my children were much younger (3-6 years old or so), I would insist they held my hand when we walked across a street or through a busy parking lot. Numerous times, they did not like this. Not only did they not like it, when they were very young, they did not comprehend it. They were, "Why is dad doing this? He lets me run around elsewhere; I can run all over the place in the yard; or in the house; or in the driveway. Why is he now forcing me to hold his hand and not allowing me to run to things I see that will be fun?" Often, their hands would try to give me the slip - they'd try to pull away.

Well, the answer is a simple one: it was love. They could not comprehend that moving automobiles were highly dangerous things! Nor were they of an age to look carefully on their own and pay attention; nor could they foresee that the drivers of those cars might not see them and could run them over. They could not grasp it at the time. In fact, they struggled to accept what I was doing, at times. However, over time, they would accept such things, even when they could not understand why; they learned to trust me; they came to realize that I was dad, and that I was looking out for their best interest. Even to this day - as they are teenagers, one in college, there are things I may insist upon that they don't fully comprehend or even like. But they know that I do so out of wisdom and love.

In some of those instances, they have come to appreciate some of the things I enforced upon them (things that at the time appeared arbitrary or motivated by just plain meanness!) and now they understand better why I did those things.

In some instances, a child (and I've experienced this) may not fully grasp what his or her parents were doing until they themselves are well into their 40's and 50's and they are parents and have older children. Often, only then, do they fully realize why mom or dad did some things that many years prior they could not comprehend.

It is the same way with God and the Scriptures. There is evidence to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (and therefore God exists) that, what he says about himself is true. And, there is evidence, therefore, that leads me to trust him, even when some of my difficult questions aren't fully worked out.

As to some of the questions you raise (hell, suffering, the cross, etc. - they are the same old questions that have been around for centuries - these are nothing new - I've dealt with them time and again as have many Christian apologists) - I would be glad to direct you to some solid reading on these matters, if you are interested. A couple to start with, though these do not cover the issues in great depth but do give a good start:

The Case for Faith (Lee Strobel).

The Problem of Pain (C.S. Lewis).

If you've already fully investigated and read these, I'll be glad to suggest a few others.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 01:29 AM
Ah now you aren't trying to apply logic to God are you? Logic is a man made idea to help us understand things. It is a finite concept, of which it does not apply to an infinite being. The only time you can apply logic is in our understanding of Him. And of course I am talking about faith. There are many things I don't know about God, but that does not mean I don't know enough of Him to put that faith into the things I don't understand.

You are talking about logic. I was in a logical discussion.


You seem to think that in order for God to utilize a person that they have to give up their free will. We don't. God uses people who already have a heart for Him, and are inspired, and God uses those type of people to accomplish His will. That is why he does not use Satan. Satan would be the last being in the universe who would want to help God.


No that is not true. I do not think a person has to give up their free will. It is just those people could do anything with God's teaching they wanted. There is no proof that it is not corrupted.

If I am Satan I would have them compile the bible. Why wouldn't I? It makes perfect sense. I am not saying that he did. I am just saying that logically it is a possibility.


I think you are confusing love with forgiveness. You are talking about unconditional forgiveness, which has no basis in the bible. And even if you do forgive them, and love them, there are still consequences for their actions. There is justice. More on that later.

That is not true. Well for one Love and forgiveness are kind of the same thing or at very least the same vibration. If you really break it down forgiveness is just a type of love.



I love my kids unconditionally. There is nothing, I mean nothing, that they can or will ever do that will make me stop loving them. Nothing. That is unconditional love. But.....that does not mean that I won't punish them when they are bad, when they misbehave, when they disrespect me or their mother, etc.....This is how it is with God. He loves us unconditionally. There is nothing we can do that will make Him stop loving us. But He is also a God of Justice. Meaning there are consequences for our actions. There is a right and a wrong. When we do wrong we have to pay the price. God tells us that the wages of sin is death. Totally separated from God in H e double toothpicks. But he loves us so much that he gave His very own Son to die for our sins, a very piece of Himself, so that we may have everlasting life with Him for eternity. That is the ultimate act of Love.

You cannot have eternal justice with unconditional love. That is impossible.

You punish your kids (hopefully) because you love them and you know that to fit into society they have to conform to certain rules. Unless I am off, you feel your duty as a parent is to raise them correctly so they have good lives. To do that, kids need to know boundaries and what to do in certain situations. You do not punish them for no reason. You punish them because you love them. Not so they have to pay some price. Unless you are a jerk and actually enjoy punishing your kids.

The ultimate act of love would be to love use anyways without condition. Without worrying about sin. That is unconditional love. It is LOVE without a CONDITION. It is in the two words.


You are missing the fact that God is not only a God of love, but a God of Justice. Please see the above explanation.

I saw that. That doesn't make any sense. Your god is a god of conditional love


You are having trouble I know because you don't understand the nature, character and attributes of the one and only living God.

I know you are having problems with understanding the word unconditional.


Jesus was tortured before he died, He was killed in the most brutal fashion, and he died. He was fully man at that point in time, completely devoid of any deity, and completely and totally separated from God. He was dead for three days. That death, burrial and subsequent resurrection was the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. He did nothing wrong, but through the sinless and stainless blood of Jesus all our sins are washed away. Have you seen the Passion of the Christ? If you have then for you to say he didn't sacrifice himself, didn't pay a price is intellectually dishonest. If you have not seen the movie, I suggest you do at least once in your life. It probably isn't the exact representation, but it sure is darn close, and powerful. I won't watch it again!

That is not true the fact that I am being intellecutally dishonest. What is a few months of torture in comparison to an infinate time in bliss?

If I sacrified my life so I can go to heaven, did I really sacrifice? If I gave you a dollar so I can have a million, was that dollar a sacrifice?

I am never going to see Passion of the Christ. It is my opinion that the telling of that version of Christ and worshipping it is akin to worshiping the Golden Cow. That is just the way I see it. Plus that is not the Christ I would like to emulate.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 01:34 AM
I won't quote all your points, Dupree, but I'll address your points in a broad fashion:

First, either Christianity is true or it is not. The foundation for belief in the Bible, and Christianity, is the life, claims, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, either these events happened essentially as the NT documents described them and therefore Jesus is who he said he was - and Christianity is true - or these events did not happen and the Christian way of life (as described in the Scriptures; not necessarily as described in the lives of many Christians or churches today) is an absolute waste of time.

.

I appreciate your post as it took a lot of time and effort.

I fully respect your views.

I fully disagree with Christianity being true or not true. I also disagree with if they are not try that they are a waste of time. Anything that can bring you peace and joy in your life is not a waste.

At least that is my opinion.

Pagan
03-28-2008, 08:05 AM
1. If A is false, then isn't it logical to conclude that B is true? So any evidence disproving A, would naturally support and prove B would it not. Yes it would. We know Evolution is false.
I would actually answer your entire post, but once I read this I know that it's pointless - as always - to continue this with you.

It's kind of funny how only the uber-Christian sect states that evolution is false...and only because it rocks the very foundation of their beliefs.

Rock the beliefs, lose that crutch they've been leaning on all these years. So of course they'll claim evolution is false. ;)

I'll let the others continue to beat their heads against the wall with you...I have hockey playoffs coming up to watch. :tongue:

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 11:05 AM
I have a neo pet to feed. Ciao

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 11:09 AM
You are talking about logic. I was in a logical discussion.



No that is not true. I do not think a person has to give up their free will. It is just those people could do anything with God's teaching they wanted. There is no proof that it is not corrupted.

If I am Satan I would have them compile the bible. Why wouldn't I? It makes perfect sense. I am not saying that he did. I am just saying that logically it is a possibility.



That is not true. Well for one Love and forgiveness are kind of the same thing or at very least the same vibration. If you really break it down forgiveness is just a type of love.




You cannot have eternal justice with unconditional love. That is impossible.

You punish your kids (hopefully) because you love them and you know that to fit into society they have to conform to certain rules. Unless I am off, you feel your duty as a parent is to raise them correctly so they have good lives. To do that, kids need to know boundaries and what to do in certain situations. You do not punish them for no reason. You punish them because you love them. Not so they have to pay some price. Unless you are a jerk and actually enjoy punishing your kids.

The ultimate act of love would be to love use anyways without condition. Without worrying about sin. That is unconditional love. It is LOVE without a CONDITION. It is in the two words.



I saw that. That doesn't make any sense. Your god is a god of conditional love



I know you are having problems with understanding the word unconditional.



That is not true the fact that I am being intellecutally dishonest. What is a few months of torture in comparison to an infinate time in bliss?

If I sacrified my life so I can go to heaven, did I really sacrifice? If I gave you a dollar so I can have a million, was that dollar a sacrifice?

I am never going to see Passion of the Christ. It is my opinion that the telling of that version of Christ and worshipping it is akin to worshiping the Golden Cow. That is just the way I see it. Plus that is not the Christ I would like to emulate.Well you obviously have some issues with Christianity. People try to fit it into their own world view, and when people try to do that, it won't work and so they reject it. That does not mean that it isn't true. I have tried to share with you what it is all about, according to the bible. That is all I can do. The rest is up to God.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 11:51 AM
Well you obviously have some issues with Christianity. People try to fit it into their own world view, and when people try to do that, it won't work and so they reject it. That does not mean that it isn't true. I have tried to share with you what it is all about, according to the bible. That is all I can do. The rest is up to God.

everyone fits it into their own world view. That is the only way anything works. You are just able to fit it into the way you view the world. Which seems to put more emphasis on the body than the spirit.

It also doesn't mean it is true.

Pagan
03-28-2008, 11:54 AM
I have a neo pet to feed. Ciao
I wouldn't admit that too proudly if I were you, bro. :lol:

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 11:56 AM
everyone fits it into their own world view. That is the only way anything works. You are just able to fit it into the way you view the world. Which seems to put more emphasis on the body than the spirit.

It also doesn't mean it is true.Excuse me, please don't try to speak for me. My life has changed and I have changed my life because of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It didn't fit my world view brother. I was an atheist and an evolutionist to boot for 30 years.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 12:00 PM
I wouldn't admit that too proudly if I were you, bro. :lol:Actually I told a lie. My wife and daughters have them, I don't. One is named after me, so I feel obligated to make sure they are feeding ...me.:)

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 12:18 PM
Excuse me, please don't try to speak for me. My life has changed and I have changed my life because of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It didn't fit my world view brother. I was an atheist and an evolutionist to boot for 30 years.

Just because your life changed doesn't mean it doesn't fit into your world view. I have changed my life at least 10 times in the last 3 years. I have had at least 10 instances and thoughts that have totally changed the way I look at things. Some where smaller than others, however one was huge and really did rock some foundations.

Still they all had to fit into what I see in the world due to the fact that is the only way I can see things.

It isn't exactly speaking for you. It is just how humans work. Basically it would be like me saying that, you eat food because your body needs it and you coming back and telling me that I cannot speak for you, you eat food because you enjoy it. Or something of that nature.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 12:39 PM
Just because your life changed doesn't mean it doesn't fit into your world view. I have changed my life at least 10 times in the last 3 years. I have had at least 10 instances and thoughts that have totally changed the way I look at things. Some where smaller than others, however one was huge and really did rock some foundations.

Still they all had to fit into what I see in the world due to the fact that is the only way I can see things.

It isn't exactly speaking for you. It is just how humans work. Basically it would be like me saying that, you eat food because your body needs it and you coming back and telling me that I cannot speak for you, you eat food because you enjoy it. Or something of that nature.Very good then.

If you don't mind sharing I would be very interested in hearing your story that rocked your foundations. You could PM me if you want. If not that's cool too.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 12:55 PM
I would actually answer your entire post, but once I read this I know that it's pointless - as always - to continue this with you.

It's kind of funny how only the uber-Christian sect states that evolution is false...and only because it rocks the very foundation of their beliefs.

Rock the beliefs, lose that crutch they've been leaning on all these years. So of course they'll claim evolution is false. ;)

I'll let the others continue to beat their heads against the wall with you...I have hockey playoffs coming up to watch. :tongue:Actually evolution is becomming one of the biggest lies perpetrated on minkind, and our public school systems.

It isn't religion that is making that claim, but science itself.:woot:

If you have something to argue that point, bring it, and we can discuss it.:up:

But probably should be in another thread.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 02:49 PM
Very good then.

If you don't mind sharing I would be very interested in hearing your story that rocked your foundations. You could PM me if you want. If not that's cool too.

I do not mind sharing.

In the last 10 years I learned and understood a few things that have changed my outlook on life

1. The nature of the masculine and feminine. Mostly on the feminine side. I understand more about women then I have ever did and went from being a jerk who is mad because women didn't want to be with the nice guy that I am.

2. Reflection. The understanding that anything that bothers me about a person really is something that bothers me about me. This is one that helps eliminate judgement

3. Love is an action. Love is not something that I have. It is a state. Something that I do. Unconditional love is something that is done without condition. Something that I am not capable of

4. The true nature of forgiveness. Forgiveness is unconditional love. Plus forgiveness is something that I do for me and not for the other person. It is a total selfish act. To not forgive is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick

5. The realization that everyone is doing the best they can with the information that they are given. This has allowed me to forgive anyone. People are doing the best they know how to do. Not only that if you go down deeper, everyone is doing everything for a positive intent. Some people just have warped ideas on what they need for security or love.

6. Honoring my path and where I am at. That has been a big one. It is also stems to honoring other people's path and where they are at.

7. I am not my mind. I am what exists before the mind was created. This one is harder to explain. This also means that I am not my body. You can see it in english. It is MY body and MY mind.

8. There are only two emotions really. This one I have had the most discussions with as people tend to disagree. In fact I maybe wrong in the sense that there is really only one emotion and the other one that I give a label to is just the lack of the first one. Kind of the way dark is the label we give to a situation that really there is just a lack of light. Dark kind of doesn't exist. There isn't a dark switch in a room. Those two emotions have many labels. I have heard fear and love, positive and negative, or whatever. Basically feelings that feel good and feelings that feel not good. What that means is that a lot of feelings people associate with love is not love. It is fear or the lack of love. Such as worry and grief. To grief over someone is not loving them. To worry about someone is not loving them. Tell those to people, they tend to get pissed.

I honestly believe that this is the power of what people call god.

9. Which leads to this one. I can be totally happy dispite everything that is going around me. Am I at this moment? No, I am not. I just know that I can be. Everything in life is only the way it is because of the meaning that I give it when it comes to how I react.

10. The power of sharing. I am not alone. This one I am still getting and learning

11. I will never be done. This is one that I am learning to understand as well. That no matter how much work I do, things will happen. No matter how much I gain, there will always be more that I want. The biggest and deadliest lie brought onto man is that there is finality. That there is joy in working all your life so you can retire. There isn't joy in that. There is only joy in "retirement" if you have something that you want to accomplish. Like seeing all 50 states or building a boat and sailing or something else. Which is still a lot of work. If we are not growing, we are dying.

Those are 11 things that I have learned and I am learning. There are a lot more. This has been an interesting 3 years for me.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 02:52 PM
Actually evolution is becomming one of the biggest lies perpetrated on minkind, and our public school systems.

It isn't religion that is making that claim, but science itself.:woot:

If you have something to argue that point, bring it, and we can discuss it.:up:

But probably should be in another thread.

in what sense? They have documented evidience that evolution exists. It is happening right now in the world around us. From plants to animals. Heck even viruses that evolve to being a new strain that is resistant to the current medicines.

ih8brady
03-28-2008, 02:58 PM
in what sense? They have documented evidience that evolution exists. It is happening right now in the world around us. From plants to animals. Heck even viruses that evolve to being a new strain that is resistant to the current medicines.

Pffftt! If something is naturally complex, it must have been made from dust by a Bronze Age mythological, supernatural deity. Everyone knows that.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 03:48 PM
in what sense? They have documented evidience that evolution exists. It is happening right now in the world around us. From plants to animals. Heck even viruses that evolve to being a new strain that is resistant to the current medicines.Really? Where?

Pick just one and we can discuss.

I know that there are lot's of evidence the evolutionists "say" is proof, but I have yet to see anything that says that it is proof, and I have seen lot's more evidence that says it isn't posible.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 03:52 PM
I do not mind sharing.

In the last 10 years I learned and understood a few things that have changed my outlook on life

1. The nature of the masculine and feminine. Mostly on the feminine side. I understand more about women then I have ever did and went from being a jerk who is mad because women didn't want to be with the nice guy that I am.

2. Reflection. The understanding that anything that bothers me about a person really is something that bothers me about me. This is one that helps eliminate judgement

3. Love is an action. Love is not something that I have. It is a state. Something that I do. Unconditional love is something that is done without condition. Something that I am not capable of

4. The true nature of forgiveness. Forgiveness is unconditional love. Plus forgiveness is something that I do for me and not for the other person. It is a total selfish act. To not forgive is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to get sick

5. The realization that everyone is doing the best they can with the information that they are given. This has allowed me to forgive anyone. People are doing the best they know how to do. Not only that if you go down deeper, everyone is doing everything for a positive intent. Some people just have warped ideas on what they need for security or love.

6. Honoring my path and where I am at. That has been a big one. It is also stems to honoring other people's path and where they are at.

7. I am not my mind. I am what exists before the mind was created. This one is harder to explain. This also means that I am not my body. You can see it in english. It is MY body and MY mind.

8. There are only two emotions really. This one I have had the most discussions with as people tend to disagree. In fact I maybe wrong in the sense that there is really only one emotion and the other one that I give a label to is just the lack of the first one. Kind of the way dark is the label we give to a situation that really there is just a lack of light. Dark kind of doesn't exist. There isn't a dark switch in a room. Those two emotions have many labels. I have heard fear and love, positive and negative, or whatever. Basically feelings that feel good and feelings that feel not good. What that means is that a lot of feelings people associate with love is not love. It is fear or the lack of love. Such as worry and grief. To grief over someone is not loving them. To worry about someone is not loving them. Tell those to people, they tend to get pissed.

I honestly believe that this is the power of what people call god.

9. Which leads to this one. I can be totally happy dispite everything that is going around me. Am I at this moment? No, I am not. I just know that I can be. Everything in life is only the way it is because of the meaning that I give it when it comes to how I react.

10. The power of sharing. I am not alone. This one I am still getting and learning

11. I will never be done. This is one that I am learning to understand as well. That no matter how much work I do, things will happen. No matter how much I gain, there will always be more that I want. The biggest and deadliest lie brought onto man is that there is finality. That there is joy in working all your life so you can retire. There isn't joy in that. There is only joy in "retirement" if you have something that you want to accomplish. Like seeing all 50 states or building a boat and sailing or something else. Which is still a lot of work. If we are not growing, we are dying.

Those are 11 things that I have learned and I am learning. There are a lot more. This has been an interesting 3 years for me.Oh so it was a culmination of things you have learned over the years. I thought it was an single event that changed your life which is what I was asking about. You sound new age?

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 03:56 PM
Oh so it was a culmination of things you have learned over the years. I thought it was an single event that changed your life which is what I was asking about. You sound new age?

There were single events that caused the learnings and knowings.

People would probably label me as such.

Still I could easily be a non-denominational christian with the stuff I believe in.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 03:57 PM
Really? Where?

Pick just one and we can discuss.

I know that there are lot's of evidence the evolutionists "say" is proof, but I have yet to see anything that says that it is proof, and I have seen lot's more evidence that says it isn't posible.

just mentioned on. Viruses evolve. They don't spawn out of nothingness.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 05:03 PM
just mentioned on. Viruses evolve. They don't spawn out of nothingness.Are they even considered alive? They are parasites. I have seen no study suggesting that they change or evolve into a more complex organism. We know that they can adapt, but that isn't evolution. If you have a specific study to refer to that would be great.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-28-2008, 05:07 PM
Are they even considered alive? They are parasites. I have seen no study suggesting that they change or evolve into a more complex organism. We know that they can adapt, but that isn't evolution. If you have a specific study to refer to that would be great.

why wouldn't they be considered alive?

Adaptation is evolution. That is the whole basis of evolution.

Dolphan7
03-28-2008, 07:08 PM
why wouldn't they be considered alive?

Adaptation is evolution. That is the whole basis of evolution.I don't know why they wouldn't be considered alive, or not. There is much debate about it. But it really doesn't matter, it was just a question.

Evolutionists will more often than not show you micro-evolution and tell you it is darwinian macro evolution.

Micro-evolution is nothing more than adaptation. Adaptation is not proof of macro-evolution. Evolutionists want you to believe that it is, but it isn't true. Adaptation/micro-evolution does nothing to change an organism from one genus to another. Not only that it does not create anything "new", it only changes something that already exists. And while macro-evolution demands the increase in genetic information passed from the one organsim to the next, micro-evolution actually loses genetic information over time. So to say that micro-evolution over time will result in macro-evolution is not based on anything factual, or observed, or logical.

cwsox
03-28-2008, 08:34 PM
It has been widely accepted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT.


That has not been "wildly accepted" for several centuries of Scriptural scholarship. That is the fundamentalist view, a minority view, not held of any reputable Biblical scholar.

The five books of Torah contain a number of oral and written traditions that were combined probably beginning in the reign of Josiah and continuing for many centuries afterwards, at least through the return from the Babylonia Exile.

That is why, for example, there are two creation accounts (and neither one is science): Genesis 1-2.4a and Genesis 2.4b ff. Those are very different accounts of creation and cannot be reconciled.

The Scriptures are the story of God and God's people and that is their authority for those who believe.

And; the Bible is most definitely NOT the Word of God.

Not even close.

The Word of God is identified for us who are Christians in John 1.1.

For those who are truly interested in how the Scriptures came to be written, I don't generally refer people to wikipedia but is as good of a place to start as any
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

Joker2thief
03-28-2008, 09:30 PM
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun.To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".
If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

Da 'Fins
03-29-2008, 11:50 AM
I appreciate your post as it took a lot of time and effort.

I fully respect your views.

I fully disagree with Christianity being true or not true. I also disagree with if they are not try that they are a waste of time. Anything that can bring you peace and joy in your life is not a waste.

At least that is my opinion.

Not sure I understand one point: How can you disagree with Christianity being true or not true? Either it is, or it isn't. Either Jesus physically arose from the dead, or he did not. That is what Christianity is based on. It's not, and never claimed to be, a philosophy of life that is true for some not for others. It sets itself forward in an entirely different manner. It is true or not true - just as it is true or not true that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series last year. Christianity bases itself not in philosophical ideas, but in historical fact/falsehood. And, it sets itself forth consistently as hinging entirely on historical events.

If one chooses to view it's basis otherwise - it's not Christianity they are dealing with but something made up in their own minds.

There is some truth to the "peace" part except that is not all the Christianity is about. True Christianity calls for serious self-sacrifices. Even suffering persecution to follow Christ. It would mean, for example, a willingness to remain in a marriage that had gone terribly sour (with the exception of infidelity; though other challenges may force one to separate temporarily). When one really starts to live the Christian life, there is no compromise. Jesus calls for one to "take up his cross daily and follow me" - that means I completely die to self and give up my temporal earthly happiness and peace.

Da 'Fins
03-29-2008, 12:12 PM
That has not been "wildly accepted" for several centuries of Scriptural scholarship. That is the fundamentalist view, a minority view, not held of any reputable Biblical scholar.

The five books of Torah contain a number of oral and written traditions that were combined probably beginning in the reign of Josiah and continuing for many centuries afterwards, at least through the return from the Babylonia Exile.

That is why, for example, there are two creation accounts (and neither one is science): Genesis 1-2.4a and Genesis 2.4b ff. Those are very different accounts of creation and cannot be reconciled.

The Scriptures are the story of God and God's people and that is their authority for those who believe.

And; the Bible is most definitely NOT the Word of God.

Not even close.

The Word of God is identified for us who are Christians in John 1.1.

For those who are truly interested in how the Scriptures came to be written, I don't generally refer people to wikipedia but is as good of a place to start as any
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

Ha, Ha, Ha! Wikipedia! Anyone can write there. In fact, I could go on that very link and change much of what is written and provide links and support for it and it would no longer be something you would reference.

But,
1) Sorry, there are reputable scholars who believe the evidence points to Moses as the author or at least compiler of the Pentateuch. Certainly this is a realm of debate for most. Scholars who dispute generally are those who approach the text from an a priori perspective that they must not be true (it is a result of a rejection of the possibility of miracles, going back to David Hume; not just the rejection of whether a miracle happened in the Bible; but an assumption, an a priori rejection of even the possibility of such). It is not essential that Moses is the author of these books in order for them to be inspired. And, certainly there are parts that are not from Moses. Also, some of the language/wording may have been updated through the centuries by Hebrew scribes, like Ezra. This is natural. If you've ever tried to read the KJV in its original writing, you'd understand why this is.

2) You make a flaw in stating that the word of God is found in John 1:1 and that the "Bible" is not the word, as though the two are mutually exclusive. This is the fallacy of the false dilemma. Yes, Jesus is the "word of God" the embodiment of it, but this is speaking of the "word" in a different sense than when one says, "The Bible is the Word of God."

Not only is this the fallacy of the false dilemma and of taking two terms out of context and attaching identical meaning to them, it also fails to recognize that this extrapolates to the entirety of Scripture.

If Jesus is the "word of God" (John 1:1, 14). Then what He says is the word of God. And, what he says is that the OT texts are authoritatively the word of God (In numerous places - Mt. 4; John 5; etc.). For Jesus and Jews of his day, the very statement, "Scripture" or "Writings" or "What is Written" - represented the word of God. Any understanding of Jesus will recognize this. Further (and I'm operating from the perspective of belief in Jesus as the Son of God, risen from the dead), Jesus gave both the Holy Spirit to speak his words to the disciples and guide them into all truth. Two passages from these very men who were guided by the Spirit, whose words were from the Lord himself, state plainly that Scripture is the word of God (2 Tim. 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

Any view that Jesus is the word - and any attempt to go to the Scripture (such as John 1:1) must inevitably lead to the view that the Bible itself is the Word of God.

Da 'Fins
03-29-2008, 12:43 PM
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun.To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".
If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.

I am not one who unequivocally disbelieves in evolution or its possibility - though I do believe the Bible is entirely the Word of God (I won't go into why I believe that or how I harmonize the two; no time here for that - except to say that I do not think the Bible is attempting in any way to speak "scientifically" in Gen. 1-2). And, there is a great deal of evidence that relates to evolution.

But, scientists accept the evidence for evolution in the same way thinking Christians accept the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. The data points to it.

That said, there is good data for micro-evolution. We all agree on that. However, the cross-species linkages are problematic. That's why there are theories like Gould's punctuated equilibrium - because there are problems in linking up the species. And, one does not have to be a young earth creationist to see this problem. Michael Denton, an evolutionary biologist from Australia (not some "bible thumping fundamentalist" as some want to say) has exposed several of these problems. He himself is an evolutionist, but recognizes that it is based on a logical extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro - without very strong evidence for the latter. I'm not saying the latter may not be true. But, what you have done is make an assertion. The evidence for the latter (macro) is much more thin and in many cases debatable.

Another point in your argument is flawed. Your analogy of walking down a street and walking to another city is extraordinarily weak.

It is certainly possible that micro evolution is true and macro is not. Ultimately the data will determine this. But there is nothing logically flawed with this perspective. Your analogy just does not apply.

If there is a God who created the universe (something so stupendous it's size and awesomeness are beyond the comprehension of the human mind) and provided for life to exists here, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that this being also allowed for macro-evolution to take place and keep certain "lines" if you will, separate from between species (as illustrated simplistically below - seeing each line as an evolutionary process within a particular species):

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Or it could be something like this:
.............. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...... _ _ _/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...........\_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* Ignore the "dots" (they are just to get the lines to match up).

There is strong evidence for the dotted lines (representing, "micro" evolution). The evidence for the forward/back slashes in the 2nd diagram is less strong and evolutionists like Denton (and even Gould when he was life) recognized this. That does not mean it did not happen that way. These are, if you will, two competing models. And, there is nothing inherently flawed with the 1st model, from a logical perspective. Nor, even from a scientific perspective. The burden of proof rests on those who believe in the 2nd model - the forward/back slashes.

Again, I'm not saying the second model (which is the evolutionary model) is impossible or erroneous. But, it is grounded predominantly on assumptions: a) that if the dashes occur, this implies there must be the slashes (and there is nothing axiomatic about that; it is a debatable assumption); b) there is an assumption that all of life emerged from one single life form. Now, these are both potentially true. But, they are not necessary assumptions.

The real question then becomes, what is the evidence for the fwd/back slash areas in the evolution of life. That is the area of debate. And, while I have no axe to grind whatsoever with macro-evolution - there are, in fact, some significant, debatable issues. I've yet to see extremely solid evidence on that end. I am open to looking at such evidence.

But, this is another discussion beyond this original thread topic.

Dolphan7
03-29-2008, 01:56 PM
That has not been "wildly accepted" for several centuries of Scriptural scholarship. That is the fundamentalist view, a minority view, not held of any reputable Biblical scholar.It has been widely accepted by most biblical and secular scholars that Moses wrote the Torah.

The Catholics acccept Moses' authorship.
The Jews accept Moses' authorship.
Protestants accept Moses' authorship.

Hardly as list of fundamantalists there.



The five books of Torah contain a number of oral and written traditions that were combined probably beginning in the reign of Josiah and continuing for many centuries afterwards, at least through the return from the Babylonia Exile.

"Probably beginning in the reign of Josiah". Doesn't sound too convinced. So who wrote the Torah? Who wrote the written portions of the Torah that existed before the time of Josiah, according to your post?


That is why, for example, there are two creation accounts (and neither one is science): Genesis 1-2.4a and Genesis 2.4b ff. Those are very different accounts of creation and cannot be reconciled.There is no contradiction.

Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.

Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."

Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in Gen 2:7-24.


The Scriptures are the story of God and God's people and that is their authority for those who believe.Yes I wouldn't expect non-believers to consider the bible authority.



And; the Bible is most definitely NOT the Word of God.

Not even close.

The Word of God is identified for us who are Christians in John 1.1.
I don't understand this statement. First you say the bible is not the word of God, then you quote the bible to say what the word of God is. I hope you can see the irony here, and the obvious contradiction.

Can you please quote John 1:1.



For those who are truly interested in how the Scriptures came to be written, I don't generally refer people to wikipedia but is as good of a place to start as any
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
Wikipedia, yes the most accurate and unbiased and trustworthy encyclopedia there is. One thing you can count on from Wikipedia, come back next week, year, and see what it says. It isn't a static document. And anyone with a pulse can post to it practically. Not only that but you cited a section completely bias toward discrediting the acuracy and authority of the bible. Yes you won't get the honest truth there.

Dolphan7
03-29-2008, 02:14 PM
Life evolves. That is a fact. One of the simplest definitions of evolution is the change in the frequency of genes in a species over time.There is no debate among scientists as to whether or not evolution occurs, any more than there is debate about the Earth orbiting the Sun.To say that you accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is akin to saying that it is possible to walk to the end of your street, but it is somehow impossible to walk to the next town. The process involved, putting one foot in front of the other, a single step at a time, is exactly the same although the end results may be completely different.Evolution is a fact. This is not open to debate.
Darwin's Theory Of Evolution is not evolution. In the same way, the theory that the Earth orbits the Sun is not the Earth orbiting the Sun - it is a description and explanation of it.The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts of evolution.

If nobody had ever developed the theory, it would not change that fact that living things evolve over time - evolution happens whether there is a theory or not.
Furthermore, Darwin's theory of evolution may be totally, hopelessly and utterly wrong. Even if it were, and Darwin and every biologist who had contributed to the theory since were incorrect, evolution would still exist and continue. Evolution is totally independent of the theory of evolution. The theory is simply an attempt to explain the observed facts of nature that we call "evolution".

If there is a debate or controversy within the scientific community about the theory of evolution, creationists see this as evidence that "evolution is in crisis". Nonsense - it is merely that scientists disagree (often bitterly) over details of the theory of evolution. That evolution actually happens is beyond question, but the theory of evolution is - and always should be, like every other scientific theory - probed, tested and scrutinised. Again, even if the theory were to collapse, that would still not magically disprove evolution or cause species to cease evolving.Evolution is not about the origins of life on Earth. Evolution is about the development of living things over time. The study of the origins of life is known as "abiogenesis" and any web search engine will find you many examples of current literature on the subject.
Our society has been fed the "fact" of evolution. It is in every textbook, all the teachers and professors teach it, all the scientific papers post on it, top magazines report on it etc.....ad infinitum.

It is a lie. You have been duped. There is no solid evidence that any new life can be created from existing life. In order for that to happen you have to add genetic material to the organism. Micro-evolution only re-mixes, or loses, genetic material. That isn't evolution, it is adaptation/mutation.

There is no evidence ever that genetic material has been "created" from an organism.

A Train leaves NY, and later appears in Chicago. It is logical to assume that that train will eventully reach LA. That is micro-evolution. Now try to take that same train to Honolulu. You can't without adding wings or some other device to either fly over or float on the ocean (or swim under for that matter). That would be Macro-evolution. You need new material in order for it to work. It hasn't happened. It can't happen. It is impossible to add genetic material to an organism through natural causes.

Dolphan7
03-29-2008, 02:19 PM
I am not one who unequivocally disbelieves in evolution or its possibility - though I do believe the Bible is entirely the Word of God (I won't go into why I believe that or how I harmonize the two; no time here for that - except to say that I do not think the Bible is attempting in any way to speak "scientifically" in Gen. 1-2). And, there is a great deal of evidence that relates to evolution.

But, scientists accept the evidence for evolution in the same way thinking Christians accept the evidence for Jesus' resurrection. The data points to it.

That said, there is good data for micro-evolution. We all agree on that. However, the cross-species linkages are problematic. That's why there are theories like Gould's punctuated equilibrium - because there are problems in linking up the species. And, one does not have to be a young earth creationist to see this problem. Michael Denton, an evolutionary biologist from Australia (not some "bible thumping fundamentalist" as some want to say) has exposed several of these problems. He himself is an evolutionist, but recognizes that it is based on a logical extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro - without very strong evidence for the latter. I'm not saying the latter may not be true. But, what you have done is make an assertion. The evidence for the latter (macro) is much more thin and in many cases debatable.

Another point in your argument is flawed. Your analogy of walking down a street and walking to another city is extraordinarily weak.

It is certainly possible that micro evolution is true and macro is not. Ultimately the data will determine this. But there is nothing logically flawed with this perspective. Your analogy just does not apply.

If there is a God who created the universe (something so stupendous it's size and awesomeness are beyond the comprehension of the human mind) and provided for life to exists here, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that this being also allowed for macro-evolution to take place and keep certain "lines" if you will, separate from between species (as illustrated simplistically below - seeing each line as an evolutionary process within a particular species):

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Or it could be something like this:
.............. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...... _ _ _/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
...........\_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

* Ignore the "dots" (they are just to get the lines to match up).

There is strong evidence for the dotted lines (representing, "micro" evolution). The evidence for the forward/back slashes in the 2nd diagram is less strong and evolutionists like Denton (and even Gould when he was life) recognized this. That does not mean it did not happen that way. These are, if you will, two competing models. And, there is nothing inherently flawed with the 1st model, from a logical perspective. Nor, even from a scientific perspective. The burden of proof rests on those who believe in the 2nd model - the forward/back slashes.

Again, I'm not saying the second model (which is the evolutionary model) is impossible or erroneous. But, it is grounded predominantly on assumptions: a) that if the dashes occur, this implies there must be the slashes (and there is nothing axiomatic about that; it is a debatable assumption); b) there is an assumption that all of life emerged from one single life form. Now, these are both potentially true. But, they are not necessary assumptions.

The real question then becomes, what is the evidence for the fwd/back slash areas in the evolution of life. That is the area of debate. And, while I have no axe to grind whatsoever with macro-evolution - there are, in fact, some significant, debatable issues. I've yet to see extremely solid evidence on that end. I am open to looking at such evidence.

But, this is another discussion beyond this original thread topic.Good reference to Michael Denton.

He wrote a book called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This is an excellent read and really does make a good case against the plausibility of evolution.

In particular was the chapter on Typology, which absolutely blew me away. A must read for anyone seriously interested in evaluating the truth or falsity of evolution.

cwsox
03-29-2008, 06:58 PM
It has been widely accepted by most biblical and secular scholars that Moses wrote the Torah.

The Catholics acccept Moses' authorship.
The Jews accept Moses' authorship.
Protestants accept Moses' authorship.



in what fantasy world do you live?

you are wrong five times over.

believe as you wish, if it makes you happy

but you espouse a position that no reputable Biblical scholar thinks has a shred of basis to it - your refusal to comprehend that reality says a great deal

padre31
03-29-2008, 07:38 PM
I would actually answer your entire post, but once I read this I know that it's pointless - as always - to continue this with you.

It's kind of funny how only the uber-Christian sect states that evolution is false...and only because it rocks the very foundation of their beliefs.

Rock the beliefs, lose that crutch they've been leaning on all these years. So of course they'll claim evolution is false. ;)

I'll let the others continue to beat their heads against the wall with you...I have hockey playoffs coming up to watch. :tongue:

For myself, not at all, the Evolutionary Theory is a bit flawed, well more then a bit, but it is of no moment for the reason that chwsx suggests, though he may not realize it.

"If" the two part Creation is to viewed as simply the same story told twice, then why would they differ so greatly, why would the Earth be created, then made void?

Or was it perfectly created, then made void, leaving the page blank for Mankind to write upon? To accept or reject God, as it were.

A previous poster saw two versions of the same narrative, perhaps there are two or three different narratives rolled into a single chapter, then the picture becomes clearer.

Dolphan7
03-30-2008, 01:38 AM
in what fantasy world do you live?

you are wrong five times over.

believe as you wish, if it makes you happy

but you espouse a position that no reputable Biblical scholar thinks has a shred of basis to it - your refusal to comprehend that reality says a great dealDude, if you want to post about what you think of my belief on the subject, create another thread, (not recommended) or PM me and we can discuss. If you want to continue to post about the thread title, then please do so and provide evidence to support your claim and we can discuss.

cwsox
03-30-2008, 04:28 PM
"dude"

????

your cool hip lingo?

I have addressed the topic. No reputable Biblical scholar accepts Mosaic authorship of Torah, nor has one for several centuries. I listed a site from wikipedia saying up front that wikipedia is not an academic source but it had a lot of great sources linked within the article You treated that with your usual sarcasm, scoffing, and ridicule rather than dealing with the material and sources presented. And now you want to high five yourself for acting so high and mighty with this "dude."

The wikipedia link continues to name some excellent resources which are standard academic references. You can once again mock the word "wikipedia" and in fact I suspect you will rather than actually reading from and learning anything from modern Biblical scholarship (and by modern we are talking early 19th century).

Just as you giggled like a child at my reference to John 1.1 - all of your posts have just punded on other folks with your academically and Biblically-scholarship discredited beliefs and then switch to high sarcasm when offered a different perspective. Even the word "probably" through you off in reference to Josiah. You may think that your insults are a substitute for discussion, but they are not. And as you show no respect for differing opinions and people, you have already received your reward.

Da 'Fins
03-31-2008, 09:52 AM
"dude"

????

your cool hip lingo?

I have addressed the topic. No reputable Biblical scholar accepts Mosaic authorship of Torah, nor has one for several centuries. I listed a site from wikipedia saying up front that wikipedia is not an academic source but it had a lot of great sources linked within the article You treated that with your usual sarcasm, scoffing, and ridicule rather than dealing with the material and sources presented. And now you want to high five yourself for acting so high and mighty with this "dude."

The wikipedia link continues to name some excellent resources which are standard academic references. You can once again mock the word "wikipedia" and in fact I suspect you will rather than actually reading from and learning anything from modern Biblical scholarship (and by modern we are talking early 19th century).

Just as you giggled like a child at my reference to John 1.1 - all of your posts have just punded on other folks with your academically and Biblically-scholarship discredited beliefs and then switch to high sarcasm when offered a different perspective. Even the word "probably" through you off in reference to Josiah. You may think that your insults are a substitute for discussion, but they are not. And as you show no respect for differing opinions and people, you have already received your reward.

Though this was not directed at my post - a couple of comments:

I dealt with your unfortunate misuse of John 1:1 and the failure to comprehend the different uses of the phrase "word of God" depending on the context - but, you've chosen not to honorably engage with that or recognize the arguments.

You complain about a failure to respect different opinions - but in my post on the Pentateuch I recognized that there are different views on Mosaic authorship - however there are numerous reputable scholars in recent years at Oxford, Cambridge, St. Andrews - the three oldest and most reputable universities in England - and at professors at numerous universities in the U.S. (including non-Evangelical schools - Duke, Princeton, and elsewhere) who would not dispute Mosaic authorship.

You're living in the Documentary Hypothesis era and have not recognized that in many recent OT scholarly journals (over the past 20-30 years) this has come to be considered a flawed perspective. Even 'liberal' scholars who reject the idea that the OT is inspired, such as Robert Alter, recognize that the JEDP break up of Genesis and the Pentateuch is flawed from a literary perspective.

Narrative theology has done much to undermine the now dated DocHyp that you are operating under. It would benefit you if you actually read OT and NT scholarly journals - rather than referencing Wikipedia.

Ultimately your argument is not with me or with Dolfan7 - it is with Jesus because he accepted Mosaic authorship. This is why the Bible hinges on Jesus, his person, his identity, and his death-burial-resurrection. if Jesus is the Son of God- uniquely - if he was raised physically, then he is the final authority ("all authority has been given unto me..." Mt. 28:18ff) - and therefore his "stamp of approval" if you will on the OT inspiration and Mosaic authorship is problematic for you.

This does not mean that Moses himself may have compiled some of his material from earlier sources or even tablets (some scholars believe that Gen 1 may have been originally composed in tablet form prior to Moses and that Moses compiled them together, as an inspired editor). Of course, this is no different than what Luke did with his gospel - using multiple sources and eyewitnesses - as well as all the other gospel writers. Inspiration does not just mean "dictation." Furthermore, Moses' authorship also, as I noted earlier in my previous response to this, does not preclude editing by later scribes. There is little doubt that Ezra, as a scribe, when he copied the ancient texts that were written 900-1000 years earlier - would have substituted terms that made better sense in his day. This is exactly what Biblical translators do today with modern translations, relative to older ones. They are based on the same text. While attempting to remain faithful to the original - they also use terms and phrases that will make sense to modern english readers (archaic terminology is rarely employed; so, too, with Biblical copyists - even inspired ones like Ezra).

A note on Genesis 1-2:4a and 2:4b and following. You are positing two creation accounts that cannot be harmonized. But, 1) you fail to recognize the literary technique of recapitulation - this is a classic technique that Biblical literary scholars clearly recognize as non-problematic. Any "declaration" that Gen. 1-2 cannot be harmonized is an assertion. The burden of proof to demonstrate that they cannot be harmonized is on you - show it. I'll provide a solution in every place. Part of your problem likely relates to a wooden, hyper-literal reading - which desires to see discrepancies, rather than simply recognizing that chapter 2 is first, not a retelling of the creation account but an expansion and detailed account related to humanity. It is the author's way of moving from a discussion of general creation to a discussion of the specifics of God's relationship to humanity and how that relationship was severed. It is a theologically focused text. Of course, Gen. 1 is also more theological and literary than most readers think. But, that's another discussion.

Pagan
03-31-2008, 11:09 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2008/03/popcorn-1.gif

:lol:

This is why religious views are best kept to oneself. If you believe what you believe, you hold it dear to you, and you STFU about it, we wouldn't have threads like this that go on and on and on for weeks and are usually composed of the same thing.

D7 and other Christians shouting from the mountaintops to prove to the world that their way is the ONLY way on one side....and those who practice other faiths and don't swallow what they're preaching on the other.

Eventually the thread will come to the "you can't knock me off my rock" or "and what if you're wrong when you die?" stage. Only a matter of time.

Not for anything guys...it's become a running joke.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 12:09 PM
Though this was not directed at my post - a couple of comments:

I dealt with your unfortunate misuse of John 1:1 and the failure to comprehend the different uses of the phrase "word of God" depending on the context - but, you've chosen not to honorably engage with that or recognize the arguments.

You complain about a failure to respect different opinions - but in my post on the Pentateuch I recognized that there are different views on Mosaic authorship - however there are numerous reputable scholars in recent years at Oxford, Cambridge, St. Andrews - the three oldest and most reputable universities in England - and at professors at numerous universities in the U.S. (including non-Evangelical schools - Duke, Princeton, and elsewhere) who would not dispute Mosaic authorship.

You're living in the Documentary Hypothesis era and have not recognized that in many recent OT scholarly journals (over the past 20-30 years) this has come to be considered a flawed perspective. Even 'liberal' scholars who reject the idea that the OT is inspired, such as Robert Alter, recognize that the JEDP break up of Genesis and the Pentateuch is flawed from a literary perspective.

Narrative theology has done much to undermine the now dated DocHyp that you are operating under. It would benefit you if you actually read OT and NT scholarly journals - rather than referencing Wikipedia.

Ultimately your argument is not with me or with Dolfan7 - it is with Jesus because he accepted Mosaic authorship. This is why the Bible hinges on Jesus, his person, his identity, and his death-burial-resurrection. if Jesus is the Son of God- uniquely - if he was raised physically, then he is the final authority ("all authority has been given unto me..." Mt. 28:18ff) - and therefore his "stamp of approval" if you will on the OT inspiration and Mosaic authorship is problematic for you.

This does not mean that Moses himself may have compiled some of his material from earlier sources or even tablets (some scholars believe that Gen 1 may have been originally composed in tablet form prior to Moses and that Moses compiled them together, as an inspired editor). Of course, this is no different than what Luke did with his gospel - using multiple sources and eyewitnesses - as well as all the other gospel writers. Inspiration does not just mean "dictation." Furthermore, Moses' authorship also, as I noted earlier in my previous response to this, does not preclude editing by later scribes. There is little doubt that Ezra, as a scribe, when he copied the ancient texts that were written 900-1000 years earlier - would have substituted terms that made better sense in his day. This is exactly what Biblical translators do today with modern translations, relative to older ones. They are based on the same text. While attempting to remain faithful to the original - they also use terms and phrases that will make sense to modern english readers (archaic terminology is rarely employed; so, too, with Biblical copyists - even inspired ones like Ezra).

A note on Genesis 1-2:4a and 2:4b and following. You are positing two creation accounts that cannot be harmonized. But, 1) you fail to recognize the literary technique of recapitulation - this is a classic technique that Biblical literary scholars clearly recognize as non-problematic. Any "declaration" that Gen. 1-2 cannot be harmonized is an assertion. The burden of proof to demonstrate that they cannot be harmonized is on you - show it. I'll provide a solution in every place. Part of your problem likely relates to a wooden, hyper-literal reading - which desires to see discrepancies, rather than simply recognizing that chapter 2 is first, not a retelling of the creation account but an expansion and detailed account related to humanity. It is the author's way of moving from a discussion of general creation to a discussion of the specifics of God's relationship to humanity and how that relationship was severed. It is a theologically focused text. Of course, Gen. 1 is also more theological and literary than most readers think. But, that's another discussion.Thank you Dafins. I was just about to post about the Documentary Hypothesis and it's obvious flaws. You beat me to it and quite frankly did a much better job of it than I would have. :up:

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 12:43 PM
This is why religious views are best kept to oneself. If you believe what you believe, you hold it dear to you, and you STFU about it, we wouldn't have threads like this that go on and on and on for weeks and are usually composed of the same thing.
Pagan, this site is about open debate and all views are welcome. This particular forum is about religion, and people will post about their views on religion, just as you have on numerous occasions. No one is asking you, or anyone, to keep it to yourself.

Your particular faith may not induce you to speak about it, but others do. If it is not something that you care to read about, you certainly have every right to ignore it.

We welcome differing viewpoints and we don't seek to limit the expression of those viewpoints unless they violate the TOS. We want posts to stay on thread topic, and not wander off into areas about individual posters, or groups of posters, and their reasons for posting.

Telling posters to STFU because you don't want to hear about it goes against the meaning of open and public debate. I would encourage you to welcome that freedom of expression and apply it to all posters just as it is freely given to you.

Now everybody clack mugs and agree to disagree on certain subjects, and celebrate those subjects we agree on. :up:

Pagan
03-31-2008, 02:42 PM
Pagan, this site is about open debate and all views are welcome. This particular forum is about religion, and people will post about their views on religion, just as you have on numerous occasions. No one is asking you, or anyone, to keep it to yourself.

Your particular faith may not induce you to speak about it, but others do. If it is not something that you care to read about, you certainly have every right to ignore it.

We welcome differing viewpoints and we don't seek to limit the expression of those viewpoints unless they violate the TOS. We want posts to stay on thread topic, and not wander off into areas about individual posters, or groups of posters, and their reasons for posting.

Telling posters to STFU because you don't want to hear about it goes against the meaning of open and public debate. I would encourage you to welcome that freedom of expression and apply it to all posters just as it is freely given to you.

Now everybody clack mugs and agree to disagree on certain subjects, and celebrate those subjects we agree on. :up:
Maybe you didn't really read what I said.

I said IF they did STFU about it, we wouldn't have two zillion threads that say pretty much EXACTLY the same thing. And I don't mean just from your end....from both sides.

It has nothing to do with posts that become informative, or actually have some substance. There's a formula that follows pretty much every thread started about religion lately, and THAT'S what I'm referring to.

That's MY opinion, and just as much as you're entitled to post what you do, I'm entitled to post that. ;)

And P.S. - don't say "others do" bro. There's only one religion that requires its followers to speak out about it. You know that.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-31-2008, 03:16 PM
That is a good point Pagan. I have noticed that to. I also notice that when having a discussion about religion with a Christian, the Christian will always just throw up their hand and mention something about hoping I find my path or they did as much as they could. Something of that nature. Or they mention something along the fact that I just do not like christianity. Something to just discount the discussion and wish me on my merry way.

Myself I come to the conclusions that most Christians do not believe in what they are saying to their core. I came to that conclusion due to the fact they seem to have a problem with their beliefs being questioned.

That is just my theory.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 03:19 PM
Maybe you didn't really read what I said.

I said IF they did STFU about it, we wouldn't have two zillion threads that say pretty much EXACTLY the same thing. And I don't mean just from your end....from both sides.

It has nothing to do with posts that become informative, or actually have some substance. There's a formula that follows pretty much every thread started about religion lately, and THAT'S what I'm referring to.

That's MY opinion, and just as much as you're entitled to post what you do, I'm entitled to post that. ;)

And P.S. - don't say "others do" bro. There's only one religion that requires its followers to speak out about it. You know that.I think you can make the same claim about any subject covered on this site.

1. Fiedler is god vs Fiedler is a joke.
2. Wanstedt is god vs. Wanstedt is a joke.
3. Clinton is god vs. Clinton is a joke.
4. Bush is god vs. Bush is a joke.
4. Liberalism vs conservatism.
5. Trade JT or keep JT?
6. Obama is a racist , no he is not.

All these subjects say the same things over and over again and end up with the same result, which is - people disagree. People feel passionate about their views, and they choose to express them. That is human nature and that won't change.

I read your post, and I saw that you used the word "if". But the inuendo is there, partly based on your statement and partly based on your prior posts on the subject, and finally the fact that you decided to post this in the religion forum.

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on what side of the issue we are on, the debate will go on forever, and as much as we may tire from it, it won't effect the inevitable.

So again the choice is up to the individual poster to ignore those threads/forums they feel tired of viewing, or not.

Ciao!

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 03:39 PM
That is a good point Pagan. I have noticed that to. I also notice that when having a discussion about religion with a Christian, the Christian will always just throw up their hand and mention something about hoping I find my path or they did as much as they could. Something of that nature. Or they mention something along the fact that I just do not like christianity. Something to just discount the discussion and wish me on my merry way.

What else would you expect Dupree? At some point it becomes obvious that there would be no headway in the discussion and more often than not it would just continue the same dialogue with repeat information over and over again.

My advise to posters is if you tire of the repetition, you have the right to ignore it or avoid those type of threads. If you feel you are not making any headway in a debate, then end it and move on. It is good advise I take myself on many occasions.

There are subjects I won't post on and posters I won't respond to. And there are debates that I simply will end if I feel it is pointless.

I don't know what else you expect people to do.

Dol-Fan Dupree
03-31-2008, 03:52 PM
What else would you expect Dupree? At some point it becomes obvious that there would be no headway in the discussion and more often than not it would just continue the same dialogue with repeat information over and over again.

My advise to posters is if you tire of the repetition, you have the right to ignore it or avoid those type of threads. If you feel you are not making any headway in a debate, then end it and move on. It is good advise I take myself on many occasions.

There are subjects I won't post on and posters I won't respond to. And there are debates that I simply will end if I feel it is pointless.

I don't know what else you expect people to do.

It is a discussion, there doesn't need to be headway. Maybe that is the problem. I am having a discussion and the "christian" is trying to be right. I am just trying to learn and then the "christian" just gets tired of teaching.

I also guess that christians tend to find discussions of views that are different from theirs pointless.

At least that is what you are telling me here.

Dolphan7
03-31-2008, 04:38 PM
It is a discussion, there doesn't need to be headway. Maybe that is the problem. I am having a discussion and the "christian" is trying to be right. I am just trying to learn and then the "christian" just gets tired of teaching. I can't speak for other Christians, but yes it does get to the point sometimes that I don't feel like continuing the discussion. I consider what I have to say important, as I do all posters. But when I get the feeling that my posts are being mocked, or it becomes personal, or it becomes evident that my faith is being made fun of with the sole intent to stir up trouble, then I pretty much call it quits.

I don't mind sharing and explaining my faith - to one who is genuinely interested, not neccessarily to become a believer themselves, but to get an understanding of Christianity - becasue most of the posts in this forum are made from incorrect info and because of that there is a huge misunderstanding of Christianity. I feel obligated to educate and inform.


I also guess that christians tend to find discussions of views that are different from theirs pointless. Not pointless, but sometimes fruitless. Big difference. I love to talk about my faith and discuss the facts of that faith and correct misinformation about my faith. I also like to debate so called scientific proof of evolution. Call it a hobby.

But when it becomes clear that the only intent from the other side is to ridicule and mock my position, then it becomes pointless, but only after the debate has begun, not before it has even started.

Da 'Fins
03-31-2008, 05:51 PM
That is a good point Pagan. I have noticed that to. I also notice that when having a discussion about religion with a Christian, the Christian will always just throw up their hand and mention something about hoping I find my path or they did as much as they could. Something of that nature. Or they mention something along the fact that I just do not like christianity. Something to just discount the discussion and wish me on my merry way.

Myself I come to the conclusions that most Christians do not believe in what they are saying to their core. I came to that conclusion due to the fact they seem to have a problem with their beliefs being questioned.

That is just my theory.

1. I have no issue with my beliefs being questioned. I actually arrived at my beliefs through questioning and investigation. And, I'm not sure how that relates to not believing what I'm saying to the core (?). Not being critical, I just don't follow your point.

2. I do not resort to what Pagan says with respect to the "what if you are wrong" - I have in the past. And, what Pagan should recognize is that virtually everyone who has a "belief" - be it God; no God ... or the Dolphins should draft Chris Long ... should not draft Chris Long (as is evidenced by your own posting here) will ultimately seek to provide some rationale for that belief. Or we could put it this way.

3. One might also note this - that quite often non-believers are wholly unwilling to actually investigate (i.e. read) scholarship that contradicts their evidence. I have books by and supporting evolution (by noted scholars - from Darwin to Gould); I have books by and read from skeptics (from all backgrounds - including the latest "pretty boy" of skeptics ;) - Bart Ehrman).

4. If one seeks to criticize Christian faith - which, btw, is what you and Pagan are doing in these last two posts (even if its a broad or general criticism) - then it certainly is appropriate for those who have concluded it's true - to seek to defend their position. This is true for politics or any other position. I don't know your (or Pagan's) marital status, but if either of you were to become engaged and a friend seriously questioned your choice - I have no doubt you both would defend that choice. Or if someone went on national media and ripped your choice - you would do the same.

5. One could also be equally judgmental and argue that skeptics always do what Pagan has done: "give up" when evidence is presented and say, "Well, we just disagree - we're getting nowhere - so let's be on our way." That would be, even if it is true of Pagan, a straw man. This is the greatest problem with Pagan's perspective - and with your own anecdotal observation above - it is a straw man ad hominem argument . Of course, contenting ourselves with such is always easier than engaging with the real question - is there reason to believe Christianity is true and am I willing to honorably and openly investigate those reasons? (Not through the lens purely of what is said on the internet by someone of my own belief; nor through TV; but by investigating both sides of the controverted issue).


What Christianity asks (of both itself and others) is expressed well in the following two quotes:

“Don’t be impatient when a man proposes to discuss a subject in your presence. Don’t be unwilling to hear him. Whatever may be the position he takes, whichever side of the controverted question he stands on, don’t be unwilling to hear all that he says, and to hear it candidly, to weigh it fairly, so that you may decide the question intelligently.” (J.W. McGarvey)

and,

“It is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor, to follow the truth wherever it may lead us ...” (Simon Greenleaf, former head of Harvard Law School, in Testimony of the Evangelists).

Pagan
03-31-2008, 10:41 PM
5. One could also be equally judgmental and argue that skeptics always do what Pagan has done: "give up" when evidence is presented and say, "Well, we just disagree - we're getting nowhere - so let's be on our way."
Whoa now...slow down there Tyrone.

I have never "given up". What I have done is realized the old saying "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig" holds true most of the time in discussions such as this.

None of you have ever presented any "evidence" other than links to Christian websites.

If I tried to make a claim that MY faith was the "one true" faith, and presented "evidence" from a Wiccan website, would you accept it?

Didn't think so.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Provide "evidence" that isn't from the Bible or from a Christian website, and I'll believe it.

Until then, I'm not "giving up", I'm just smart enough to know the discussion gets nowhere, and choose not to run in that particular race in the Special Olympics.

Capisce?


2. I do not resort to what Pagan says with respect to the "what if you are wrong" - I have in the past. And, what Pagan should recognize is that virtually everyone who has a "belief" - be it God; no God ... or the Dolphins should draft Chris Long ... should not draft Chris Long (as is evidenced by your own posting here) will ultimately seek to provide some rationale for that belief.
And how exactly does that explain telling others who DON'T follow your faith that they "better be sure" before they die?

Providing rational for your own beliefs is fine, telling others that they "better be sure" - i.e. believe what YOU believe - before they die is not.

So what exactly should I recognize, other than the fact that what you explained has nothing to do with what I said?


4. If one seeks to criticize Christian faith - which, btw, is what you and Pagan are doing in these last two posts (even if its a broad or general criticism)
Ah, you Christians...always with the persecution complex.

MY last two posts were about the ridiculousness of threads like this. I criticized what happens in them from BOTH sides. But of course...it's always criticizing the Christian faith.

I am criticizing now, but not your faith. Just its followers who perceive everything as an attack on them.

However, this is a religious forum, and since I don't follow this particular religion we are talking about...and in all honesty don't believe a word of it, I will refrain from any other discussions of said faith.

It's best left to those who believe to talk amongst themselves, and if I criticized D7 in another thread for always bringing religion into scientific discussions, I'd be a hypocrite if I brought my opinions into discussions of something I don't believe in.

In other words...punching out, Maverick.

And no, I'm not "giving up". ;)

cwsox
04-02-2008, 03:19 PM
Pagan, I am a Christian and you are not. No big deal on a Dolphins board. And perhaps no big deal otherwise. I just want to say that I really agree with the jist of your post above. I do find, with you, an amazing persecution complex. I swear that some folks do battles on a sports message board so they can go back to their Bible studies and brag how they battled the evil unbelievers and Satan in mortal combat.

One statement - and I do name the poster because I am not wanting to personalize this - one statement that bothers me:


becasue most of the posts in this forum are made from incorrect info and because of that there is a huge misunderstanding of Christianity. I feel obligated to educate and inform.

That is always scary - if we do not agree with this self-proclaimed possessor of all truth, then we must be incorrect, misinformed, and are under the obligation to be educated because the Protestant Pope is going to school us so we can agree with him on everything and stop being wrong. There is such an arrogance there. If I were a non believer I would point at things like that as reasons for non belief. As a believer , I shudder anyway.

The point that is missed is that Christianity is not about having opinions, it is about living. The over the top this-is-the-truth-and-if-you-don't-agree-with-me-who-knows-all-truth-you-are-going-to hell folks will always be with us, but it would be nice if they really wanted to dialog and listen and learn as much as lecture the rest of us until we believe as they do.

I'd be interested in hearing about your Pagan beliefs. I do not know as much about paganism as I I should. I say these things with respect for your beliefs. I'd love to learn more, not as if we are trying to convince each other that our way is the only way, but that we might learn and respect each other ever more.

Pagan
04-02-2008, 03:56 PM
You have an open mind bro. That's a beautiful thing.

As for my beliefs, I choose not to share them on message boards. I don't feel the need to. The information is all readily available on the internet if someone wants to learn.

And for the record, I have nothing against the Christian religion. The problem lies with the most fervent of its members...or as the bumper sticker says:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif ;)

FinsNCanes
04-02-2008, 05:57 PM
Ever tried arguing with a Christian? Jesus Christ...:rolleyes2:

I'm open minded so I don't know what to believe. I'm gonna need a little more proof personally.

Dolphan7
04-02-2008, 06:21 PM
Does anyone have anything to add about the thread topic, now that all the pleasantries are out of the way?

cwsox
04-03-2008, 01:57 AM
You have an open mind bro. That's a beautiful thing.

As for my beliefs, I choose not to share them on message boards. I don't feel the need to. The information is all readily available on the internet if someone wants to learn.

And for the record, I have nothing against the Christian religion. The problem lies with the most fervent of its members...or as the bumper sticker says:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif ;)

Thank you.

I hear you on sharing beliefs on a message board - especially a sports board -

thanks again

Da 'Fins
04-03-2008, 09:55 AM
W

None of you have ever presented any "evidence" other than links to Christian websites.

If I tried to make a claim that MY faith was the "one true" faith, and presented "evidence" from a Wiccan website, would you accept it?

Didn't think so.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Provide "evidence" that isn't from the Bible or from a Christian website, and I'll believe it.

Until then, I'm not "giving up", I'm just smart enough to know the discussion gets nowhere, and choose not to run in that particular race in the Special Olympics.

Capisce?


And how exactly does that explain telling others who DON'T follow your faith that they "better be sure" before they die?

Providing rational for your own beliefs is fine, telling others that they "better be sure" - i.e. believe what YOU believe - before they die is not.

So what exactly should I recognize, other than the fact that what you explained has nothing to do with what I said?


Ah, you Christians...always with the persecution complex.

MY last two posts were about the ridiculousness of threads like this. I criticized what happens in them from BOTH sides. But of course...it's always criticizing the Christian faith.

I am criticizing now, but not your faith. Just its followers who perceive everything as an attack on them.

However, this is a religious forum, and since I don't follow this particular religion we are talking about...and in all honesty don't believe a word of it, I will refrain from any other discussions of said faith.

It's best left to those who believe to talk amongst themselves, and if I criticized D7 in another thread for always bringing religion into scientific discussions, I'd be a hypocrite if I brought my opinions into discussions of something I don't believe in.

In other words...punching out, Maverick.

And no, I'm not "giving up". ;)

Okay - here's the basic evidence. I don't approach the Bible as an inspired document but just look at the testimonies within it and ask whether they are true or not:

1. The documents Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as other 1st century writings of Paul, present themselves to us as historical documents - i.e., writing real history (see, in particular, Luke 1:1-4). More than 18 different first century sources outside these documents corroborate hundreds of historical facts within these documents (including the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, the early emergence of Christianity after his death, etc.).

2. They present eyewitness testimony of numerous individuals who saw Jesus alive from the dead. These witnesses were, for the most part, alive throughout the time from Jesus through these writings and the documents above are based on their testimonies (that's the point of naming so many individuals in the gospels - they were witnesses).

3. We can put these witnesses to the test - as one would any witness about any event - and raise questions as to their motives, their abilities, their proximity to the events, potential reasons for bias, their number, etc.

4. We even can find first century witnesses to the events of Jesus (his teachings, death, burial and resurrection) who were skeptics and antagonistic toward Jesus and Christianity - who testify to the veracity of these events (not just things they heard, but that they were eyewitnesses).

To say, "you can't use the Bible as evidence" is precisely equal to a prosecutor arguing in a court of law that the defense cannot present any witnesses.

I do not assume the "Bible" to be true. But, it is not "one book" it is a collection of divergent ancient writings. With respect to the New Testament documents I investigate each of these and decide - a) is this intended as history? b) is there reason to be it's historically reliable? c) Is there reason to trust/distrust the witnesses inside these documents?

The reality is, 99% of all that we do and believe is based on trust and eyewitness testimony. The evidence is there, the question is - whether you can demonstrate that this evidence is false - that for reasons X, Y, Z, etc. these are "bad witnesses."

Some other points:

Persecution complex? No, sorry. I feel no persecution complex whatsoever. That sort of "accusation," which it is, is simply false. I simply made the point that your accusations were false. Just is this is false - it's based on anecdotal evidence which is never true evidence, my friend.

You pagans and your unwillingness to investigate with any ounce of integrity.

The point I was making is that if you don't want to engage in honorable and respectful discussion and disagreement - don't. Others are willing to; others do see value in such discussions when they are entered with an open mind. You continue to simply deny the reality of the point that discussion of controversy is what this board is about - and it does and can advance the quest for what is true. But, don't come on here with your condescending "above the fray" bias and throw out all sorts of ridiculous accusations about Christians in general that simply are not factually accurate. They may be your experiences, but they are not accurate.

If you find such discussion go nowhere - then ignore them. But, there is nothing wrong with defending - I use the term in a broad sense - one's perspective - that's exactly what you are doing in your post - and expecting others to hear what one is saying with a level of integrity - even if they don't agree.

Pagan
04-03-2008, 12:36 PM
But, don't come on here with your condescending "above the fray" bias and throw out all sorts of ridiculous accusations about Christians in general that simply are not factually accurate. They may be your experiences, but they are not accurate.
Physician, heal thyself. ;)

Dolphan7
04-03-2008, 03:20 PM
Not only do we have the historocity of Jesus, and the witness of the Apostles and others, but what amazes me is the fulfilled OT prophecies of Jesus and the impossibility that one man could have accomplished this by intent or accident.

The descendant of Abraham, Isaac, (not Ishmael), Jocob, (not Esau), Judah (not any of his 11 borthers), Jesse, and David. Born of a virgin narrows it way down. Born in Bethlehem. Preceded by a messenger. Ministry of miracles. Betrayed by a friend. Sold for 30 pieces of silver. Money had to be thrown into the house of the Lord. Money given for a potter's field to bury poor people. Accused by false witnesses. Struck and spit on. Scourged (this prophecy was written seven hundred years before the Romans invented it). Gall and vinegar to drink. Hands and feet pierced. Crucified with criminals. Lots cast for his clothing. People wagged their head and repeated exactly the right words. Mocked by people. Darkness beginning at noon. Friends standing away from him at a distance. Bones not broken. He was pierced. Buried in a rich man's tomb.

Considering the OT was completed at least 400 years before Jesus was born just begs of a divine power working behind the scenes.

tylerdolphin
04-03-2008, 05:09 PM
Not only do we have the historocity of Jesus, and the witness of the Apostles and others, but what amazes me is the fulfilled OT prophecies of Jesus and the impossibility that one man could have accomplished this by intent or accident.

The descendant of Abraham, Isaac, (not Ishmael), Jocob, (not Esau), Judah (not any of his 11 borthers), Jesse, and David. Born of a virgin narrows it way down. Born in Bethlehem. Preceded by a messenger. Ministry of miracles. Betrayed by a friend. Sold for 30 pieces of silver. Money had to be thrown into the house of the Lord. Money given for a potter's field to bury poor people. Accused by false witnesses. Struck and spit on. Scourged (this prophecy was written seven hundred years before the Romans invented it). Gall and vinegar to drink. Hands and feet pierced. Crucified with criminals. Lots cast for his clothing. People wagged their head and repeated exactly the right words. Mocked by people. Darkness beginning at noon. Friends standing away from him at a distance. Bones not broken. He was pierced. Buried in a rich man's tomb.

Considering the OT was completed at least 400 years before Jesus was born just begs of a divine power working behind the scenes.
One thing that always amazed me is that every disciple of Jesus except for Judas (who hung himself after betraying Jesus for 30 peices of silver, fulfilling prophecy) and John died for their faith. Just off the top of my head, Peter was crucified upside down and James was beheaded. All these men had to do was stop from preaching the gospel and they would not have been killed. Why would so many followers of Jesus be willing to die if they thought Jesus was a fraud? If all these men had not seen Jesus ressurected, why would they be willing to die for that teaching? Surely all the disciples and all the other early matyrs were not all crazy or dellusional. Hundreds of men claim to have seen the same thing and were willing to die to defend it.

Dolphan7
04-03-2008, 05:38 PM
One thing that always amazed me is that every disciple of Jesus except for Judas (who hung himself after betraying Jesus for 30 peices of silver, fulfilling prophecy) and John died for their faith. Just off the top of my head, Peter was crucified upside down and James was beheaded. All these men had to do was stop from preaching the gospel and they would not have been killed. Why would so many followers of Jesus be willing to die if they thought Jesus was a fraud? If all these men had not seen Jesus ressurected, why would they be willing to die for that teaching? Surely all the disciples and all the other early matyrs were not all crazy or dellusional. Hundreds of men claim to have seen the same thing and were willing to die to defend it.Excellent point!:up:

We know that men die for what they believe in, ala 911 hijackers. But men don't die for something that they know to be false! The fact that these men not only died, but died horrible deaths, speaks volumes to the authenticity of Jesus as being exactly who he said he was. And that after a horrible death on the cross, appeared to hundreds of people 3 days later proving once and for all he was and is the real deal!

Dolphan7
04-03-2008, 06:07 PM
Prophecies Regarding the Jewish Nation

One of the strongest evidences that the Bible is inspired of God is simply the existence of the Jewish nation. They are unique in all of history. What other nation in the history of the world has lost their homeland, been scattered throughout the rest of the world and been persecuted mercilessly, while still maintaining their national identity? No one has ever heard of a German Philistine, a Russian Moabite, or an American Edomite, because these ancient nations have all been absorbed into other cultures. Yet we have all heard of German Jews, Russian Jews, and American Jews. What's the difference between the Jewish nation and these other ancient nations? The answer is simple. God's promises and God's predictions concerning the Jewish nation are the difference. Back in Genesis 12:2-3 and 13:14-15 God promised a man by the name of Abram that He would make a great nation from his descendants, that through him all nations of the earth would be blessed, and that the "promised land" would belong to his descendents forever. Later in history after this nation was in the promised land, God warned them about the dangers of disobedience. They were promised blessings for obedience but predictions of persecution, suffering, and world-wide dispersion were made in the event that this nation turned their backs on God (for instance see Deuteronomy 28:64,66; Jeremiah 24:9; Hosea 9:17). Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened. It happened initially with the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, and it happened again with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In spite of this, however, God had no intentions of disregarding His promises to Abraham. Therefore, He promised that He would not totally destroy this disobedient nation and predicted a future regathering and restoration (see Jeremiah 30:11; Ezekiel 37:21; Isaiah 11:11-12, etc.). Today, contrary to all odds, we see that the nation of Israel once again possesses the "promised land" even though they are currently there in unbelief. Some day, however, they will recognize that the one they crucified nearly 2000 years ago was indeed their promised Messiah and they will turn to Him in repentance and belief (Zechariah 12:10).

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-03-2008, 06:49 PM
One thing that always amazed me is that every disciple of Jesus except for Judas (who hung himself after betraying Jesus for 30 peices of silver, fulfilling prophecy) and John died for their faith. Just off the top of my head, Peter was crucified upside down and James was beheaded. All these men had to do was stop from preaching the gospel and they would not have been killed. Why would so many followers of Jesus be willing to die if they thought Jesus was a fraud? If all these men had not seen Jesus ressurected, why would they be willing to die for that teaching? Surely all the disciples and all the other early matyrs were not all crazy or dellusional. Hundreds of men claim to have seen the same thing and were willing to die to defend it.

well if they were brainwashed then they would be willing to die

I am just saying, dying for a belief isn't exactly proof of the belief

Dolphan7
04-03-2008, 07:16 PM
well if they were brainwashed then they would be willing to die

I am just saying, dying for a belief isn't exactly proof of the beliefThat isn't the point being made.

If these Apostles new that Jesus was false, they would NOT have died for him. So knwing that they did indeed die horrible deaths, tell us that they believed he was who he said he was, and the fact that they were witness to him perform miracles, die and resurrect on the third day lends much credance to the claim that Jesus was the real deal.

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-03-2008, 07:46 PM
That isn't the point being made.

If these Apostles new that Jesus was false, they would NOT have died for him. So knwing that they did indeed die horrible deaths, tell us that they believed he was who he said he was, and the fact that they were witness to him perform miracles, die and resurrect on the third day lends much credance to the claim that Jesus was the real deal.

They could of had other reasons to die. The fact they were willing to die horrible deaths does not mean that they believed anything that was in the bible. Easily they could of made it up and agreed to die for it. People have been willing to die for many things they really didn't believe in.

That is just a jump in logic. The correlation maybe high. It is just that high correlation does not equal causation.

Dolphan7
04-03-2008, 09:42 PM
They could of had other reasons to die. These men knew Jesus, traveled with him for 3 years, witnessed many miracles, witnessed his death, burial, resurrection and witnessed him alive afterwards. They then went on to proclaim these facts that they witnessed to in Israel and the greater Roman Empire, until they finally died horrible deaths never recanting their faith in Jesus and that he was the real deal. Yeah you're right they probably died for other causes.:shakeno:



The fact they were willing to die horrible deaths does not mean that they believed anything that was in the bible.
These men knew Jesus, traveled with him for 3 years, witnessed many miracles, witnessed his death, burial, resurrection and witnessed him alive afterwards. They then went on to proclaim these facts that they witnessed to in Israel and the greater Roman Empire, until they finally died horrible deaths never recanting their faith in Jesus and that he was the real deal. Yeah you're right they probably didn't believe a word of it.:shakeno:


Easily they could of made it up and agreed to die for it. People have been willing to die for many things they really didn't believe in.Not really, unless they were mentaly unstable. These were men of sound mind and spirit and judgement, and it wasn't just one man, it was hundreds and thousands of people that died at the hands of the Romans in the name of Jesus. That is how strong of a testimony there was back then.

Now this is the point that has been made numerous times, you just aren't connecting the dots. Men don't die horrible deaths for something that they made up! Would you die for something you made up?:unsure:


That is just a jump in logic. The correlation maybe high. It is just that high correlation does not equal causation.Yes you are making a huge jump in logic, you may have even traveled out of the realm of logic.:)

padre31
04-03-2008, 11:21 PM
They could of had other reasons to die. The fact they were willing to die horrible deaths does not mean that they believed anything that was in the bible. Easily they could of made it up and agreed to die for it. People have been willing to die for many things they really didn't believe in.

That is just a jump in logic. The correlation maybe high. It is just that high correlation does not equal causation.

On that I disagree, easily have made it up and willing die for what they all knew to be a lie? What could they possibly have gained from doing so?

And their deaths were not simple affairs, stoned to death, beheaded, fed to lions, run through with spears, dragged through towns with ropes around their feet, this was some horrible stuff.

All for what? To grow wealthy? To gain popularity?

What?

padre31
04-03-2008, 11:29 PM
You have an open mind bro. That's a beautiful thing.

As for my beliefs, I choose not to share them on message boards. I don't feel the need to. The information is all readily available on the internet if someone wants to learn.

And for the record, I have nothing against the Christian religion. The problem lies with the most fervent of its members...or as the bumper sticker says:



And yet, here you are.

So I ask myself "Self, what would a person be doing hanging out and chatting away with Christians"?

Well, seeing as Christians are not generally known for witty banter, and there is no door prize, and even if the guy knows and his been down all the same paths and arguments before...

Well then, that leaves:

1. Something they always wanted to ask, but couldn't..

2. It is simply fun, after all, no matter the evidence, it always can be rejected and an alternative theory put into place.

3. Kinda slow on the goat porn forum, so let's see what the low brows are doing..:lol:

A couple of weeks until Mars moves into retrograde, spare time to kill?

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-04-2008, 12:57 AM
On that I disagree, easily have made it up and willing die for what they all knew to be a lie? What could they possibly have gained from doing so?

And their deaths were not simple affairs, stoned to death, beheaded, fed to lions, run through with spears, dragged through towns with ropes around their feet, this was some horrible stuff.

All for what? To grow wealthy? To gain popularity?

What?

I didn't live back then. I didn't talk to them.

They could of died to protect the lie. They could of seen a greater good because of the lie.

I am sorry but to say it is fact because they died for it, doesn't prove squat.

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-04-2008, 12:58 AM
And yet, here you are.

So I ask myself "Self, what would a person be doing hanging out and chatting away with Christians"?

Well, seeing as Christians are not generally known for witty banter, and there is no door prize, and even if the guy knows and his been down all the same paths and arguments before...

Well then, that leaves:

1. Something they always wanted to ask, but couldn't..

2. It is simply fun, after all, no matter the evidence, it always can be rejected and an alternative theory put into place.

3. Kinda slow on the goat porn forum, so let's see what the low brows are doing..:lol:

A couple of weeks until Mars moves into retrograde, spare time to kill?

4. You like talking about religion and there just happens to be a lot of Christians in this country?

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-04-2008, 12:59 AM
These men knew Jesus, traveled with him for 3 years, witnessed many miracles, witnessed his death, burial, resurrection and witnessed him alive afterwards. They then went on to proclaim these facts that they witnessed to in Israel and the greater Roman Empire, until they finally died horrible deaths never recanting their faith in Jesus and that he was the real deal. Yeah you're right they probably died for other causes.:shakeno:

These men knew Jesus, traveled with him for 3 years, witnessed many miracles, witnessed his death, burial, resurrection and witnessed him alive afterwards. They then went on to proclaim these facts that they witnessed to in Israel and the greater Roman Empire, until they finally died horrible deaths never recanting their faith in Jesus and that he was the real deal. Yeah you're right they probably didn't believe a word of it.:shakeno:

Not really, unless they were mentaly unstable. These were men of sound mind and spirit and judgement, and it wasn't just one man, it was hundreds and thousands of people that died at the hands of the Romans in the name of Jesus. That is how strong of a testimony there was back then.

Now this is the point that has been made numerous times, you just aren't connecting the dots. Men don't die horrible deaths for something that they made up! Would you die for something you made up?:unsure:

Yes you are making a huge jump in logic, you may have even traveled out of the realm of logic.:)

How do you know that?

Pagan
04-04-2008, 06:54 AM
And yet, here you are.

So I ask myself "Self, what would a person be doing hanging out and chatting away with Christians"?

Well, seeing as Christians are not generally known for witty banter, and there is no door prize, and even if the guy knows and his been down all the same paths and arguments before...

Well then, that leaves:

1. Something they always wanted to ask, but couldn't..

2. It is simply fun, after all, no matter the evidence, it always can be rejected and an alternative theory put into place.

3. Kinda slow on the goat porn forum, so let's see what the low brows are doing..:lol:

A couple of weeks until Mars moves into retrograde, spare time to kill?
You left out #4...possibly the same reason Patriot fans come into Dolphins forums. ;)

padre31
04-04-2008, 08:59 AM
I didn't live back then. I didn't talk to them.

They could of died to protect the lie. They could of seen a greater good because of the lie.

I am sorry but to say it is fact because they died for it, doesn't prove squat.


Died for what they knew to be a lie? So to understand this, Matthew knows that James was beheaded (or stoned) for preaching the Gospel, so Matthew decides that he should continue preaching what he would know is a lie, and could and will get himself killed?

So when he is killed, Thomas then decides that he should continue preaching what he knows is a lie and will get him killed?

Ditto, Mark, Andrew, Thaddeus etc?

They were killed for repeating what they had witnessed concerning Christ, this was first hand knowledge not an abstraction, and yet such deaths seem logical to you?

What could they possibly have gained for allowing themselves to be killed for retelling what they would know, firsthand, is a lie?

padre31
04-04-2008, 09:01 AM
You left out #4...possibly the same reason Patriot fans come into Dolphins forums. ;)

Come on now Pagan, not even I would stoop so low as to compare you to a patriots fan....:)

Dolphan7
04-04-2008, 11:00 AM
How do you know that?Common sense. The Pharisees didn't think they were crazy, or mentaly ill. They were amazed at how well spoken they were when they recalled their witness of Jesus. Read the entire book of Acts when you get the chance.


AC 4:13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

I would have to be completely be devoid of all common sense, reason and logic to believe that all 12 Apostles, their companions, and thousands of other christians who died for Jesus .....were all just a bunch of crazy demented psychopaths.

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-04-2008, 12:39 PM
Died for what they knew to be a lie? So to understand this, Matthew knows that James was beheaded (or stoned) for preaching the Gospel, so Matthew decides that he should continue preaching what he would know is a lie, and could and will get himself killed?

So when he is killed, Thomas then decides that he should continue preaching what he knows is a lie and will get him killed?

Ditto, Mark, Andrew, Thaddeus etc?

They were killed for repeating what they had witnessed concerning Christ, this was first hand knowledge not an abstraction, and yet such deaths seem logical to you?

What could they possibly have gained for allowing themselves to be killed for retelling what they would know, firsthand, is a lie?

People do die to protect a lie.

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-04-2008, 12:40 PM
Common sense. The Pharisees didn't think they were crazy, or mentaly ill. They were amazed at how well spoken they were when they recalled their witness of Jesus. Read the entire book of Acts when you get the chance.



I would have to be completely be devoid of all common sense, reason and logic to believe that all 12 Apostles, their companions, and thousands of other christians who died for Jesus .....were all just a bunch of crazy demented psychopaths.

you do believe that a circle isn't flat ;)

Still that is not how common sense, reason or logic work. Might as well say the people who are on Hale-Bop are all people who were thinking in their right minds. They did die for their beliefs.

padre31
04-04-2008, 12:47 PM
People do die to protect a lie.



Not when they know it is a lie, your Hale Bop folks simply believed what the looney told them, they had no personal knowledge that aliens were following the comet.

The Apostles and Deacons who were martyred died because they personally knew, and had seen Christ several times, and repeated the story much to the chagrin of the local PTB, who were so offended by they arrivals of these folks they killed them off one by one.


James and Stephen were the earliest to be killed, yet that did not stop people retelling the Gospel based on personal knowledge.

Dolphan7
04-04-2008, 01:53 PM
you do believe that a circle isn't flat ;)I do?


Still that is not how common sense, reason or logic work. Might as well say the people who are on Hale-Bop are all people who were thinking in their right minds. They did die for their beliefs.They died for what they believed. And all accounts they were well educated and sane people.

But they had no evidence in their belief.

The Apostles had witnessed Jesus first hand. He was real, He was true. They died for that truth.

Huge difference.

If these people knew that Jesus was a fake, they wouldn't have defended him to the death.

People do not die for something they KNOW is false.

Would you?

Dol-Fan Dupree
04-04-2008, 05:48 PM
I do?

They died for what they believed. And all accounts they were well educated and sane people.

But they had no evidence in their belief.

The Apostles had witnessed Jesus first hand. He was real, He was true. They died for that truth.

Huge difference.

If these people knew that Jesus was a fake, they wouldn't have defended him to the death.

People do not die for something they KNOW is false.

Would you?

you said it wasn't and asked if I was mocking you I said it was.

All accounts from the bible?

There are many reasons people die that I wouldn't die for. People do die for something they KNOW is false. Protecting the lie is a reason some people have died. Heck even being smart people knowing that if they want to spread their word and know it is a lie, then why wouldn't they be willing to die for it? They would know that if they didn't die for it, no one would believe them.

I am not saying that they believed what happened or didn't or that it happened or didn't happen. It is the fact they died for it, does not mean that it is 100% true or even they knew it was 100% true. All it means is that they were willing to die for it for some reason.

Dolphan7
04-04-2008, 06:59 PM
There are many reasons people die that I wouldn't die for. People do die for something they KNOW is false. Protecting the lie is a reason some people have died. Heck even being smart people knowing that if they want to spread their word and know it is a lie, then why wouldn't they be willing to die for it? They would know that if they didn't die for it, no one would believe them. Taking a secret to the grave is far different than these men being basically tortured to death. These men were put to death specifically for their belief. There is a difference.


I am not saying that they believed what happened or didn't or that it happened or didn't happen. It is the fact they died for it, does not mean that it is 100% true or even they knew it was 100% true. All it means is that they were willing to die for it for some reason.Good I think you are seeing my point.

No one is saying that because they died for what they believed in that this automatically means what they believed in was true. But it is a very strong testament supporting the authenticity of Jesus, and thus God and the Bible be default, verses your suggestion that they died for a lie. Huge difference by comparison. Although you claim that people would voluntarily die for a lie, if true this would only be in very rare cases and the mental health of the individual would be in question. The Apostles were men of sound mind, and there were thousands of people who died in the name of Jesus, so the shear numbers alone testify to the fact that - that many people wouldn't have all collaborated to die for a lie. That just doesn't even meet logical muster. The fact that these men witnessed first hand the miracles and ministry of Jesus, plus his death, burial and resurrection, and saw him afterword speaks volumes as to the authenticity of the Gospel Message.

tylerdolphin
04-05-2008, 12:44 AM
People do die to protect a lie.
Perhaps a few will. But thousands were willing to die for what they claim to have personally witnessed. I seriously doubt all of those were crazy people. These people were hung on crosses upside down (Peter refused to be crucified right-side up because he felt he didnt deserve to die the same way as Jesus), beheaded, stoned and even used as human torches in Nero's garden. And all of these people were willing to die horrible deaths for what they know to be false? I doubt it. All they ever had to do was stop preaching. Some were arrested and jailed multiple times before being killed. IMO, these people knew that they saw the resurrected Jesus Christ and were willing to die for what they knew to be the truth.

TheMageGandalf
04-07-2008, 03:34 AM
Let me start off by saying NO OFFENSE is intended upon anyone or their beliefs...

As Pagan said...an internet message board isnt exactly the best place to open up about your beliefs...but these are some of mine...I am not going to argue or bother posting again about this because no matter what anyone says, I am into what I am into and nothing is going to change about that.

I have read the bible from beginning to end many times. The bible is basically #1 a book about the redemption of man and #2 a book about the future of man.

Now whether you believe it is the word of god is your business. I believe it is.

The bible basically, to sum it down, is this (this is as condensed as I can make it and if you believe in something else, so be it...... but this is what I read and see plain as day):

Man messed up with the help of an angel who sought to undermine God's will and prove that God's laws and guidance were not needed and thus were garbage. He believed in anarchy and was obsessed with his own power and wanted to rule and do his own thing. So, he got the first humans to rebel against God's laws. This 'angel' afterwards and forever became known as the devil or Satan.

At that point its all about mans redemption through Christ. When Christ sacrificed himself for man, he provided the 'balance'. One perfect man sinned (Adam), only a perfect one's death would restore the 'balance'. You might say well wasn't Adams death enough? NO. Adam was no longer 'perfect' when he died. What happened before Christ you might ask? Well thats what the animal sacrifices were for...a soul for a soul...balance.

The future of man is foretold in Revelation and through Christ's teachings. This world is NOT ruled by God. I am sorry that A LOT of you might disagree with me on this one and say that God is here and he allows death and wars and famine and sickness etc. etc. I DON'T believe that at all because, According to the Bible, Satan rules THIS world. Period.

Revelation foretells the end in that this world will change as God has let Satan try and 'Prove' that his way was the 'right' way long enough.

That is what it all boils down to. Who's way was the 'right' way for man to live?

Now, a lot of you will say "Mage, LOL why didn't God just destroy Satan back in the day and not let all this BS happen...death and misery etc".....well he COULD have...but if he did that then all of his angels would've seen it and just in general it would've been wrong since he would have NO proof that what Satan was saying (about how living without God's laws would be BETTER) was not true...this way was the only way he could PROVE without a shadow of a doubt that man...without his laws of life....would decend into chaos...

So...here we are...now 'Armageddon'...the bibles way of putting it is pretty gruesome with the blood reaching a horses neck and all that...I'll leave it up to 'when the day comes' to see ...but it basically has God imprisoning Satan and his demons for a period while God fixes this mess down here without hesitation whatsoever since his case has been proven.

Or so you'd believe...read on and you'll notice that AFTER that...he'll let Satan go ONCE AGAIN...so that if there was ANY doubt as to which way was the right way it would be eliminated...at that point (which wont last as long as this time around) he'll finally destroy the crap out of Satan and his demons and life will be restored as it should be.

MNFINFAN
04-25-2008, 01:01 AM
On what basis do you claim the known authors of the NT, are not actually the known authors?


Because most studies by theologists have come to the conclusion that the New Testament books were written about 40 to 70 years after the death of Christ. Not only that in those times writing was a skill and the majority of the disciples were uneducated fishermen. So during that time different groups kept oral traditions going as the main way of passing along knowledge. The writing skills that you quoted were definitely rare in those days and doubtful that simple uneducated fishermen had that skill.

There are no surviving texts of the 4 main gospels in Aramaic, the earliest remnants of the Gospel of John are from the 1st century and are in Greek, therefore would have been translated from Aramiac into Greek which certainly results in different interpretations. It wasn't until the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 AD that the Church finally reached agreement upon which writings were authentic and representative of apostolic tradition, thus forming what we know today as the New Testament.

Dolphin1184
04-25-2008, 02:32 AM
In terms of authorship of the books in the NT, I highly recommend reading the book called The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings written by Bart Ehrman. The theory that is most accepted by scholars in terms of the Gospel is the four source theory. Mark is considered the earliest source of the four. It is the shortest, but each individual block is the most complete compared to Luke and Matthew. Both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, but they also used their own sources, respectively called "L" and "M". Finally, a source known as "Q" is a source that Luke and Matthew share that is not in Mark. So: Mark, M, L, and Q. Note that sources like Q could represent one or multiple sources. It is simply a category. John is a unique gospel in of itself and uses other sources the others don't.

Related to this, I recommend also reading a book called "Gospel Parallels" by Burton H. Throckmorton Jr. This book provides each story in the NT from the synoptic gospels right next to each other. It is VERY interesting to look at the similarities and differences of which each story is portrayed in each gospel. Even Jesus Himself is subtly portrayed differently when looking at it. For example, the Markan Jesus is different from the Jesus portrayed in Matthew. Even the Apostles are drastically different in the 4 gospels. The apostles, for example, in Mark did not understand what Jesus was saying "for they were hard of heart." While Matthew presents the apostles in a more positive manner. This is just one example of what I am talking about. This is why I believe all 4 gospels are equally important when getting a complete picture of Jesus.

One must note when reading the gospels is that one can't judge the manner in which they record information by today's standards. The early Christians in the first century were not so much interested in chronology. For example, the cleansing of the temple happens at the beginning of Jesus's ministry in John, but at the end of the ministry in Matthew (top of my head).

I am graduating with a degree in Religious Studies from University of Miami, probably the best degree I have ever done. I am also a Christian. :)

Dolphan7
04-28-2008, 12:03 AM
Because most studies by theologists have come to the conclusion that the New Testament books were written about 40 to 70 years after the death of Christ. Not only that in those times writing was a skill and the majority of the disciples were uneducated fishermen. So during that time different groups kept oral traditions going as the main way of passing along knowledge. The writing skills that you quoted were definitely rare in those days and doubtful that simple uneducated fishermen had that skill.

There are no surviving texts of the 4 main gospels in Aramaic, the earliest remnants of the Gospel of John are from the 1st century and are in Greek, therefore would have been translated from Aramiac into Greek which certainly results in different interpretations. It wasn't until the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 AD that the Church finally reached agreement upon which writings were authentic and representative of apostolic tradition, thus forming what we know today as the New Testament.Yes it is true that the NT was completed in the first century, some 30-70 years after Jesus death, burial and resurection. It is believed that the Gospel of John was the last book written - completed between 90 and 95 AD. As far as your suggestion that the Apostles were too uneducated to write, I ask you to consider that Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a physician, Paul was high in the Israeli government.......John and Peter were leaders in the first church in Jerusalem......There is 9/10 of the NT right there and it is very doubtful that these men were uneducated considering the professions they had. There is no evidence that any of the writers of the NT were too uneducated to write about what they witnessed.

I don't understand why you think that the original writings were in Aramaic. All of the NT was written in Koine Greek. So there were no translation issues there.

The canonization of the NT is a Catholic "thing", and has nothing to do with the actual books of the NT. As stated earlier, the NT was completed in the first century, so the fact that the Catholics took it upon itself to canonize it 300 years later is indicative of the catholic church's practices and beliefs for their religion.

Dolphan7
04-28-2008, 12:07 AM
In terms of authorship of the books in the NT, I highly recommend reading the book called The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings written by Bart Ehrman. The theory that is most accepted by scholars in terms of the Gospel is the four source theory. Mark is considered the earliest source of the four. It is the shortest, but each individual block is the most complete compared to Luke and Matthew. Both Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source, but they also used their own sources, respectively called "L" and "M". Finally, a source known as "Q" is a source that Luke and Matthew share that is not in Mark. So: Mark, M, L, and Q. Note that sources like Q could represent one or multiple sources. It is simply a category. John is a unique gospel in of itself and uses other sources the others don't.

Related to this, I recommend also reading a book called "Gospel Parallels" by Burton H. Throckmorton Jr. This book provides each story in the NT from the synoptic gospels right next to each other. It is VERY interesting to look at the similarities and differences of which each story is portrayed in each gospel. Even Jesus Himself is subtly portrayed differently when looking at it. For example, the Markan Jesus is different from the Jesus portrayed in Matthew. Even the Apostles are drastically different in the 4 gospels. The apostles, for example, in Mark did not understand what Jesus was saying "for they were hard of heart." While Matthew presents the apostles in a more positive manner. This is just one example of what I am talking about. This is why I believe all 4 gospels are equally important when getting a complete picture of Jesus.

One must note when reading the gospels is that one can't judge the manner in which they record information by today's standards. The early Christians in the first century were not so much interested in chronology. For example, the cleansing of the temple happens at the beginning of Jesus's ministry in John, but at the end of the ministry in Matthew (top of my head).

I am graduating with a degree in Religious Studies from University of Miami, probably the best degree I have ever done. I am also a Christian. :)I have heard of the mysterious Q document. There actuallly is zero evidence that such a single source document exists, or existed. It is a theory based on the Gospels recording the same events, so there "must" be some source they all drew from - And the answer to that is..... yes they did - the life and times of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is the source!

umpalu
06-18-2008, 03:48 AM
so all the rest of the books and chapters and such that were voted out of the bible in Constantinople were not the word of god because they were found to be of other origins even though some came from people that were supposedly very close to Jesus himself?

Dolphan7
06-18-2008, 12:33 PM
so all the rest of the books and chapters and such that were voted out of the bible in Constantinople were not the word of god because they were found to be of other origins even though some came from people that were supposedly very close to Jesus himself?
When did this "vote" take place? And what books were voted on?

Marino613
08-21-2008, 05:54 PM
I have heard of the mysterious Q document. There actuallly is zero evidence that such a single source document exists, or existed. It is a theory based on the Gospels recording the same events, so there "must" be some source they all drew from - And the answer to that is..... yes they did - the life and times of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is the source!

Happy to drudge up an older post.

I am not saying I am convinced by the Q argument, but I thought the foundation for the argument of a Q source was not that these gospels record the same events, but that they have sections that are word for word exactly the same. I am not saying there haven't been other responses to the issue that still don't require a Q source, but the claim is not that they talk about similar events (which is something of a straw man argument really. Academics may make some zany claims at times, but that would just be asinine).

Wikipedia provides an ok description of the synoptic problem which is at the heart of the matter.

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

and another wiki article on Q

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

Obviously, wikipedia has its limitations and its advantages. So take it for what it is.


As an aside, is accepting a gospel of Q theologically problematic for Christians? I am not discounting that someone would reject the notion for purely academic reasons.