My religious philosophy, based completely on logic:

Jenyar:

Okay, but inspector has claimed that evidence exists.

You're saying that I basically I have to believe something with no evidence in order to escape eternal torment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Acts 26:28Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"
29Paul replied, "Short time or long--I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

The evidence Inspector is talking about has no use to you. You see, our faith isn't blind, we believe in an account that has been in the making since the beginning of time, since Judaism became the first monotheistic relgion. We have no reason to distrust those texts and testimonies, especially since we have seen its freeing effect on our own lives. That same God asks Christians to tell people what He has promised us - everybody - but also that our testimonies has no power if we do not live by our beliefs. Paul preached freedom to those who recognised freedom, and justice to those who lived by the law.

Acts 28:26" 'Go to this people and say,
___"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
_______you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
___ 27For this people's heart has become calloused;
_______they hardly hear with their ears,
_______and they have closed their eyes.
___Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
_______hear with their ears,
_______understand with their hearts
___and turn, and I would heal them.'

Why do you need proof? Because you are a slave to modern science, which doubts everything it cannot see. Face it, the reason you can't believe is not because you can't see God, but because you don't believe what you can't see, i.e. beyond death. You can't see your own death, but you know it will happen, because of a history that has proved that everbody dies. If you didn't see death, you would have thought you could live forever. But you do, and now you either ignore it or again turn to science to defy nature.

It is 'natural' that our bodies should die. We have no evidence of spirit, but humans are the only species with a spiritual awareness. Westerners have no evidence of chi, yet the Chinese have based life and medicine on it. We can't know something if no-one has experienced it and told about it.
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?

I have come to know a God who is unseen, made visible through the resurrection of Jesus: a revelation to all people and believed by Christians. With this knowledge we also expect the second coming of Jesus, when he will establish a new kingdom. We are all called to become citizens of that kingdom, and ordered to invite everybody into it. That little voice that is rebelling in your head now, and calling it "exclusive" or "weak", is the lie that we have to fight against.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay - so I used the term "evidence" rather loosely there. Plus you could argue that even that wasn't contemporary with Jesus, since all of the New Testament was written some time after Jesus' alleged death - so I retract my statement. There is no evidence of Jesus' existence.

As for proof that Jesus could not have been the Messiah, it may take us a little while to get there, but if you're game, we can start by looking at the two genealogies of Jesus. There's one in Matthew (Chapter 1), and one in Luke (Chapter 3). Can you explain why are they so different? For example, if you begin with Joseph (who was not even supposed to be the biological father of Jesus anyway), he is reported to have had 2 different fathers - Jacob and Heli. Unless that is another biblical miracle, that is obviously not even possible. So who is the real father of Joseph, and how do you explain two different fathers being listed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Why don't you show this evidence? Do you really want me to burn forever in hell?"
----------------------------------------------------

Some Christians rely heavily on antiquated documents as evidence supporting the Bible, and ultimately, God. I have, on numerous occasions, presented this type of evidence, such as eyewitness testimonies corroborated by New Testament writers, to the bevy of atheists here on this site. However, I am consistently greeted with the typical knee-jerk responses by most. There are over 800 known NON-BIBLICAL documents in existence that are both historically accurate and archaeologically consistent with biblical narratives. Yet, each time I present this fact, it is predictably dismissed with the rubber stamp response of ‘that is not sufficient proof’ by most atheists here on this site. If you say that this is not valid, then we must analyze your criteria and methodology of examination to see if it is objective and reasonable.

For example, the Tell El Amarna tablets is a compilation of tablets dating back to 1390-1327 BCE, and is considered as perhaps the greatest archaeological discovery ever found in Egypt. These tablets contain information, told from the victim’s side, of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan. This archaeological discovery is consistent in facts, lexicon, nomenclature and locality with the narrative of the Bible.

Like I previously stated, there are hundreds more NON-BIBLICAL documents that support the validity of the Bible and it’s contents. The problem, once again, lies in presuppositions. Most atheists will immediately negate all evidence presented to them to both satisfy their presuppositions and to fulfill their circular reasoning, which basically is that there is no evidence. For those willing to listen, I am willing to teach the Truth.

><>

 

Reasons to doubt the veracity of the Biblical texts?

Because the Bible was assembled by biased editors (evidence; look to the non-cannonical texts and the reasons they were rejected).

Because there are no original 'source' documents; the earliest documents are copies (that have been subject to unknown editing) written about 100 years after Jesus's death.

Because the authors of the earliest texts available are largely (entirely?) unknown. We don't know who wrote them or from what sources they drew their material.

Because the couple of "unbiased" documents that refer to Jesus are suspect.

There are no originals, Jenyar. There are no manuscripts that were written by any eye-witnesses to Jesus' activities. The Bible has a common message because it was edited at various times for this express purpose. The Nicene Council was once such group of editors. Investigate Jenyar. That the Bible exhibits certain consistencies is no more surprising than finding out that a gradeschool level US History textbook contains certain consistencies... they were designed that way.

~Raithere

 

Only, I believe, two of which give any reference to Jesus. And those two are suspect. (quick edit... I found 4 references to non-biblical accounts that mention Christ... all of the authors were born after Christ's death and 3 of them only reference Christ in reference to his followers, not directly).

Certainly, there are accurate historical references in the Bible. However, there are many, many more references that are not found anywhere except in the Bible or are directly refuted by historical evidence.

Now personally, I believe that Jesus or someone very like him existed. If only for the simple fact that revolutions require a leader. However to jump from a possible historical figure that somewhat fits the story of Jesus to asserting that the tales told of him hundreds of years later are entirely, literally, and factually true is absurd. To assert that he was God...

~Raithere

 

Fact:
Nothing can be proven about the origin of the scriptures nor can we say that jesus truly did exist. If you think otherwise, then you are stating a so-called fact based on blind faith. And that's ok. But it is still your opinion.

Fact:
I never let someone else tell me how to interpret the scriptures.
So I don't expect anyone else to do likewise.

Fact:

A book is a book, whether valuable or not. A book is meant to be read not believed. If you want to live the christian life based on informational doctrine than you have chosen to absorb. Well I encourage it. It's far better than learning ethics from TV. But don't expect me to see what you see.

Fact:
I am not an atheist for I am not stupid enough to think that all we know now is all we will ever know. However, God (whatever you wanna call it), showed me what he was without a book. And I don't believe in special creation because EVERYTHING is a product of special creation. If it weren't, we would be made of something strange like Jello and dogs would rule the galaxy. It's not though and for a reason. I gave up on the REASON. I just accept what is needed of me and not what should be needed of me.

Opinion:
Jesus would frown upon our petty arguing for he was supposedly a WISE person. And I find it wise to worry about the things in life that are physical and very personal. Not something I never set my eyes on nor touched to say whether it was real or not. Also, wasn't Christ a pacifist. Why so much war over his name? Because people believe in him more than themselves. And to me that is sooooooo sad. Who was it that said, "confront your fears". Why are we told to fear god? I don't see why.

Fact: God created everything?-from some point of view
well wouldn't that mean that god is science. And it takes science to even know anything. It's called thinking which last I checked was a chemical process in the brain. So that kind of blows the whole difference between religion and science bit out of the water.

The first mistake that the religious person makes is that they believe in anything. The first mistake the aethiest makes is BELIEVING in nothing.



Opinion: know thyself and then know god. If you do the first, you won't even need to do the second.

 

I think that this is the reason for his importance. He was the first to admit it....
disclaimer---inaccuracy for dramatic effect only----

 

The discrepancies in the genealogies only show me this: That after nearly 2000 years even those so-called 'biased' editors did not presume to change anything in the Bible for the sake of cnsistency. Such a small change would never have been noticed if it had been made, because we have no way to verify any one. In Biblical times a person's status was largely (almost completely) dependent on one's ancestry. A class system that Jesus didn't follow anyway, since he mingled with people with no link to Israel or even Judaism (like the Samaritans), and no logical inheritance of the kingdom he proposed.

Fortunately, we don't need an accurate ancestry (although as a Biblical scholar once remarked, it would have been nice if the genealogies agreed).

The differences also tell me another thing. That these books were in fact different accounts, and not copies of each other. Also, they were written by different people with different perspectives, for different audiences. The message take precedent over the details, that has been the nature of Jewish tradition and aids accuracy of memory (probably since few of the common people were literate). Read /http://lifeofchrist.com/life/genealogy/

The amount of secondary texts agree so much that it is possible to practically rewrite the original texts. There is even a text called 'Q' that supposedly had to have existed, for so many different accounts to agree to such an extent, although I doubt if it ever did.

The non-canonical text weren't excluded willy-nilly. The Catholic church has no problem with them (that's where we get the popular depictions of Satan and demons and other tales). They provide interesting reading, and some are even recommended, such as the gospel of Thomas. But they do not add significantly to the message of the rest of the Bible, as a matter of fact most f them seem fabricated to prove a particular point or support a certain sect, such as Gnosticism (like the Dead Sea Scrolls). These books are peripheral to the rest of the Bible, and have less consistency and in some cases just confuse the issue.

*edit*
science created everything? Science is a study, not an energy!

 

I've never denied that the Bible has historical validity. However, the fact that Jesus existed does not make Him the son of God.

Now, I think you're enjoying the fact that I'm going to go to hell. You're probably a sadist just like your God.

 

You seem to take pride in the possibility. No Xev, I don't - I don't want anybody to go to hell, least of all you. As a Christian, I tell the good news that we don't have to go to hell, nobody has to.

In the Bible, it is when people were left to their own device, given over to their natural sinful natures, that sin got a hold over them. The effects of selfishness are evident. So are the effects of hate. Nobody can presume to call them 'good'.

You can't be sure whether ou will go to hell. That is not for me or anybody to judge. I can only tell you that Jesus saved us from the judgement, and only by acknowledging and living the resurrection of Jesus can you know this. There is no other way. Don't take pride in degrading and excluding yourself in someone else's eyes. Make up your own mind. Realise you are worth more to God than to yourself.

Realise what you are chained to, so you can be freed from it... I think you said that, actually.

PS. God is no sadist. You base that on a history you reject in the first place. Or if you accept it, why not accept all of it - anything less than the truth is not the whole truth is it?

 

Jenyar:

It amuses me infinitely to think of your God getting off on the torture of sinners.

What is "good"?

On what evidence?

You mean, I should not audition for "Jackass: The Sequel" ?
And that probably rules out a career in bondage pornos. Okay.

Okay, I prefer Coke to Pepsi.

*Raises an eyebrow*

Advice on liberation? From a slave?

(Note: Please don't take this amiss, Jenyar, I like you, as much as I like anyone. I was really taunting inspector more than you.)

*Edit*

And please don't be offended that I call you a slave. We all are, in our own ways. I didn't mean it as an insult....more a statement of fact.

 

No problem Xev. I have already freely admitted my slave-turned-friend relationship with God.

Good is what rewards goodness. Bad is that which rewards evil. God has only rewarded good. When we suffer it is because of people, and suffering can be a blessing if you know why it is happening and survive it. We are all sinners, and no sinner is any less a sinner because of his beliefs. That is not the point of Christianity - but it is the misconception perpetuated by the Church in the Middle Ages, and what Calvyn protested against.

Jesus preached salvation, not condemnation.

You seem to project your preference for S&M onto God. Isn't that a bit shortsighted. In what way does God, or the idea of God, cause you pain?

What do you hold on to and what can't you let go of? There definitely is something. Do you have a valid reason for resenting God? More valid than Job's?

PS. Have you read Paradise Lost?

 

"Certainly, there are accurate historical references in the Bible. However, there are many, many more references that are not found anywhere except in the Bible or are directly refuted by historical evidence."
--------------------------------------------

Please present these 'references' you have, from that time period, that refutes the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Since there were NO writings by the Romans OR Jews OR anyone from that time period that contradicts His resurrection, you will be famous if you can produce these valid 'references' for me. Maybe you better do your research on your god's website, infidels.org, as I am sure they have fabricated some false information regarding this topic by now. I'll be waiting.

BTW, get ready. I have many, many more valid, historical, archaeological discoveries which verify the content of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. I also have original eyewitness testimony for the existence of Jesus Christ. Just remember, in an above post, you said, 'Now personally, I believe that Jesus or someone very like him existed.'

><>

 

Apparently you disagree with the arguments written on that webpage? Here is what they had to say regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke genealogies:

Luke's Audience
The original readers of Luke's works were Greek Christians. While Matthew wrote to the Jews, Luke wrote to the Greeks.
Matthew's genealogy emphasized Jesus' claim to the throne of David. Since Luke's readers were less concerned about the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, his genealogy focused on Jesus' descent from God. It placed no emphasis on Jesus being the descendant of King David.

Reason for Differences
Differences between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke may be attributed to the fact that Matthew traced the ancestry of Joseph, while Luke traced the that of Mary.

Do you agree or disagree with their assertion that the Matthew genealogy traced the ancestry of Joseph, while the Luke genealogy traced the ancestry of Mary? If you would agree, then what clues are there in the two genealogies that would tell us which genealogy was which?

I'm not sure whether or not you will answer my questions, since you didn't really give me a straight answer to my last question. It would seem to me that you are admitting that the genealogies may be totally inaccurate, or even complete fabrications, and that you're okay with this? And that it doesn't really matter to you whether or not Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah, or whether or not the bible is inerrant - you choose to believe regardless of the evidence? If that is the case, I am indeed wasting my time since you would clearly prefer to cling to your beliefs whether or not they have anything to do with the truth. I would argue that the unexamined faith is no faith at all.

Remember the biblical advice to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good; also remember that the simple man believes every word, while the prudent man looks well to his going. Are you willing to take an honest look at these discrepancies or not?

 

Since I am no expert on Jewish tradition or these genealogies, I can't say much more than I have before I have done some research.

Yes they do disagee. My point was that the genealogies were cited to the audience who would question anything otherwise. They were convincing enough evidence to the people who knew them and understood them when they were presented, and that is good enough for me.

Jesus' messiahship doesn't depend on memories, but on His actions - i.e. His death and resurrection. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets, not to correct their errors. What He did is proof of His message.

The only people who would benefit to disagree with these genealogies are the people who hold faith to them, such as the Jews, and they are the ones who wrote them in the first place.

I have no problem with them. To me, Jesus is the one who did what He came for.

If you are really interested, I'll do some more research. Here's the genealogy as I understand it (being neither Greek or Jewish): God <-> Jesus <- > Holy Spirit <-> us <- God.

 

"Remember the biblical advice to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good; also remember that the simple man believes every word, while the prudent man looks well to his going."
------------------------------------------------

It is also written in Job 28:20-22,





"Where then does wisdom come from?

Where does understanding dwell?

It is HIDDEN from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air.

Destruction and Death say,
'Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.'"

><>

 

"Are you willing to take an honest look at these discrepancies or not?"
----------------------------------------------

There are no discrepancies. Sorry, you will have to find another avenue to support your fallacies.

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were un aware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

><>

 

inspector,

So you do agree that the Matthew genealogy is Joseph's and the Luke genealogy is Mary's - we seem to have that much out of the way at least. I do accept that answer, since the Matthew genealogy uses the word begat, while the Luke genealogy uses the phrase son of, and this is consistent with biblical traditions.

So my question to you is, would you agree that wherever there appears to be such a discrepancy, and one passage says that so-and-so is the son of such-and-such, but another passage says that whosits begat so-and-so, the biological father would be whosits, and such-and-such is probably a father-in-law or step father, or something other than a direct biological progenitor?

 

"So my question to you is, would you agree that wherever there appears to be such a discrepancy, and one passage says that so-and-so is the son of such-and-such, but another passage says that whosits begat so-and-so, the biological father would be whosits, and such-and-such is probably a father-in-law or step father, or something other than a direct biological progenitor?"
----------------------------------------

Nehushta, thanks for responding.

I am sorry, but this is a generalization or 'blanketed question', therefore I cannont reply affirmatively or negatively. I would require a specific example or passage before I can answer your question.

><>