Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

Awesome site, lo. Great resource.

Actually, I honestly deeply enjoy these discussions. I'd rather discuss this topic than any other; I'd say it brings joy to my soul. But I agree that others find it vexing and pervasive, as well as culturally taboo.

It's my kind of fun, though. :)

 
knapplc said:
lo country said:
As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible here is a good start.

http://carm.org/can-...orical-document

I have learned no discussion ever goes well with religion or politics. We all want "win".
Click to expand...
This source is a Christian group. What do you think they're going to say? :D
Click to expand...

While you are absolutely right, they do a remarkably admirable job at presenting things fairly and without bias. They have tough questions for/against all the major religions, for example, and include Christianity in that.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
knapplc said:
lo country said:
As far as the historical accuracy of the Bible here is a good start.

http://carm.org/can-...orical-document

I have learned no discussion ever goes well with religion or politics. We all want "win".
Click to expand...
This source is a Christian group. What do you think they're going to say? :D
Click to expand...

While you are absolutely right, they do a remarkably admirable job at presenting things fairly and without bias. They have tough questions for/against all the major religions, for example, and include Christianity in that.
Click to expand...
They try to show proof for Jesus. That site is not unbiased at all. That is the same site that I discussed just a few posts ago that tries to use these non-biblical sources that don't add up. Obviously we all will agree or disagree on this topic but that site is not unbiased.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christianity grew by the sword, they killed pagans who didn't convert. After Constantine, Roman Emporers began outlawing paganism and literally making Christianity the state religion just like it is today in most Arab countries with Islam. Then whever the Roman Empire conquered they converted. Parents force kids to attend church whether they like it or not which in turn gives them a big hand in retaining a large membership. If you really believe most christians are christians just because of the word then you have another thing coming.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
JJHusker1 said:
Well, Jesus was two things at once, sone of man and son of God. And yes, a person could be magician and a preacher bit I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. If you think Jesus was just a magician who preached, then you need to answer my previous question; why/how is he such a big deal more than2000 years after his last magic trick and bit of preaching? I am aware of lots of magicians and lots of preachers who have done their thing much more recently and they sure aren't much of a topic of discussion or contention. What in your mind makes this Jesus fellow such an enigma that nobody else has even come close to the attention he still garners, this many years after taking the dirt nap? In the realm of magic tricks and illusions, what he did was not really that spectacular. But if what he did were genuine miracles, well that would explain a bunch. Harry Houdini had quite a bit written about him but it is virtually nothing compared to Christianity.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the response will be about Constantine, ignoring the rapidfire weed that was Christianity that kept growing and growing and growing despite extreme persecution before Constantine's conversion.
Click to expand...
Among the poor it grew but not until anybody with any real power came along.

 
husker_99 said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
JJHusker1 said:
Well, Jesus was two things at once, sone of man and son of God. And yes, a person could be magician and a preacher bit I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. If you think Jesus was just a magician who preached, then you need to answer my previous question; why/how is he such a big deal more than2000 years after his last magic trick and bit of preaching? I am aware of lots of magicians and lots of preachers who have done their thing much more recently and they sure aren't much of a topic of discussion or contention. What in your mind makes this Jesus fellow such an enigma that nobody else has even come close to the attention he still garners, this many years after taking the dirt nap? In the realm of magic tricks and illusions, what he did was not really that spectacular. But if what he did were genuine miracles, well that would explain a bunch. Harry Houdini had quite a bit written about him but it is virtually nothing compared to Christianity.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the response will be about Constantine, ignoring the rapidfire weed that was Christianity that kept growing and growing and growing despite extreme persecution before Constantine's conversion.
Click to expand...
Among the poor it grew but not until anybody with any real power came along.
Click to expand...

I'll point you to Paul, Luke, the Ethiopian Eunuch and Matthew as counterpoints against that claim.

 
Hedley Lamarr said:
They try to show proof for Jesus. That site is not unbiased at all. That is the same site that I discussed just a few posts ago that tries to use these non-biblical sources that don't add up. Obviously we all will agree or disagree on this topic but that site is not unbiased.
Click to expand...
Exactly. An unbiased source would not begin with the assertion that the bible is factual and a "good source" and try to prove that notion.

Further, the assertion that there are 5,600 copies of the New Testament which were written in the first century AD, is entirely false. Further, the assertion that the "facts" contained therein are 99.5% accurate is laughable (it also raises the very troubling point that the Bible is not infallible - according to these guys, it's .5% fallible), especially when they make no such percentage claim about Herodotus, whose work I just finished reading a couple of months ago and which contain a myriad of verifiable facts.

Using this site as any kind of unbiased source is a crock. Call it what it is - a Christian apologist echo chamber. Nothing more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapp, what "facts" in the Bible exist that you believe to be false that are specific stumbling blocks for you?

I think inerrancy is generally misunderstood with laypersons in the church. There's very clearly a difference in what the Bible literally says and what it affirms. A classic example of this is found in Mark chapter 4:

"The Kingdom of God is like a grain of mustard seed which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth. Yet when it is grown, it grows up to be the greatest of all shrubs."
Click to expand...
The smallest of all seeds?! Oh noes!!!!111 I just googled it, and there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed, so that means the entire Bible is false!!!!11

This is akin to what skeptics actually do. But is Jesus teaching a lesson on botany? No! He's making an analogy. Is the whole Bible thrown out because in this particular case, what it says is not inerrant? No. Because what it affirms is true.

 
But... the mustard seed thing is an issue. If the Bible is the "infallible word of God," and it contains inaccuracies, you can't justify that with a new phrase of, "It's an affirmation."

When do the new justifications end? At what point does the Bible become a single, definable thing? The fact is, it doesn't. How we view the Bible changes over time. It was, at first, an organization of various documents, arranged by Greek theologians in the second century. Originally, even Paul wasn't writing anything that he intended to become "the word of God." Paul was clearly simply writing letters, but now we see his epistles as 'the infallible word of God' because they're contained in the Bible. The declaration that Paul's letters had some holy connotation occurred centuries after his death.

What "facts" are problematic? That depends on how much time you've got. :D

 
Ok, so I see that you assert that the mustard seed example is a problem in your eyes. I'm being completely sincere when I say that I'm pretty surprised that it is such. It seems to me a good example of how the exact definition of inerrancy and infallability with regards to Scripture is quite honestly not easy to define.

For the critic, it can be used in this way. But it is in my opinion quite rational, taken in context with the mustard seed analogy, that the inerrancy of Scripture is as I've explained above. I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with this - I'm merely providing one defense.

 
So... you're steering the conversation into an area you've got predetermined answers for? I clearly said the mustard seed thing was one of many issues, emblematic of the whole, not specifically speaking of that one. The more salient point is the never-ending justification process, which crops up any time evidence is brought to light which contradicts religious dogma. A yet more salient point is the misuse of the texts compiled in the Bible which were never intended to act as "the word of God," Paul's epistles being the most obvious example.

 
knapplc said:
So... you're steering the conversation into an area you've got predetermined answers for?
Click to expand...
I beg you to give me more credit than that. No - that was not my intent, for which I can only give my word. I'm more than obliged to allow the discussion to go in any direction that any given poster prefers. In #150, you had made the statement that the Bible is not infallible. I provided a defense (using an example) with the intent to show that the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a complex issue, not narrowly defined, as I explained in my "what is says" and "what it affirms" diatribe. I don't pretend that it's not (complex), and no good theologian should in my opinion say otherwise.

knapplc said:
I clearly said the mustard seed thing was one of many issues, emblematic of the whole, not specifically speaking of that one.
Click to expand...
Ermm...yes, understood.

knapplc said:
The more salient point is the never-ending justification process, which crops up any time evidence is brought to light which contradicts religious dogma. A yet more salient point is the misuse of the texts compiled in the Bible which were never intended to act as "the word of God," Paul's epistles being the most obvious example.
Click to expand...
Please expand on this, if you're so obliged. If not, I understand.

 
We're getting circular here. I read your explanation of "says" vs. "affirms." I responded to it in #152 with a concern about the ex post facto justifications and a question about where that ends. Focusing solely on the mustard seed argument was not a full response to my concerns in #152. These are difficult questions and there are no answers for them which lead to anything other than faith in man, not God, as I also said earlier in the thread.

Regarding the misuse of texts in the Bible... what's to expand on? I was quite clear in my statement, and it's not even debatable. Paul had no intention when he wrote those letters of having them be anything other than letters to that person or people. He had no intention of having them included in a compilation of "holy texts" which were to later be called "the word of God." That's not a point of debate, is it? We're all clear what Paul intended for his writings, yes?

 
Back
Top