Support NeoGAF

[devenger]

Nobody is trying to "disprove" his view. They are demonstrating that there really isn't any evidence to support it.

I'm glad he decided to move the expression of that view back to the Christianity thread, where he might get less opposition to it.

Even Dunk #7 who is being taken to task for stating his views on creation is explaining what satisfies him about it right now and his debaters are only trying to disprove his view- certainly not saying anything worth accepting of theirs. He is satisfied and not merely saying "derp" in explaining it.

I didn't offer Dunk anything to get him to accept my opinion, because I have no desire to change or disprove his personal views. I even tried to side step the argument until he persisted. It's a valid religious belief, and I respect it. But again, respecting it doesn't include pretending it's a valid scientific theory.

And in my opinion, discounting all physical evidence amassed by the scientific community since Einstein is as close to saying 'Derp' as you can get.

 

[wayward archer]

general Q: what is a "non-materialist" view of the world?

In general it's the view that matter is not the only thing that exists.

Specifically one view that would be non-materialist is that the "mind" or "soul" is made of something other than matter, and is undetectable.

There are others, like the idea that all reality is illusion, and that matter doesn't really exist at all.

 

[soul creator]

In general it's the view that matter is not the only thing that exists.

Specifically one view that would be non-materialist is that the "mind" or "soul" is made of something other than matter, and is undetectable.

There are others, like the idea that all reality is illusion, and that matter doesn't really exist at all.

I guess that's what always confused me, since it kinda seems contradictory. If there are "non-material" things that exist, how did people find this out? If they observed it at some point, then, er, wasn't "material" involved?

 

[wayward archer]

I guess that's what always confused me, since it kinda seems contradictory. If there are "non-material" things that exist, how did people find this out? If they observed it at some point, then, er, wasn't "material" involved?

Well no doubt it is based on assumption and having a pre-determined conclusion:

I believe there's a soul/mind separate from the body

however

I can't see or touch it

therefore

it must be something that we can't see or detect.


-----


Scientific method would be:

I can detect electricity flowing through the brain as someone thinks about different things

therefore

thought is somehow connected to electrical activity in the brain

Which doesn't rule out non-materialism, but does nothing to support it either.

 

[JGS]

This kinda illustrates a fundamental different we probably won't be able to overcome here in this conversation. Nobody is trying to "disprove" his view. They are demonstrating that there really isn't any evidence to support it. Just like most people here aren't trying to "disprove" God, they are just pointing out the fact that there is zero tangible evidence.

Ok ignore the word disprove which is really the only thing throwing a monkey wrench in this. The point remains the same- he is satisfied with his view and fear/ignorance has nothing to do with it. The guy has his reasons.

Further, the "fact" that one believes there's no evidence for it does nothing to sway a believer from thinking there is since there is nothing offered to prove he doesn't.

Who validated them? Jewish priests talking for God? Mohammad and many Imans validate the Koran. Why don't you believe what it says? "Because I know it's true in my heart" isn't validation. People are capable of believing something so much it becomes real for them. I'll be the first to admit I am capable of doing this, although I like to think that I don't. I'd be extremely receptive to evidence that shows the bible is the direct word of God for instance. But unless every religion out there is true then large amounts of the world's population are capable of this as well, including Christians.

Why on earth would you think there would be more need to validate scripture than the ones supporting it? If that's not good enough, simply provide the proofs that they are incorrect so we can call it a day.

We are not talking about accuracy or believeability, just whether it was written and written around the same timeframe. You also incorrectly assume that all Jewish leaders actually wanted to hear what was written. But it was there.

This is not a matter of believing something to the point of belief. It's about the fact that the writings are there, the dates are there, and you lack the evidence to contradict it or else you would have by now.

Validation really isn't possible at this point, 2000 years later. It's not going to happen. Anyway, doesn't matter. Paul doesn't tell us that his writings are sacred either, and most of what he says seems very focused on keeping belief strong amongst the various communities and giving them advice on how to keep their congregations together and avoid having members picked off from other mystery cults like the Cult of Dionysus or Apollonius of Tyrea or Mithra that were popular at the time. Applicable today? I dunno. This isn't that discussion. But he definitely changed things quite a bit.

How many books of the Bible proclaim sacredness? I'm almost positive that there doesn't need to be a pronouncement of that short to qualify for canonicity. If you read Paul's writings, there's not much difference between then and now which explains the application question. The answer is it largely applies for our day.

There are a lot more issues than that. Inconsistencies are probably more troubling than wondering if miracles are real. There is also the matter that very important theologians like Eusebius wrote that falsehoods occurred throughout the church's history and were deemed a necessary "medicine" to advance the church down it's true path.

This is the #1 issue that's never verified. This is what I was hoping the Religion board would be about. However, it's not. The statement is made and it's left alone

You said 5th century was too late but the First Council of Ephesus in 431 BC marks the point at which the current biblical view was 'closed for discussion'. Nothing further could be brought forward and debated including biblical interpretation. Up until that point there was lots of debate. So that's 5th century.

This is not true. There is Biblical debate to this day. Further the debate included writings already written. There is no way that one council would have the ability to rewrite canon. It's impossible and would have required a conspiracy bigger than all conspiracies combined to pull off.

I place no emphasis on a 5th century council meeting. Without conspiracy, a 5th century council meeting did not decide the books of the Bible. It may have decided them for a particular church, but they were working off an already established list that had been around for centuries.

There is substantial doubt (going back 1900 years) that this is the case. Who wrote the Johannine works is not a cut and dried case. Biologically speaking it's highly unlikely the original John was even alive when the book was probably written (90-110 AD). Or since he only calls himself the "beloved disciple", that it was even John at all. It's Ignatius who first calls it John's account. We have to take his word for it.

There's a whole lot of doubts and probably nots in there. It is cut and dry because there was no dispute regarding it. You use the argument that John was too old to survive the writing but that's a weak argument. So what if he's 90? You dismiss a person who knew John, but for some reason assume he's lying (Before you say you're not, it's really the only option available- believe what he says or don't). Why would he? Further why wouldn't anyone take him to task? This applies to all the Gospels. In fact, the majority if not all of the NT was official and canonized well before the 5th century. I know that won't convince you, but there are no less than four lists verifying the majority of scripture including John's contributions...unless you can show otherwise.

Going further, we're actually not absolutely sure that any of the gospels come from eye-witness accounts. Mark may have been. Luke 1:1-4 seems pretty clear to me... he states this is info handed down to us by eyewitnesses, and does not claim to be one of them.

This is true and i was not aware there was a dispute regarding Luke who likely never saw Jesus, but has never been questioned regarding his reliability as a researcher. Again, it's only a skeptics POV that lays doubt on it. Of course, Matthew & John were with Jesus so they were eyewitness...unless you can show otherwise.

It was extremely common to entitle a story "The gospel of:" and insert an important name into it. Was the Gospel of Judas actually written by Judas? Of course not. Yet you accept Matthew for instance without a second thought. I'm sure you will adamantly disagree but let's be perfectly clear here: You have nothing at all with which to disprove this. Someone saying "yes this was certainly the work of the apostle Matthew" is about as valuable as someone saying "Yes Joseph Smith absolutely dictated the Book of Mormon while being spoken to by an angel through a hat". This is something Christians who want to believe must take on faith alone, a gap they have to fill with an assumption.

The Gospel of Judas is not canon so I don't care if it were written by him or not. There's is plenty of eveidence beyond "faith alone", you are rejecting/doubting all of it to justify your argument...unless you have evidence otherwise.

It's kinda ridiculous for me to think that in order to make Pauline theology relevant, it suddenly becomes necessary to say Jesus DIDN'T give us enough information to be saved. That seems to be what you are saying here. I'm not willing to accept that on any level so let's not waste time on it.

I didn't say this so I have to waste time on it. Jesus did. Further, most of what Paul said was already said by Jesus. Anyone who has read the first few chapters of Acts would know this. All Paul and others did was expound on what was taught by Jesus and his apostles aka the Governing Body. Jesus always remained the head of the Church, so direction is provided by him.

"Which he's not". A simple declaration with zero evidence for. Not even the author of the book gives you anything to support that declaration. Why do you not accept the Gospel of Thomas or Mary, or the Hebrews as being scriptural truth. Ultimately because someone in the church decided they didn't agree with them and you accept what they say.

This is what is truly amazing to me. You are so confident of assertions/doubts that have far less backing. Why?

The primary reasons that other books are rejected is because they were never accepted before a council session, much less afterward. Further they often contradicted canon which the canonical books don't do. If they don't mesh with the centuries of scriptures laid out they don't fit. You might as well throw a copy of The Shining in there if all it takes is say it belongs. You are marginalizing the research it took to verify scripture which in and of itself is irrelevant, but then choose to back up your points with...nothing. Bible canon was not a dart throwing match.

I don't think it's 'better' and I never said that.

No, you just think it's correct or correct to simply doubt (Although the John is fan fiction thing is pretty concrete in your view) and there's no way I can understand it if you didn't mean that. My explanations are better because they are correct...unless you have evidence otherwise.

Skipping your discourse on public prayer. Jesus makes it clear we aren't to flaunt our righteousness in vanity. He gives the specific example of praying in public. Prayer circles are one thing, but i'm talking about the old practice of making kids pray before the class begins. That's what a lot of private school and homeschool advocates want to bring back in full force. If you look up what people have written in papers, websites, etc on "School Prayer" this is what many religious people want to bring back. I seriously don't think many people out there have issues with prayer circles. I certainly don't.

Praying is not flaunting. Wearing fancy clothes and placing a box on your forehead and shout declaration of the law at the top of your lungs is flaunting. Praying is normal, encouraged, & expected. For every verse you claim to have discouraging prayer as a sin, I'll show you at least a few that encourage it. Plus it remains harmless for a kid to pray in silence in school.

I never said anything about prayer as a class mandate, I'm a big believer in seperation of church and state but that also means the government should not concern themselves with my beliefs which includes praying as many times as I feel like it. What the religious right fringe that I think has little power wants is irrelevant since they won't get it unless they build their own schools. Then it shouldn't concern you.

End of this discourse on prayer.

 

[wayward archer]

There is no way that one council would have the ability to rewrite canon. It's impossible and would have required a conspiracy bigger than all conspiracies combined to pull off.

There's no re-writing of canon going on and no conspiracy, so bringing that up is kinda a straw man here. "It would take an impossible conspiracy so nothing is wrong!". Nothing had to be rewritten or changed. Only selected and anything that didn't make the cut was destroyed. Thousands of documents that do not agree with what got into the final bible were eliminated. So no conspiracy. Just Pauline christians controlling the discourse and putting their brand on top.

Synod of Hippo in 393 codified the bible into what we have today. This is indisputable historical fact. Before that there was a rather massive sea of texts, and several different compilations. One was chosen.

There's a whole lot of doubts and probably nots in there. It is cut and dry because there was no dispute regarding it.

Many biblical scholars dispute the notion that the disciple John actually wrote the work. Here's two (of many):

Robert Kyzar, former professor of Preaching and New Testament Studies at Emory University, and a devout Christian:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

Another Christian scholar: Stephen L. Harris
http://www.jcu.edu/Bible/AcademicExcellence/SampleAsgns/ChapterReviews/Harris/Harris10Kawentel.htm

Basically the idea that the John wasn't written by a person who was there is not rare, nor does it ignore any more information than those who uniformly claim that it does (who's only evidence is theologians discussing it back and forth for several hundred years after it was written). There's really not any direct evidence that he was one of the 12 disciples, but plenty of clues to indicate that he might not have been.

There's is plenty of eveidence beyond "faith alone", you are rejecting/doubting all of it to justify your argument...unless you have evidence otherwise.

Lay it on me. Please. I am totally serious. Dig some good stuff up and show me.

I've probably read whatever you can find with a cursory search of the internet. I read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" while I was more of a mainstream christian and thought it was rather insulting to my intelligence. Read a lot of Craig Bloomberg and love his work, and he is very much a devout christian. I really don't dislike evangelicals. Most of em are nice people in person. I don't like it when they try to pass laws that are essentially their religious dogma wrapped in public policy. And they do actually do this all the time (or at least try). I do listen to them and take their words seriously. I do not blindly accept whatever they say however.

Anyway, there's plenty of issues that are outstanding on the matter of whether the gospels were genuine eyewitness accounts. Here's a few:

+Eusebius and many other scholars believe Mark was recording Peter's account of things.
+Matthew and Luke copies word for word from Mark and probably from another common source, or each other, but many scholars think word choices each author made indicate they were parallel translations of something else. I and many others have a hard time believing someone who was there and can write would choose to copy so much. Seems more rational to conclude that Matthew is put together from multiple sources.
+Matthew, in copying Mark, corrects Mark's poor knowledge of Judaism in many places (this fact also serves to further indicate Mark really wasn't in the midst of it when it happened either). Why use the exact same wording except fix minor details? Why not just write it in your own words?
+Luke we've covered.

There's a lot more than these. A lot more.

Is any of this ironclad and conclusive? Absolutely not. But it's equally foolish to dismiss it as well. Truth is we will never know the truth about if the authors were actually with Jesus.

I'm not even definitively saying they the Mark and Matthew weren't eyewitnesses like you are definitely saying they did. I'm saying that there is substantial doubt, and you are dismissing this completely.

I didn't say this so I have to waste time on it. Jesus did. Further, most of what Paul said was already said by Jesus.

You're very wrong, but this post is getting really long. Paul quotes Jesus only once, and it's highly paraphrased. He introduces a ton of new ideas about grace and salvation through faith alone. He is pretty dismissive of Jewish law. Works aren't necessary. And what the heck is the 'third heaven' that he claims a friend of his was swept up into?

A list of contradictions between them that you can look up in your own Bible: http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

All of those can be explained away individually, I'm sure, but that's half the problem with Christian Apologia to me. There's a lot of explaining away of things. Too much really.

The primary reasons that other books are rejected is because they were never accepted before a council session, much less afterward. Further they often contradicted canon which the canonical books don't do.

Ok you don't really understand what "canon" is. Canon does not exist independant of the bible. The books of the bible were each individually determined to be canonical based on the church leader's interpretation of what the message of Jesus was... based on all these writings. If you were influenced the most by Paul then you were more likely to pick books that supported his philosophy to become "canon".

You are marginalizing the research it took to verify scripture which in and of itself is irrelevant, but then choose to back up your points with...nothing. Bible canon was not a dart throwing match.

To the best of my ability I have absorbed as much early christian history research done as I can, from all sides and written for all purposes (to confirm, deny, or simply lay down facts and draw no conclusions). I still read about it regularly. You may question my motives, intent, claim I marginalize stuff, but all I can say to you is that my ideas are not isolated, and they are certainly not uninformed. You can take my word for it or you can call me a liar.

And I have certainly backed up my points, especially in this post.

No, you just think it's correct or correct to simply doubt (Although the John is fan fiction thing is pretty concrete in your view)

I think its not wrong to question, thats it.

I seem to have struck a nerve with the fan fiction remark and you seem to be getting a bit upset over it. I don't want to upset you so let me rephrase: In my opinion John is very similar to some aspects of fan fiction written all throughout history. It very possibly fits the mold of a classic mary sue style of fan fiction, someone inserting themselves into an existing story who makes themselves a very special character in the narrative. In John's case, a favorite disciple who happens to be very close with Jesus (lying against his breast, kissing Jesus, Jesus telling Peter that the beloved disciple may stay as he sends the others away when Peter questions this), why isn't this "disciple whom Jesus loved best" mentioned in the other gospels or in Paul's writings. By his own account he was more important than Peter was to Jesus!

It's real convenient. It's not conclusive. But it is a real question that I think anyone considering biblical scholarship must eventually confront. You either jump to one conclusion or the other, or you analyze what evidence is out there, cross check it, and draw a conclusion based on that. I feel confident that I have done the later.

My explanations are better because they are correct...unless you have evidence otherwise.

This is pretty bold from someone who claimed earlier that it's wrong for anyone to declare their beliefs better than another's (and then accusing me of doing so when I didn't). I don't really have to disprove your explanations, nor do I have much desire to, really. You are saying a lot of "I'm right!" "John definitely wasn't a Phony!" and "my explanations are better because they are correct". Not a lot of substance there. But look, if you are finding happiness and spiritual fulfillment in your faith then I hope you do continue to believe.

What you say about prayer here, I actually agree. I don't want the government telling you that you can't pray either. Let's just agree to keep Church out of government and government out of church. I think Jesus wanted it this way. His "Kingdom of God" appears to be a social movement based on love of God and others and not a theocracy of any sort.

To be honest I'm actually enjoying this discourse quite a bit. Sorry if I have said anything too abrasive like the "JOHN IS FAN FICTION" remark. Gonna try and cut back on that and make sure everything I say from now on is clearly labeled as my opinion on the matter, and backed up by something, or not said at all.

 

[soul creator]

then you probably don't want to read this...lol

 

[jaxword]

Don't you all think it is a little rash to take a small finite piece of current, known history and extrapolate it as far back as you can imagine?

Isn't this exactly what people do with the Bible and religious claims about the universe?

 

[Chaplain]

To be honest I'm actually enjoying this discourse quite a bit. Sorry if I have said anything too abrasive like the "JOHN IS FAN FICTION" remark. Gonna try and cut back on that and make sure everything I say from now on is clearly labeled as my opinion on the matter, and backed up by something, or not said at all.

The problem with your views is that the Bible does not teach what you have said. The only way a person can come to views like yours is by ignoring what it says and reading things that don't exist into its texts. All cults have started off this way.

"We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life. This one who is life itself was revealed to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and proclaim to you that he is the one who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then he was revealed to us. We proclaim to you what we ourselves have actually seen and heard so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." - John

 

[wayward archer]

The problem with your views is that the Bible does not teach what you have said. The only way a person can come to views like yours is by ignoring what it says and reading things that don't exist into its texts. All cults have started off this way.

Good thing i'm not trying to start a cult.

I know your mind in particular is like a stone, friend. It will not change for anything anyone says until God comes down and says differently. But I subtract nothing from it, and I include it all in my arguments. Anyone can say scripture back and forth. My interest is in who wrote that scripture, who picked particular scripture out of the sea of literature written about a man called Jesus Christ, and what their motives and possible errors could possibly have been. You place your blind faith in these early church leaders only because they proclaim their authority and you accept it.

You can never change the fact that the Bible was written by human hands, copied by others, validated by yet other humans. Every other religion created by man (and there are many) were formed by mixing truth, uncertainty, exaggerations, and 2nd hand information. There's absolutely no evidence to dispel the notion that may not have occurred here either.

I am really arguing against someone trying to prove the Bible by any sort of scientific method. If you wish to believe those words, you MUST take them in on faith alone (faith in both God but also in the men who handpicked the documents that became the bible), because deep down you will never know for certain if Jesus's real message was changed by others, if a more accurate message of his was lost, or destroyed, or stamped out. If you believe God wouldn't allow that, look at how many 'false religions' you see around you today. God absolutely allows those within his midst. He does not wave them away, or crush them, or expose their falsehood to their followers.

It all boils down to faith and the fact that you cannot take scripture and simply wave your hand and have evidence to support it, except for the word of other men. Might as well accept what Joseph Smith, Mohammad, L.Ron Hubbard, Buddha, and many others have said throughout history as well, where their words have had great effect on the lives of those around them. Muslims for instance all around the world have the same confidence in their faith that you do. They feel in their hearts it is certain Allah is with them, giving them strength, and will be there to receive their souls when they die.

But please blindly dismiss all that I say, an invisible demon probably pushed my fingers down onto these particular keys on the keyboard, as he shades my eyes from the light of a Christian God and the absolute truth of the Bible, if that makes you feel better.

 

[Chaplain]

Interesting read:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...is-human-nature-huge-new-study-claims/?hpt=C2

Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims
By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
May 12th, 2011

London (CNN) – Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests.

"We tend to see purpose in the world," Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. "We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see it. ... All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking."

Trigg is co-director of the three-year Oxford-based project, which incorporated more than 40 different studies by dozens of researchers looking at countries from China to Poland and the United States to Micronesia.

Studies around the world came up with similar findings, including widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose.

 

[Dude Abides]

wayward archer has the patience of Job.

 

[Chaplain]

I am really arguing against someone trying to prove the Bible by any sort of scientific method. If you wish to believe those words, you MUST take them in on faith alone (faith in both God but also in the men who handpicked the documents that became the bible), because deep down you will never know for certain if Jesus's real message was changed by others, if a more accurate message of his was lost, or destroyed, or stamped out.

If you do what Jesus said, you will experience that it is true. There is power in Jesus' words. So much so that Gandhi took one of Jesus' teachings and changed the history of India.

If you believe God wouldn't allow that, look at how many 'false religions' you see around you today. God absolutely allows those within his midst. He does not wave them away, or crush them, or expose their falsehood to their followers.

God will not force anyone to see the truth. Jesus went on to say that God hides the truth from those who think themselves wise and clever.

Why are there false religions? Because the Bible says Satan is the God of this world and also that man is sinful.

If a person wants to believe a lie, then, they will remain deceived until ask to know the truth again. Lie

He hasn't crushed you even though you lie about His message to mankind because he wants you to come to know his Son and loves you so much. You can use his gift of freewill to either lie or tell the truth. That is his gift to you and others but many use it for evil because they have ulterior motives.

It all boils down to faith and the fact that you cannot take scripture and simply wave your hand and have evidence to support it, except for the word of other men.

Do your research and you will come to know what is written in God's Word is true. Countless men have gone to try and disprove the Bible. These men reach the end of their quest and come out believers.

Might as well accept what Joseph Smith, Mohammad, L.Ron Hubbard, Buddha, and many others have said throughout history as well, where their words have had great effect on the lives of those around them.

Those men contradict God and what His Son said. Jesus' words transformed the entire history of the world. None of those men come close to doing what Jesus said or ever did.

Muslims for instance all around the world have the same confidence in their faith that you do. They feel in their hearts it is certain Allah is with them, giving them strength, and will be there to receive their souls when they die.

These men are not assured of their salvation. They hope they go to heaven. They also do not know about God's love because the Quran never talks about God's love.

But please blindly dismiss all that I say, an invisible demon probably pushed my fingers down onto these particular keys on the keyboard, as he shades my eyes from the light of a Christian God and the absolute truth of the Bible, if that makes you feel better.

It doesn't make me feel good about what you believe. It saddens me that you are missing out on the best thing this life has to offer. It saddens me that you have settled for lies because of certain things that have happened in your life that have led you to believe the God of the Bible is not who he said he was. But I have faith that God is not done with you at all.

 

[wayward archer]

To those of you genuinely interested in religious history, here is an amazing example of what was going on the mind of the early church fathers. This is Saint Clement's letter to a man named Theodore, about a gospel that had been circulating for many years called "Secret Mark". The notion of "Secret Mark" is that Mark went to Peter in Rome and took notes from him and composed the Gospel of Mark, but then went off on his own and made a companion piece which came to be known as Secret Mark. Clement basically lays down why he thinks it is complete fabrication and congradulates Theodore in 'silencing' this book that a group known as the Caprocrations was hosting. This is the kind of work they had to do for thousands of documents that were floating around. In particular he claims that even though some of what is written is true, there are false inventions and lies also in the work.

The main reason why the work was destroyed was because of a story where Secret Mark claims that Jesus spent the night with a young Lazarus "teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". Note that while there's no direct claim of homosexuality, the mere insinuation of it was enough for Clement to be pleased that the book was destroyed.

The idea that less egregious works that could have have contained some segments of untold but true story of Jesus within them is definitely on my mind as well as a lot of religious scholar's minds.

Sorry if this bores people but this kind of stuff is fascinating to me.

From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...

 

[wayward archer]

If you do what Jesus said, you will experience that it is true. There is power in Jesus' words. So much so that Gandhi took one of Jesus' teachings and changed the history of India.

Yes, he did. Probably one of the most important teachings.

God will not force anyone to see the truth. Jesus went on to say that God hides the truth from those who think themselves wise and clever.

If you believe God is in control of this world, then even me typing these words is a part of his grand plan.

Why are there false religions? Because the Bible says Satan is the God of this world and also that man is sinful.

If this is true then Satan could have certainly influenced the Bible as well. I cannot prove that he did, and you can't prove that he didn't. What I can do is show that men are fallible, and that God has not chosen to give any signs or miracles to show that the bible is correct. And no he has not done these things and people are ignoring them. If he ever touched the world directly he has only done it in private, to people who can only give their word that he has. Many have claimed that, none have proved it.

He hasn't crushed you even though you lie about His message to mankind because he wants you to come to know his Son and loves you so much. You can use his gift of freewill to either lie or tell the truth. That is his gift to you and others but many use it for evil because they have ulterior motives.

He hasn't crushed me because he does not crush anyone. If God brings the rain, storms, floods, tsunamis, it is because he created a physical, natural system for those things to occur naturally.

Countless men have gone to try and disprove the Bible. These men reach the end of their quest and come out believers.

If this were remotely true it would be quite an amazing thing to say to others. Unfortunately it is not true at all. Please don't insult me or yourself by claiming things that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Those men contradict God and what His Son said. Jesus' words transformed the entire history of the world. None of those men come close to doing what Jesus said or ever did.

All movements start small, including Christianity. Christianity worked its way up to become the most powerful religion of the Western World by converting it's most powerful leader. This empire and the fractured kingdoms that followed it maintained an iron grip on the knowledge, trade, and minds of it's subjects, aided by the Church.

There's absolutely no reason to assume the cult of the Invincible Sun couldn't have endured instead had conditions been right. Christianity was in the right place at the right time. Something had to be. Someone has to win the lottery. That does not automatically make them special by that fact alone.

These men are not assured of their salvation. They hope they go to heaven. They also do not know about God's love because the Quran never talks about God's love.

"And He is the Forgiving and Loving" (Sura 85:14)

"Proclaim: "If you love GOD, you should follow me." GOD will then love you, and forgive your sins. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." (Sura 3:31)

There are many references to God's love in the Quran.

You are saying really standard canned responses to what I say and I have heard many of them before.

It doesn't make me feel good about what you believe. It saddens me that you are missing out on the best thing this life has to offer. It saddens me that you have settled for lies because of certain things that have happened in your life that have led you to believe the God of the Bible is not who he said he was. But I have faith that God is not done with you at all.

All I am doing is not blinding accepting the word of men. Maybe you are right and God is not done with me.

Jesus says blessed are those who believe as children do. This certainly fits you my friend. I am incapable of that. If God made me then he made me too inquisitive to believe as children do.

 

[wayward archer]

One more thing to illustrate the fact that we trust men to be telling us the truth.

Paul miraculously converts. He claims to have received divine messages from God. His own words, from Galatians.

I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas(Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Would you blindly believe someone who said that, just yesterday, they were walking down the road, struck blind by God, and suddenly had a NEW Gospel beamed directly to him from Jesus Christ.

Of course not. Which is why Chrsitians don't believe Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie, or Mohammad. They accept Paul because he helped them tremendously. Then he gets in and takes over the movement.

The other Apostles don't like him either. Paul was tolerated simply because he was such a powerful convert to have on their side.

 

[phisheep]

Which is why Chrsitians don't believe Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie, or Mohammad. They accept Paul because he helped them tremendously. Then he gets in and takes over the movement.

I've often made the comparison (and I hope it isn't a blasphemous one, it is meant to illustrate) that Paul was the Ray Kroc to Jesus' McDonald brothers.

 

[JGS]

One more thing to illustrate the fact that we trust men to be telling us the truth.

Paul miraculously converts. He claims to have received divine messages from God. His own words, from Galatians.



Would you blindly believe someone who said that, just yesterday, they were walking down the road, struck blind by God, and suddenly had a NEW Gospel beamed directly to him from Jesus Christ.

Of course not. Which is why Chrsitians don't believe Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie, or Mohammad. They accept Paul because he helped them tremendously. Then he gets in and takes over the movement.

The other Apostles don't like him either. Paul was tolerated simply because he was such a powerful convert to have on their side.

The problem is they didn't have to believe his letter to Galatians. His conversion was recorded in Acts by Luke and verified by someone who didn't believe someone as mean as Paul/Saul could convert. In other words, his conversion was verified by others outside of Paul.

 

[wayward archer]

The problem is they didn't have to believe his letter to Galatians. His conversion was recorded in Acts by Luke and verified by someone who didn't believe someone as mean as Paul/Saul could convert. In other words, his conversion was verified by others outside of Paul.

There's no problem at all. They were taking Paul's word for it just as we are now.

What they verified was that his conversion was real. His behavior towards christians really did change. Nothing verifies his own claim of receiving new Gospel.

I mean, he even brags of NOT going straight to the Apostles after this, to try and demonstrate that he doesn't need them, and nobody else really needs those old fuddy duddies. He slams their teachings all throughout his works. "We don't need the Jewish Law." Read Peter's two letters and see that he never mentions Paul, or contradict Paul's words that were against him. I can only conclude he didn't want to stoop to his level. As we see in every political election a smear campaign can be quite effective.

There's evidence throughout that James and Peter/Cephas never reconciled with Paul. Notice how many letters they have included in the Bible. We know they wrote more, so we can only assume they were lost or destroyed by followers of Paul. Mybe they did speak back against him more firmly in those lost letters. We'll never know.


Nonetheless, you are full on accepting that Paul received his own private Gospel directly from Jesus, despite never having met him, as per his own admission.

 

[Chaplain]

"We don't need the Jewish Law." Read Peter's two letters and see that he never mentions Paul, or contradict Paul's words that were against him. I can only conclude he didn't want to stoop to his level. As we see in every political election a smear campaign can be quite effective.

Not true:

"And remember, the Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

There's evidence throughout that James and Peter/Cephas never reconciled with Paul. Notice how many letters they have included in the Bible. We know they wrote more, so we can only assume they were lost or destroyed by followers of Paul. Maybe they did speak back against him more firmly in those lost letters. We'll never know.

We do know from Acts what happened. Paul was saved by Jesus to preach Jesus' message:

"I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. Now get to your feet! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my servant and witness. You are to tell the world what you have seen and what I will show you in the future. And I will rescue you from both your own people and the Gentiles. Yes, I am sending you to the Gentiles to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God’s people, who are set apart by faith in me." Acts 26:14-18

You are reading things into the scriptures that do not exist. No one was against Paul once they saw that his conversion was legit. Luke would have wrote something if Paul was a phony.

Nonetheless, you are full on accepting that Paul received his own private Gospel directly from Jesus, despite never having met him, as per his own admission.

Nothing about the Gospel is new because it all comes from the Old Testament.This is clearly seen if you go through the Old Testament. As Jesus said:

They replied, “We want to perform God’s works, too. What should we do?” Jesus told them, “This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.” - John 6:28-29

 

[BocoDragon]

Those men contradict God and what His Son said. Jesus' words transformed the entire history of the world. None of those men come close to doing what Jesus said or ever did.

That's ironic because Mohammed directly led a poltical-religious movement... his actions can be directly felt on the pages of history, and form the backbone of many nations today. He was a historical figure who cannot be a fabrication or a hoax any more than Alexander the Great or George Washington.

Jesus on the other hand, was never mentioned by any contemporaries, and was first written about decades after he was to have lived. We might rightly question if he existed at all. He didn't directly impact the world. Christianity might later have gone on to be a popular idea in western history, but it could have been any idea. Constantine could have gone on praise the virtue of Krishna, for all the difference it would make. It was not Jesus who changed the world... it was people like Constantine.

Just because they held ideas about Jesus does not mean that Jesus himself had any impact.... many important men in history have had religious beliefs, just as important (or unimportant). And as I said, some religious figures have had a direct and tangible impact on their surroundings that persist until modern day, such as Mohommad. That's a bigger impact than the mere idea of a deity.

 

[wayward archer]

Not true:

"And remember, the Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him—speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

Welp that was kinda a trick question and for that I apologize. 2 Peter is widely considered to be not written by Peter at all. Most scholars think it was written between 100-150 AD. Pretty much only people who blindly believe Peter must have written it because it says so and it's in the Bible and will ignore the substantial evidence against it will say otherwise.

We do know from Acts what happened. Paul was saved by Jesus to preach Jesus' message:

"I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. Now get to your feet! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my servant and witness. You are to tell the world what you have seen and what I will show you in the future. And I will rescue you from both your own people and the Gentiles. Yes, I am sending you to the Gentiles to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God’s people, who are set apart by faith in me." Acts 26:14-18

Ok so think about who said this to the guy that wrote Acts, which was someone who was travelling with Paul throughout much of his ministry. Paul did. You're still taking his word for it, sorry.

You are reading things into the scriptures that do not exist. No one was against Paul once they saw that his conversion was legit. Luke would have wrote something if Paul was a phony.

Unless he believed Paul was telling the truth. Why wouldn't he? Paul was a rockstar. He was a powerful orator. He was the Joel Osteen or the John Piper of his day.

Still believing in a man.

Nothing about the Gospel is new because it all comes from the Old Testament.This is clearly seen if you go through the Old Testament. As Jesus said:

They replied, “We want to perform God’s works, too. What should we do?” Jesus told them, “This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent.” - John 6:28-29

I see "believe in the one he has sent", nothing about "Believe in the one who says he was sent." Bible tells us there will be false prophets.

I ask you this, aside from Paul's word what verifies that he actually received a new Gospel that he specifically says wasn't taught by other men. The old testament was definitely taught by other men.

 

[wayward archer]

Gonna hammer on this point a little bit more because it perfectly illustrates what I am talking about these last few days.

You are reading things into the scriptures that do not exist. No one was against Paul once they saw that his conversion was legit.

What is in the New Testament is overwhelmingly Pauline in doctrine. We know for a fact that there was plenty that did not support his brand of Christianity. None of that got into the bible. That's my whole point.

You're blindly accepting the words of men who decided Paul's testimony is far more valuable than any of the Apostles, who we know wrote a bunch of stuff as well during this time.

 

[Chaplain]

Welp that was kinda a trick question and for that I apologize. 2 Peter is widely considered to be not written by Peter at all. Most scholars think it was written between 100-150 AD. Pretty much only people who blindly believe Peter must have written it because it says so and it's in the Bible and will ignore the substantial evidence against it will say otherwise.

Again, there are different views on this. From wiki:

Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150A and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris. For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80–90AD as most probable For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger, Zahn, Spitta, Bigg, and Green. Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[13]

Ok so think about who said this to the guy that wrote Acts, which was someone who was travelling with Paul throughout much of his ministry. Paul did. You're still taking his word for it, sorry.

There is nothing to be sorry about. I have no problem believing what is written from a historical point of view.

Unless he believed Paul was telling the truth. Why wouldn't he? Paul was a rockstar. He was a powerful orator. He was the Joel Osteen or the John Piper of his day.

If you read Paul's writing, he cared only for people to be forgiven and come into a relationship with God. He was not prideful or wanted glory. This is not seen in any of his writings.

I see "believe in the one he has sent", nothing about "Believe in the one who says he was sent." Bible tells us there will be false prophets.

Are you calling Jesus a false prophet? Because it seems that you are.

I ask you this, aside from Paul's word what verifies that he actually received a new Gospel that he specifically says wasn't taught by other men. The old testament was definitely taught by other men.

As Peter said:

"This salvation was something even the prophets wanted to know more about when they prophesied about this gracious salvation prepared for you. They wondered what time or situation the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about when he told them in advance about Christ’s suffering and his great glory afterward. 1 peter

The Gospel was first established in Genesis. When God told Abraham that he would be declared righteous just because he believed in His Word. That is the exact same thing that the New Testament teaches.

I am starting to think there is another reason why you keep attacking what God's Word says. I do not know but this usually is the case when people share these type of point of views.

 

[Chaplain]

What is in the New Testament is overwhelmingly Pauline in doctrine. We know for a fact that there was plenty that did not support his brand of Christianity. None of that got into the bible. That's my whole point.

His brand of Christianity was to die to your self and let God live through you. That everyone has sinned, like the Prophet Isaiah said, and that only through God's promised Messiah could people be saved. No different than every Old Testament Prophet.

You're blindly accepting the words of men who decided Paul's testimony is far more valuable than any of the Apostles, who we know wrote a bunch of stuff as well during this time.

I take all scripture and always compare it to what Jesus said. Jesus interprets Paul, Peter or James. It is not the other way around.

 

[Dude Abides]

I am starting to think there is another reason why you keep attacking what God's Word says.

Me too. I think that reason is "intellectual honesty."

 

[Chaplain]

Me too. I think that reason is "intellectual honesty."

From his point of view it very well could be. But there are deeper reasons than that. There always are.

 

[Dude Abides]

From his point of view it very well could be. But there are deeper reasons than that. There always are.

Not really. You're engaging in a rather transparent propaganda campaign while he is seeking the truth.

 

[JGS]

There's no problem at all. They were taking Paul's word for it just as we are now.

Not possible since people actually met with Paul to verufy hos account. Again, there was no reason to trust Paul. The only option would be a conspiracy for no particular purpose.

What they verified was that his conversion was real. His behavior towards christians really did change. Nothing verifies his own claim of receiving new Gospel.

Not true. Annanais spoke to Jesus who told him where to find Saul. Saul was taken to the apostles where he explained the story. He re-iterates Acts 9 in Galatians.

I mean, he even brags of NOT going straight to the Apostles after this, to try and demonstrate that he doesn't need them, and nobody else really needs those old fuddy duddies. He slams their teachings all throughout his works. "We don't need the Jewish Law." Read Peter's two letters and see that he never mentions Paul, or contradict Paul's words that were against him. I can only conclude he didn't want to stoop to his level. As we see in every political election a smear campaign can be quite effective.

Again, this is incorrect. He had to make his way to the Apostles. Peter didn't "stoop" to his level because Peter was in the wrong, showing favor to the Jews over Gentiles.

He went to the Apostles to find the answers to things not considered such as circumscision and the Law in general and they were the ones who indicated that the Law was not necessary. So he went to them, got the answer, and then held to the decision and wrote to congregations about it. He didn't need to go to the Apostles again because the issue was old news, for several years no less.

There's evidence throughout that James and Peter/Cephas never reconciled with Paul. Notice how many letters they have included in the Bible. We know they wrote more, so we can only assume they were lost or destroyed by followers of Paul. Mybe they did speak back against him more firmly in those lost letters. We'll never know.

This is incorrect. It is a leap of assumption. We can also assume that Paul wrote many more letters too. They simply aren't considered Bible canon.

Paul and Peter did not hang around the same circles. Paul was on the go constantly and had no need to buddy up with Peter even if they respected and liked each other. They certainly agreed on teachings and there's no contradiction at all between Peter's writings and Paul's. Why should there be since they are a part of the same congregation.

 

[Chaplain]

Not really. You're engaging in a rather transparent propaganda campaign while he is seeking the truth.

If he is seeking truth he will go to God's Word and ask God if it is true or not. God can tell him if it is true or not. It is not hard for God to tell him the truth.

As Jesus said, "I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

It is that simple.

 

[Count Dookkake]

From his point of view it very well could be. But there are deeper reasons than that. There always are.

For example?

 

[wayward archer]

Again, there are different views on this. From wiki:

And the wiki still pretty much concludes that most scholars, even those who are Christian, don't think Peter wrote that. So we have a book included in the Bible, which potentially lies to us and tells us it was written by Peter, and very few people question this.

There is nothing to be sorry about. I have no problem believing what is written from a historical point of view.

Then believe the Koran. Then believe the illiad actually happened and the greek gods were real. Believe Buddha found enlightenment and transcended this false reality. Contemporary writings from those times were written from a historical point of view as well.

But you're only going to believe Christian writings.

If you read Paul's writing, he cared only for people to be forgiven and come into a relationship with God. He was not prideful or wanted glory. This is not seen in any of his writings.

Paul:

I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they praised God because of me.

Not the words of a humble man. Maybe a slip. People make mistakes. I will give them that. There are plenty throughout the bible.

Are you calling Jesus a false prophet? Because it seems that you are.

Wow... now you're just trying anything. I am not calling him anything of the sort and please don't put words in my mouth. I am saying simply what the bible is saying... that there will be false prophets.

I am starting to think there is another reason why you keep attacking what God's Word says. I do not know but this usually is the case when people share these type of point of views.

Do tell. I'm here continuing to point out how you are blindly putting your faith into men because I initially saw something that I disagreed with while browsing this thread and people keep responding to me.

Men have invented a lot of false religions over the years.

The Bible is not and cannot be verified by God unless He reveals himself and says that it's his word.

Men verified the bible. They crafted everything you believe. You believe they crafted it as God wanted them to because they told you they did, nothing more.

That's all I'm saying. There's certainly a chance that the Bible is actually 100% the inerrant word of God. There's a chance that it is partially the word of God but corrupted by human hearts and hands. There is a chance that it's all made up. There's no scientific proof that you can generate to shatter or prove any of those. I ask that christian apologetics all over the world stop trying. Please. It is a losing battle and if you value your faith and continue to fight a hopeless fight you definitely run the risk of ruining it.

Don't be upset or angry. Listen to the words of James now:

Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.

 

[wayward archer]

Not possible since people actually met with Paul to verufy hos account. Again, there was no reason to trust Paul. The only option would be a conspiracy for no particular purpose.

Yet another "It would have to be a conspiracy so it obviously didn't happen!" This is not a great argument.

Even if I humor you and assume God gave all these people who 'verified' Paul's account some kind of magic truth detector so they were taking God's word for it and not just Paul's, you still can't escape that in Galatians he describes his message as something that was not taught to him (so... no pre-existing Jewish Doctrine, and certainly nothing the apostles were saying). He either made it up because he didn't want to follow Jewish law and get circumcised, or he really did receive a brand new secret message from Jesus. You're still going by his word alone there.

Paul and Peter did not hang around the same circles. Paul was on the go constantly and had no need to buddy up with Peter even if they respected and liked each other. They certainly agreed on teachings

They disagreed on a bunch of stuff including circumcision and whether or not you were supposed to follow Jewish Law. Paul's theology was that you merely need to have faith in Jesus Christ. Try and avoid sin, but God will forgive you if you do stray.

there's no contradiction at all between Peter's writings and Paul's. Why should there be since they are a part of the same congregation.

Peter probably wrote one book that made it into the bible, so that's kinda an empty claim. Paul writes a bunch that says Peter, James and those that follow circumcision and the law are wrong. He says this a lot actually.

 

[wayward archer]

JGS, Game Analyst,

I was born into a Christian family. I accepted Jesus into my life as my Lord and Personal Savior at age 6. I probably really didn't understand what that meant then, but I knew that I loved Jesus and wanted to serve him. Throughout my teenage years my faith was incredibly important to me. I read the bible every day and went to church 3 times a week... Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening. I surrounded myself with friends who were believers and I could have never imagined that many years later I would be where I am today.

I got interested in texual criticism when I first heard about the Nag Hammadi and was curious about it. I remember my youth group minister actually told me not to mess with that stuff but I did anyway. I had read the New Testament probably 10 times all the way through to that point, including following along with commentaries.

I read the Nag Hammadi once and laughed it off as foolishness. It was so obvious to me why this wasn't in the bible. But I knew that people were still talking about it in some circles so I would join in on those discussions. This was back in the day when usenet was still big so there was a good place to talk about religion back then. That's when I was introduced to textual criticism. Now to me this stuff was really fascinating. Stuff like how you could actually logically pick out the various authors of the old testament by the word patterns they used for instance. I ate it up.

All this time I was still strong in my faith. God's presence in my life felt very, very real to me.

In 1998 I read Lee Strobel's the Case for Christ. I didn't understand why someone needed to make a book to verify the bible, but I wanted to read it because it contained textual criticism as well as provide counterpoints to such criticism that attempted to contradict the bible.

When I finished reading that book I was very angry. I didn't like it. I hated it. One guy he interviews says that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all disciples of Christ. I knew Luke says he wasn't, but here was a guy claiming he did. I felt really insulted by the conclusions this book wanted me to draw. It's like expecting a home run and getting a single. He doesn't go all the way and score. Furthermore I knew a ton of people who loved the book and were perfectly satisfied by it. These people are kinda like you guys I think, their faith is so strong it filled in those gaps with ease. All they need is a gentle push to stay on course. I guess I needed something else. Anyway that really hurt my faith, but it didn't break it.

So I went looking for someone who could really prove it to me. I kept looking. And looking. C.S. Lewis, whose christian works I love (and still do), suddenly became hollow and empty to me. Weird that I still like him as much as I do but I do. Nobody could knock one out of the park. I remember a college youth minister telling me "faith is what carries the ball out of the park". I do actually think that soothed me for a while.

I started reading everything I could at that point. My faith in Biblical innerancy was still fairly intact. At this point I was no longer a Young Earth Creationist, but that was ok with me because I accepted that parts of the bible were metaphor and story, and their message was what was important, not the facts contained in them. So I think I can safely say science was not hurting my faith.

The inability of anyone to deliver that mythical 'home run' that I was after led me to try and write my own. This is when I wanted to become a Christian Apologist and come up with something so convincing that it would at least get a little closer to what I was trying to accomplish.

I'll just tell you now, I really don't think it's possible. I went way down the rabbit hole. I read everybody. And unfortunately, for me, the holes you can poke can't really be filled except by speculation, and the proofs are thin. Real thin. At least they are to me.

JGS, your "It'd have to be a conspiracy" thing is something that a ton of Christian apologists say. The thing is: it doesn't always have to be a conspiracy, if one man can simply convince another that what he is saying is true, then they can put on the appearance of two that really believe. Also sometimes the person declaring something really does believe it. The other thing is this... sometimes conspiracies do actually happen. They happen all the time, throughout history. If you believe Islam is fake and that Mohammad and his immediate followers knew it then there'd have to be a conspiracy there, too. Did L.Ron Hubbard really tell people at a card game he was going to start a conspiracy? If Scientology is fake then there's a conspiracy there, too.

You think people can't lie for Christianity's sake? Ex-christians admit to it all the time. Current Christians are caught in lies sometimes too. Are they lying about lying? Are they all 'fake' christians? The idea of Paul exaggerating his miraculous conversion makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than it actually happening. He gained a lot from that conversion, he became a major figure in the Church. Many smaller churches sent money to him. He thanks a church in one letter for sending money. Were humans so infaillable back then that this couldn't happen? Can nobody lie in Jesus' name? Benny Hinn isn't pulling a scam? God isn't stopping him. He's got lots of followers who will swear up and down that they really saw him healing people. Does the fact that this would have to be a conspiracy automatically make it true?

Anyway, I went too far. I am incapable of believing like a child. I am quite certain that my own personal insulation up until the point when I got curious about the Nag Hammadi protected my faith better than any proof I could come up with myself.

If I have done so then I am sorry for attacking your beliefs, and the beliefs of all Christians. I am not sorry for pointing out the arguments you are using are weak and ineffectual. I don't think Christian Apologia is useful. It is a vain desire to provide the evidence that the bible says only God can provide us now. I don't want to strip your faith away. The one Christian philosopher I still connect with strongly is Kierkegaard, and he basically said "Yes, faith is irrational... but maybe we need some irrational in our lives". In a weird way that makes a lot of sense to me. I have no interest in pushing that irrationality onto any other person however.

One of the weird things about my conversion away from mainstream modern christian thought is that I still connect very much with the ideas of Jesus. I think he was a very important person and I think that his ideas are powerful. Did he actually ressurect? I don't know. I'm not going to say that miracles weren't real. Read all my previous posts and you'll never see me claim that.

If your faith is strong in Jesus, then you don't need to hear me say any of this. If the bible works for you, I hope it it keeps on working for you. I hope your faith stays strong and you do the kind of good that Jesus instructs us to do.

This is not in any way my "i'm giving up post". Just a personal, direct, conversation that I wanted to share with you.

 

[paranoidfortean]

I think he was a very important person and I think that his ideas are powerful. Did he actually ressurect? I don't know. I'm not going to say that miracles weren't real. Read all my previous posts and you'll never see me claim that.

i think your post is incredibly valid and wish all people would look at it like this. in short, don't be a dick. unfortunately we live in a world of anger, fear, volatility, and fanaticism. we, as people, could all overcome this hump of anger if we just wanted to.

 

[JGS]

JGS, Game Analyst,

I was born into a Christian family. I accepted Jesus into my life as my Lord and Personal Savior at age 6. I probably really didn't understand what that meant then, but I knew that I loved Jesus and wanted to serve him. Throughout my teenage years my faith was incredibly important to me. I read the bible every day and went to church 3 times a week... Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening. I surrounded myself with friends who were believers and I could have never imagined that many years later I would be where I am today.

I got interested in texual criticism when I first heard about the Nag Hammadi and was curious about it. I remember my youth group minister actually told me not to mess with that stuff but I did anyway. I had read the New Testament probably 10 times all the way through to that point, including following along with commentaries.

I read the Nag Hammadi once and laughed it off as foolishness. It was so obvious to me why this wasn't in the bible. But I knew that people were still talking about it in some circles so I would join in on those discussions. This was back in the day when usenet was still big so there was a good place to talk about religion back then. That's when I was introduced to textual criticism. Now to me this stuff was really fascinating. Stuff like how you could actually logically pick out the various authors of the old testament by the word patterns they used for instance. I ate it up.

All this time I was still strong in my faith. God's presence in my life felt very, very real to me.

In 1998 I read Lee Strobel's the Case for Christ. I didn't understand why someone needed to make a book to verify the bible, but I wanted to read it because it contained textual criticism as well as provide counterpoints to such criticism that attempted to contradict the bible.

When I finished reading that book I was very angry. I didn't like it. I hated it. One guy he interviews says that Mark, Matthew, and Luke were all disciples of Christ. I knew Luke says he wasn't, but here was a guy claiming he did. I felt really insulted by the conclusions this book wanted me to draw. It's like expecting a home run and getting a single. He doesn't go all the way and score. Furthermore I knew a ton of people who loved the book and were perfectly satisfied by it. These people are kinda like you guys I think, their faith is so strong it filled in those gaps with ease. All they need is a gentle push to stay on course. I guess I needed something else. Anyway that really hurt my faith, but it didn't break it.

So I went looking for someone who could really prove it to me. I kept looking. And looking. C.S. Lewis, whose christian works I love (and still do), suddenly became hollow and empty to me. Weird that I still like him as much as I do but I do. Nobody could knock one out of the park. I remember a college youth minister telling me "faith is what carries the ball out of the park". I do actually think that soothed me for a while.

I started reading everything I could at that point. My faith in Biblical innerancy was still fairly intact. At this point I was no longer a Young Earth Creationist, but that was ok with me because I accepted that parts of the bible were metaphor and story, and their message was what was important, not the facts contained in them. So I think I can safely say science was not hurting my faith.

The inability of anyone to deliver that mythical 'home run' that I was after led me to try and write my own. This is when I wanted to become a Christian Apologist and come up with something so convincing that it would at least get a little closer to what I was trying to accomplish.

I'll just tell you now, I really don't think it's possible. I went way down the rabbit hole. I read everybody. And unfortunately, for me, the holes you can poke can't really be filled except by speculation, and the proofs are thin. Real thin. At least they are to me.

JGS, your "It'd have to be a conspiracy" thing is something that a ton of Christian apologists say. The thing is: it doesn't always have to be a conspiracy, if one man can simply convince another that what he is saying is true, then they can put on the appearance of two that really believe. Also sometimes the person declaring something really does believe it. The other thing is this... sometimes conspiracies do actually happen. They happen all the time, throughout history. If you believe Islam is fake and that Mohammad and his immediate followers knew it then there'd have to be a conspiracy there, too. Did L.Ron Hubbard really tell people at a card game he was going to start a conspiracy? If Scientology is fake then there's a conspiracy there, too.

You think people can't lie for Christianity's sake? Ex-christians admit to it all the time. Current Christians are caught in lies sometimes too. Are they lying about lying? Are they all 'fake' christians? The idea of Paul exaggerating his miraculous conversion makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than it actually happening. He gained a lot from that conversion, he became a major figure in the Church. Many smaller churches sent money to him. He thanks a church in one letter for sending money. Were humans so infaillable back then that this couldn't happen? Can nobody lie in Jesus' name? Benny Hinn isn't pulling a scam? God isn't stopping him. He's got lots of followers who will swear up and down that they really saw him healing people. Does the fact that this would have to be a conspiracy automatically make it true?

Anyway, I went too far. I am incapable of believing like a child. I am quite certain that my own personal insulation up until the point when I got curious about the Nag Hammadi protected my faith better than any proof I could come up with myself.

If I have done so then I am sorry for attacking your beliefs, and the beliefs of all Christians. I am not sorry for pointing out the arguments you are using are weak and ineffectual. I don't think Christian Apologia is useful. It is a vain desire to provide the evidence that the bible says only God can provide us now. I don't want to strip your faith away. The one Christian philosopher I still connect with strongly is Kierkegaard, and he basically said "Yes, faith is irrational... but maybe we need some irrational in our lives". In a weird way that makes a lot of sense to me. I have no interest in pushing that irrationality onto any other person however.

One of the weird things about my conversion away from mainstream modern christian thought is that I still connect very much with the ideas of Jesus. I think he was a very important person and I think that his ideas are powerful. Did he actually ressurect? I don't know. I'm not going to say that miracles weren't real. Read all my previous posts and you'll never see me claim that.

If your faith is strong in Jesus, then you don't need to hear me say any of this. If the bible works for you, I hope it it keeps on working for you. I hope your faith stays strong and you do the kind of good that Jesus instructs us to do.

This is not in any way my "i'm giving up post". Just a personal, direct, conversation that I wanted to share with you.

I'm awake due to my stupid dog barking.

Thanks and, for the record, I have no problems with your views on anything. Keep sharing them since that is what arguing/debating is for.

We simply disagree on a large scale about the level of lies and deceit that went into writing the Bible and verifying the scriptures. This is not unusual. However, I see little to no basis in regards to the things you bring up and my disagreements have nothing to do with your background. I would be making the same cases to the writers that influenced you because they speak incorrectly too.

True faith is not irrational anymore than conviction or confidence is irrational. True faith can easily back up what is strengthening it. Quite frankly, it is irrational to hold onto views that exists solely to question the accuracy of what's been verified to a reasonable degree. If what we engaged in was me being an apologist, then apologist is a very good thing to be and seems to merely be a counterpoint to skeptic.

It's perfectly fine to not accept all of Christian Doctrine. Most don't. It is not fine to think that the doctrine is fragmented between Paul & Jesus when they coincide just fine. It really just boils down to what ones accept and don't accept. The annoyance (& that's all it is, not a test of faith & not anything anger inducing) is trying to justify why one doesn't accept a portion by saying the ones who accept it all are doing so irrationally.

I guess in my half sleep stupor, I'm saying this: You haven't gone too far. In fact, you haven't gone far enough in showing why I may be wrong and you have nothing to worry about regarding my faith being stripped away. Nothing has been said to actually cause that and I truly look forward to the day when that happens. I certainly don't want to remain ignorant in attempts to educate me.

 

[wayward archer]

It is not fine to think that the doctrine is fragmented between Paul & Jesus when they coincide just fine.

There was something I wanted to say in an earlier post that addresses this directly and I think you are missing my entire point here by harping on this.

You think the consistency of the bible's message is something special about it. But i'm asking you to consider the very real fact that Biblical canon was selected by men who were looking exactly for that kind of consistency.

Going back several posts of mine, I posted a letter by Saint Clement congratulating a servant/friend/peer for 'silencing' the message of "Secret Mark". If you read that letter carefully, Clement himself admits Secret Mark was probably written by Mark, but corrupted somehow ("It must have been!" is the automatic snap-to judgement). Without studying the works himself, he arbitrarily passes judgement on it. No one else will ever be able to study that document because the Church so heavily filtered itself.

Look at it this way. The book of Thomas is perfectly compatible with the first three gospels. The Gospel of Peter and Hebrews is too. But they're not compatible with Paul.

Men selected the Bible. Despite anything else you might think, any conclusions you draw from the text or the consistency of the message, that is a leap of faith that you will always be making. You may not even be wrong, but you still have to trust those men did the right thing.

This link is highly relevant:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/

 

[JGS]

Yet another "It would have to be a conspiracy so it obviously didn't happen!" This is not a great argument.

I didn't say that. I said the only way it could happen was by conspiracy. Big difference.

The only part that is impossible is saying that Paul acted alone in the deception. It's not impossible at all for there to be a conspiracy, just highly unlikely.

I really wish you would call it that and then explain how it would be possible. I'm actually looking forward to this and I promise my mind is open to it if only you would show something rather than state something. Right now, you're just accusing me of the opposite of what you're saying- Pot calling kettle black stuff.

Even if I humor you and assume God gave all these people who 'verified' Paul's account some kind of magic truth detector so they were taking God's word for it and not just Paul's, you still can't escape that in Galatians he describes his message as something that was not taught to him (so... no pre-existing Jewish Doctrine, and certainly nothing the apostles were saying). He either made it up because he didn't want to follow Jewish law and get circumcised, or he really did receive a brand new secret message from Jesus. You're still going by his word alone there.

I don't get what you're saying about no Jewish Doctrine since Paul was a Jew (A scholar actually). He was circumcised as a Jew and was still saying that it's not necessary as a Christian - a decision that was made by the Governing Body in Jerusalem well before the letter, but he was also a citizen of Rome. At the time of his conversion, it wasn't taught to him by disciples. He went to preaching immediately upon his sight being restored.

You have no reason to take my word for this since Acts 9 brings it out clear as day. So even if there is a conspiracy, your story isn't telling the whole story.

You will have to tell me what his brand new message is because Galatians is one of his last letters and it repeats the views that showed up in one his first. It's interesting to see how much harsher he gets as the years go on because the congregation simply does not get that it's not needed anymore.

But I digress. Paul makes clear by the use of "we" repeatedly that this message is not his alone. I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again, his reminders in Galatians clearly point to him involving the apostles throughout the history of his conversion and regarding the Law issues. Your point is completely wrong on this and it makes it seem like you've read a book about Paul rather than Paul's writings.

They disagreed on a bunch of stuff including circumcision and whether or not you were supposed to follow Jewish Law. Paul's theology was that you merely need to have faith in Jesus Christ. Try and avoid sin, but God will forgive you if you do stray.

Not true. Peter was part of the group that decided that following the Law (Except for 3 or 4 items) was unnecesary.

Peter in the beginning was simply prejudiced to his own people by nature, so he preferred their company even though he readily admitted from the beginning (Holding the keys to unlock salvation for everyone not just the Jews) that all can gain salvation. Paul, on the other hand, was used to being around far more different types of people, so he noticed it and had the matter corrected so that Peter's actions matched up 100% with the obvious original teaching.

There is no evidence that by the time Peter wrote his letters that there was any dispute between them. Them having possible disagreements is as normal as...well people having disagreements. None of it was over doctrine though...unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Rereading the Peters (It's pretty short and takes minutes), the teaching is near identical to Paul's with the obvious different writing styles. Of course, if there are other letters out there not in canon, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that there are contradictions since they are likely disreputable.

 

[Chaplain]

Please. It is a losing battle and if you value your faith and continue to fight a hopeless fight you definitely run the risk of ruining it.

My faith is secure in Jesus. You cannot do anything to my faith because my faith does not belong to you or depend on what you say.

Don't be upset or angry. Listen to the words of James now

I am not upset. I am not responsible for what you do with God's Word or His Son. I am here to point you in the right direction. What you do with that information is up to you.

Side note:

I thought you might enjoy this study on 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

There are those who say, “I believe that the Bible is inspired and that it contains God’s Word,” but with them I disagree. The Bible doesn’t contain God’s Word; the Bible is God’s Word. Whenever liberal theologians say the Bible contains God’s Word, the implication is that it might also contain man’s word. If I say, “Part of Scripture is God’s Word, but part is man’s ideas or myths,” I become the ultimate judge, deciding what is God’s Word and what are man’s thoughts.

If I attribute to God “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,” (Romans 8:1) and “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,” (Philippians 4:23), but I attribute to Paul “Present your bodies a living sacrifice,” (Romans 12:1) and “Those who live godly will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12), I judge the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to judge me.

Following, are four reasons I am theologically and academically convinced that every word of Scripture—even the “begats” and the genealogies—is inspired.

Internal Unity

The Bible is comprised of sixty-six books written by an extremely diverse group of forty human authors. We see a king in Solomon, a herdsman in Amos, a tax collector in Matthew, a scholar in Paul, a general in Joshua, a doctor in Luke, a poet in David, a prime minister in Daniel, and a building contractor in Jeremiah.

Not only did these men come from widely diverse backgrounds, but their writings span fifteen hundred years and are comprised of three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

I challenge you to find three men writing textbooks today on any subject who will completely agree. There is incredible unity in the Bible—unlike anything man could produce.

Archaeological Validity

“If My disciples are quiet, even the stones will cry out,” Jesus declared (Luke 19:40). Guess what. The stones are crying out. What stones? The stones uncovered by the archaeologists’ spades.

Julius Wellhousen made a huge impact on theology in the late 1800s when he said that, due to the fact that there were no kings near the Dead Sea at the time, the Bible could not be taken literally. He maintained that the battle between four kings from Mesopotamia and five kings from the Dead Sea region could not have taken place (Genesis 14). Poor Julius. Archaeologists in Egypt unearthed a library filled with tablets that contain a perfect description of the battle in which four Mesopotamian kings did indeed wage war against five kings near the Dead Sea.

Dr. John Gerstang, one of the primary excavators of Jericho, noted that, when an ancient city is excavated, the walls fall inward. The walls of Jericho actually fell outward and covered an unbelievable distance. “It was as though someone from the inside was shoving the walls out,” said Gerstang, calling the force an “invisible hand.”

According to Nelson Gluick, a brilliant Jewish archaeologist, “It may be categorically stated that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single Bible reference.”

Fulfilled Prophecy

In addition to the Bible, there is another book that contains prophecy. In the Koran, Mohammed says, “Before I die, I will go to Jerusalem.” That’s like me saying, “Before I die, I will return to Jacksonville.” There is a great probability that will happen. Besides that single reference, the Koran does not address prophecy. Neither does any so-called “holy book.” In the Old Testament alone, more than two thousand prophecies have come to pass. That’s amazing!

Turn with me to Ezekiel. I never tire of this prophecy because it’s fulfilled so beautifully and convincingly. It deals with the city of Tyre. Maybe that’s why I never “tire” of it.

“Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,’ says the Lord GOD; ‘it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the LORD.’ Ezekiel 26:3–6

In other words, “I’m going to flatten Tyre,” said God.

Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre in 586 B.C. However, he didn’t “scrape her dust from her,” as Ezekiel had prophesied. Two hundred and twenty-five years later, Alexander the Great besieged the city that had been rebuilt. For thirteen years, the people of Tyre didn’t give up. When they could hold out no longer, they left out the back door and rebuilt the city on a little island a half mile off the coast. When Alexander finally broke in and found everyone gone, he ordered his men to throw every remaining stone, column, and bit of timber into the sea so that a bridge could be constructed to the island. Although the original city of Tyre was now “scraped clean,” the prophecy was still not fulfilled because now there was a new city of Tyre.

Fast forward to A.D. 1290. When the Crusaders came to free the Holy Land from “Muslim infidels,” they moved into the city of Tyre, which was now connected to the mainland. Eight years later, when the Crusaders were driven back to England, the Muslims said, “This city is so defiled that every stone must be thrown into the sea.”

If you go to Tyre today, guess what you see. Nothing. It’s flat like a rock and has become a place where fishermen park their boats—“like the top of a rock, a place to spread nets.”
Because there is a spring in Tyre that produces one hundred thousand gallons of water every six hours, this area should be home to a huge city. It’s not, however, because the people in the region think the area is cursed.

“I will make Tyre flat like a rock. The city will never be built again, and it will only be a place for fishing nets to be dried out upon,” declared God. That’s exactly what happened.

There are 221 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells us the manner of His birth. Daniel 9 declares the time of His birth. Micah 5 names the town of His birth. In Zechariah 11, we read how He would be sold for thirty pieces of silver, which would be thrown on the floor of the temple, and used to purchase a piece of property that would be used as a potter’s field.

What is the statistical probability of these six prophecies being fulfilled? One in 1017. Think of it this way:

Cover the entire state of California three feet deep in nuts and mark one nut with an X. Then go up in a plane with a flying squirrel named Rocky. Fly over the entire state and throw Rocky out at a random spot. Rocky comes down, sees the whole state covered in nuts and chooses one. The chances of him choosing the marked nut is one in 1017.

That’s only six prophecies. There are 221 Old Testament prophecies perfectly fulfilled in Jesus.
Jesus’ Credibility

“Surely many of the Old Testament stories are nothing more than myths,” scoffs the skeptic. Yet Jesus came on the scene and validated even the most controversial accounts when He talked about Lot’s wife turning to salt (Luke 17:32), Jonah in the belly of the great fish (Matthew 12:40), and the prophecies of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). As the Son of God, Jesus’ treatment of the above renders them true.

“Well, I don’t know if He is the Son of God,” some say.

“One sign I’ll give to you,” Jesus said. “Destroy this body and in three days I’ll rise again” (John 2:18, 19). Thus, the inspiration question actually is answered by His Resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, then He is the Son of God. If He is the Son of God, what He says about even the most controversial Old Testament stories is true.

“Well, how do you know Jesus really rose from the dead?” some ask. I’ve been to Jerusalem. I’ve seen His tomb. It’s empty. “Yeah, but the disciples could have stolen the body to perpetuate the hoax.”

Really? They watched their sons and daughters killed, their wives raped, were crucified upside down, stoned with rocks, and sawn in half to perpetuate the hoax? Surely, one of them would have cracked. One of them would have said, “Wait a minute. This has gone far enough. We stashed His body behind the tree in the garden. You’ll find it there.” But no one did because the disciples knew they had seen the Resurrected Jesus.

“Okay, it wasn’t the disciples. The Pharisees took Jesus’ body.”

If the Pharisees had stolen the body, they would only have had to produce it to halt the new religious “sect” of Christianity that threatened to undermine their authority.

“Then it was the Romans who took the body.”

Really? The Romans were desperate to put Christianity down. They fed Christians to the lions. They dipped them in hot wax and ignited them as human candles. To destroy Christianity, they would only have had to produce the body.

So, who stole the body? It couldn’t have been the disciples. It couldn’t have been the Jews. It couldn’t have been the Romans.

“Well, maybe the disciples just went to the wrong tomb.”

Would no one have double-checked?

“Maybe Jesus wasn’t really dead. Maybe He just swooned on the Cross. Maybe the sponge given to Him contained narcotics and He went into a coma.”

This school of thought requires that a man beaten beyond recognition, nailed to a tree, and placed in a tomb would have come out of his coma, rolled away a two-ton stone, and taken on one hundred fifty Roman soldiers before walking throughout the city, saying, “I’m risen.”
I’m sorry. I don’t have enough faith to believe that. Jesus didn’t swoon in the tomb. The women didn’t go to the wrong gravesite. The disciples, Romans, or Jewish leaders didn’t steal the body. No, the only intelligent position one can take is that Jesus rose from the grave just as He said He would.

“I’ll rise from the dead. That’s one sign I’ll give to you that I am who I claim to be,” Jesus declared (Matthew 12:39, 40).

Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God—rendering everything He said about Lot, Daniel, and Jonah equally true.

Spiritual Intimacy

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from use.… 1 Thessalonians 2:13

The word translated “received” is the Greek word paralambano, which means “to embrace intellectually.”

…you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13

The Greek word dechomai is also translated “received,” and it means “to embrace emotionally.”

“Lo, I come to you in the volume of the book,” says Jesus (Hebrews 10:7). Consequently, when you take in the Word, you’re seeing the nature and person of Jesus. It’s more than theology. You’re embracing Him personally and emotionally.

• The Word is bread (Matthew 4).
• “I am the Bread of life,” declared Jesus (John 6).
• The Word of God is truth (John 17).
• “I am the Truth,” declared Jesus (John 14).

When you read the Scriptures, you embrace the Lord because the Word and the Lord are intimately bound.

But the Word just seems to go through me like a sieve, you might be thinking. I can’t even remember what we studied last Wednesday night.

That’s okay. It does the job. It doesn’t return void (Isaiah 55:11). I don’t remember the last time I had a Quarter Pounder$sr with cheese, but I know the proteins, vitamins, and other “nutritious” ingredients for which it is famous did the job and kept me going.

I’ve studied Genesis before. Why study it again? you might be wondering.

When my wife, Tammy, fixes Chicken Kiev, I don’t say, “I ate that two months ago, so I think I’ll pass on that tonight.” No, I take in the same food again and again because it delights me every time. The same is true of the Word.

“I’m going to keep reminding you of the same truths over and over again,” Peter said. “I don’t care if you think I’m a creative teacher or not. You need to be established in truth” (2 Peter 1:12).

The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. Jeremiah 23:28
Men’s visions, ideas, and esoteric experiences are like chaff. They blow away. Not so the Word. It’s wheat. It nourishes. It endures. Study the Word, dear people of God. It will produce faith in your life, joy in your heart, and sustenance for your soul.

 

[JGS]

There was something I wanted to say in an earlier post that addresses this directly and I think you are missing my entire point here by harping on this.

You think the consistency of the bible's message is something special about it. But i'm asking you to consider the very real fact that Biblical canon was selected by men who were looking exactly for that kind of consistency.

Going back several posts of mine, I posted a letter by Saint Clement congratulating a servant/friend/peer for 'silencing' the message of "Secret Mark". If you read that letter carefully, Clement himself admits Secret Mark was probably written by Mark, but corrupted somehow ("It must have been!" is the automatic snap-to judgement). Without studying the works himself, he arbitrarily passes judgement on it. No one else will ever be able to study that document because the Church so heavily filtered itself.

Look at it this way. The book of Thomas is perfectly compatible with the first three gospels. The Gospel of Peter and Hebrews is too. But they're not compatible with Paul.

Men selected the Bible. Despite anything else you might think, any conclusions you draw from the text or the consistency of the message, that is a leap of faith that you will always be making. You may not even be wrong, but you still have to trust those men did the right thing.

This link is highly relevant:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/

This gets to the root of the matter. You prefer to hear a scholar you know nothing about over what is written. I've already considered and again, you can't blame me for accepting my view as a result of lack of evidence for your view.

I read the blog but it's largely incorrect. Quite frankly, your arguments are better. This guy is full of "derp" and appears to be concerned with book sales. he should have just started a blog like every other skeptic.

For example, he accuses Peter of being illiterate because he is unlettered based on a word (agrammatoi) that doesn't mean illiterate. He claims that the words are identical when they aren't related at all. Peter lacked the educational pedigree of a religious leader. There is no indication that he actually couldn't read. In fact, a big part of the Law required knowng how to read so that one could read the Law.

He mentions differences between 1 Corinthians 11 & 14 about women, but fails to get the context of the verses. He throws in that forgers were needed to settle disputes but apparently they sucked at it since a large portion of the NT is about settling those disputes. Why not simply write that everyone was happy to forsake the Law?

No one is disputing forgeries, just whether they were they made it to canon. I'm willing to concede they did IF (& it is apparently a big IF) the reasonongs are sound and verifiable. The reasonings this guy gave don't hold water anymore than yours does.

 

[wayward archer]

My faith is secure in Jesus. You cannot do anything to my faith because my faith does not belong to you or depend on what you say.



I am not upset. I am not responsible for what you do with God's Word or His Son. I am here to point you in the right direction. What you do with that information is up to you.

Side note:

I thought you might enjoy this study on 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

I'm glad your faith is secure.

Thanks for the study. I read it fully but there really isn't anything in there I haven't seen before.

This is the kind of stuff that many scholars can't take seriously.

There are 221 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells us the manner of His birth.

Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son - Isaiah 7

The word they are translating to mean virgin does not imply virginity at all. It means young woman, and no wordplay you can ever conjure up will change this. The prophecy of Isaiah 7 is fulfilled in Isaiah 8.

Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, “Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.”
5 The LORD spoke to me again:

6 “Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks
8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
Immanuel!”

People trying to prove the bible inerrant often accuse others of picking and choosing verses, but then turn and do the same thing themselves. They ignore the rest of Isaiah where that prophecy is more than likely fulfilled. They ignore the context of that prophecy. The child prophesied there is meant to be a sign of the coming of Assyria. After this child is born the LORD will "bring the King of Assyria".

Look at the context. I know your eyes will not be opened, you have already decided.

Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

 

[wayward archer]

This gets to the root of the matter. You prefer to hear a scholar you know nothing about over what is written. I've already considered and again, you can't blame me for accepting my view as a result of lack of evidence for your view.

I don't prefer to hear a scholar I know nothing about over what is written. I am not willing to accept on blind faith that "what was written" is the truth simply because it was in the bible, because I know a lot about how the bible was created. I'd wager I know a lot more than you and Game Analyst combined. If I am wrong you have not shown me so.

Someone who believes in the inerrancy of the bible must believe in 4 main points (more if you want to break each point down into distinct sub points).

1. It actually happened. We're not debating this, although I am well versed in many theories why and why not this could be the case.

2. It was recorded accurately. There is a lot here that is up for debate as well

3. That the initial records were not altered in any way. Did you know that one of the earliest copies of Mark we have doesn't contain the ressurection story? Food for thought.

4. That from everything that was recorded, the "most correct" works were chosen for the bible without human bias being involved. This is mostly what I am talking about here... although the depth of this matter goes MUCH deeper than we have touched on.

I read the blog but it's largely incorrect. Quite frankly, your arguments are better

Bart Erhman is pretty well respected... well, not amongst many devout christian scholars. He has studied this all his life. I have not read "Forged" but I highly recommend his other books.

His premise is sound: We do not know who actually wrote these books. We do know that there is evidence that some of them were more than likely not written by who they claim to be.

Do you not see how you dismiss him? "He is incorrect." Everything he says is incorrect? You've read the book I take it and researched his claims on your own?

 

[wayward archer]

It's a nice day here and I have lots to do... I probably won't read neogaf again this weekend so I offer this to the both of you. It is not a concession of defeat nor a declaration of victory on my part. All this time I have never once said that the bible absolutely isn't true ("John is fan fiction." doesn't mean in my mind that it doesn't contain elements of truth, it's very possible the author took a real story and inserted himself into it. It's also possible that it was John although this is not my opinion.) I have raised questions which I do not have satisfactory answers for, and unless you have new revolutionary evidence to show me, this will continue to be the case. Likewise I have come to believe both of you have faith that cannot be affected by words that call into question the bible itself. I respect this faith.

Let's close this discussion with a final statement from me that I believe the two of you will not disagree with. If you insist on retorting anything such as my last two responses to each of you then I will gladly be back on Monday to read, absorb, and respond.

That final statement is: I do not argue at all that there is a possibility that the Bible is the inspired, truthful word of God.

Peace.

 

[Chaplain]

The word they are translating to mean virgin does not imply virginity at all. It means young woman, and no wordplay you can ever conjure up will change this. The prophecy of Isaiah 7 is fulfilled in Isaiah 8.

I do not agree since Matthew uses the same verse to explain that Mary would give birth to Jesus.

Also, that verse says the child would be God. Isaiah 9 goes onto give further explanation that it would be God himself in this child.

"For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us.
The government will rest on his shoulders.
And he will be called:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His government and its peace
will never end.
He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David
for all eternity."

Prophecy usually has a present fulfilling and a future fulfilling. Like when Jesus read from Isaiah. He only quoted part of the verse. He did not read the rest of the verse because that referred to his second coming and the wrath of God being poured out on the Christ rejecting world.

They ignore the context of that prophecy. The child prophesied there is meant to be a sign of the coming of Assyria. After this child is born the LORD will "bring the King of Assyria".

Again, prophecy has a present fulfilling and a future fulfilling.

Look at the context. I know your eyes will not be opened, you have already decided.

I am looking at the context. That is why I said what I did.

I don't prefer to hear a scholar I know nothing about over what is written. I am not willing to accept on blind faith that "what was written" is the truth simply because it was in the bible, because I know a lot about how the bible was created.

Knowing and doing are not the same thing. The pharisees knew the scriptures but did not know God. Knowledge puffs up and I have seen many a strong Christian go down the route you have gone and then stopped progressing.

I'd wager I know a lot more than you and Game Analyst combined.

I would rather know the little that I do know and continue walking with God, then learn more and stop walking with God.

3. That the initial records were not altered in any way. Did you know that one of the earliest copies of Mark we have doesn't contain the ressurection story? Food for thought.

But if you did some research you would learn that some of the early church fathers quoted from Mark and mentioned the resurrection story. The same goes for 1 John 5 and the rapture. If you do the digging you will see what we have is accurate.

We do not know who actually wrote these books. We do know that there is evidence that some of them were more than likely not written by who they claim to be.

Well he is wrong. Why take his word over Peter, Paul's or John's?

Do you not see how you dismiss him?

I dismiss what he says not the him as a person.

What you are presenting is not trusting what the Bible says. That it doesn't mean what it says. Why would I want to miss out on what God says for my life? I have experienced the power of His Word and have been transformed in so many areas of my character because I did what He said. I am free because of His Son and Word. Why would I want to go back into a life that focused on lies when it destroyed my life?

 

[JGS]

I don't prefer to hear a scholar I know nothing about over what is written. I am not willing to accept on blind faith that "what was written" is the truth simply because it was in the bible, because I know a lot about how the bible was created. I'd wager I know a lot more than you and Game Analyst combined. If I am wrong you have not shown me so.

There's nothing I have said that indicates I do this.

Someone who believes in the inerrancy of the bible must believe in 4 main points (more if you want to break each point down into distinct sub points).

1. It actually happened. We're not debating this, although I am well versed in many theories why and why not this could be the case.

This is the only thing disputable and only on the basis of the impossibility of miracles (By definition)

2. It was recorded accurately. There is a lot here that is up for debate as well

There could be if only it were revealed. Debate without finding is largely meaningless though.

3. That the initial records were not altered in any way. Did you know that one of the earliest copies of Mark we have doesn't contain the ressurection story? Food for thought.

Means nothing. Most ancient texts are fragments, not just Biblical ones. There are plenty of copies of each part which adds to the integrity of the whole. The funny thing about Mark is there is a question about one section that doubtful and marked as such in most scripture.

4. That from everything that was recorded, the "most correct" works were chosen for the bible without human bias being involved. This is mostly what I am talking about here... although the depth of this matter goes MUCH deeper than we have touched on.

This has nothing to do with the most correct works. It has to do with the most accepted works. They weren't chosen at random and they weren't chosen at the same time. Further it makes sense to accept the works that correspond to the whole because that validates that they match up in themes ascribed to Jesus and his apostles.

It is not an odd thing to think that if something is written in contradiction to another thing written, that the contradiction would not hold muster.

Bart Erhman is pretty well respected... well, not amongst many devout christian scholars. He has studied this all his life. I have not read "Forged" but I highly recommend his other books.

You are basically saying that Bart is respected amongst skeptics which makes complete sense. His extremely basic understanding of context and even his translation skills are lacking. He is a person looking to sell a stiry on a made up controversy. It probably worked as his book probably sold thousands rather than the dozens it would have normally sold.

His premise is sound: We do not know who actually wrote these books. We do know that there is evidence that some of them were more than likely not written by who they claim to be.

We do know who wrote them and even if we didn't, jumping to the conclusion that they were fraudulent/forged is a leap of Grand Canyon proportions- especialy since he uses the harmony in the Bible to try to disprove the harmony in the Bible. You are better at this because at least you go outsiode the Bible for your doubts.

Do you not see how you dismiss him? "He is incorrect." Everything he says is incorrect? You've read the book I take it and researched his claims on your own?

That isn't dismissing him. This is me saying that he's wrong on the points brought out in the blog. This leads me to believe the rest of the book is wrong too. It's that whole first impressions thing and if this is his strongest material, I wouldn't want to waste time on the filler either.

Seriously think of that for a second on what one of his arguments is:

It is impossible for Peter to be one of the Bible's writers because, in the Bible, he is described as unlearned which of course means he can't read. Wat? This guy MUST define unlearned as illiterate to validate his point- which is incorrect. This guy MUST ignore the speech Peter gave just a few verses earlier where he quotes from OT scripture. If you're going to say Peter is illiterate, at least use something that won't disprove the whacky statement. Quite frankly he sounded very elitist since a fisherman apparently is expected to be illiterate.

He may be a genius but to this point he is a moron. This is like accepting Uwe Boll as a good writer because he has a doctorate in writing (He really does). That doesn't mean his films still don't suck.

Peter was far from illiterate and only someone illiterate to Scripture would think so. Honestly you do the same thing as you continually ignore the information in Acts as a justification to dismiss other parts of the Bible. You have to so I don't blame you but I don't understand why you say I dismiss stuff just by reading the scripture they're based on.

 

[phisheep]

I think, gentlemen, that we are making rather too much of the "illiterate" thing.

There are plenty of people even now who despite being unable to read and write are nevertheless learned, erudite and fluent thinkers and talkers. Illiterate doesn't mean what we in the educated West think of it as meaning - usually as someone too stupid to learn to read and write - it simply means they don't read and write.

And in a society largely built upon word-of-mouth that is by no means the handicap it seems to us.

There's no reason at all an illiterate person couldn't produce a book, provided they have a scribe or two handy.

 

[Zaptruder]

My faith is secure in Jesus. You cannot do anything to my faith because my faith does not belong to you or depend on what you say.

Yes! That is the true nature of faith!

Spoiler

Independent of reason, rationality or evidence!

Of course having true faith is a little more difficult than saying one has true faith.

But, making that assertion does mean one is pretty closed off from other forms of thinking, by default.

 

[Nocebo]

I didn't say that. I said the only way it could happen was by conspiracy. Big difference.

So is the Koran all true? Or is it a giant conspiracy?

This has nothing to do with the most correct works. It has to do with the most accepted works. They weren't chosen at random and they weren't chosen at the same time. Further it makes sense to accept the works that correspond to the whole because that validates that they match up in themes ascribed to Jesus and his apostles.

I don't understand how there could have been a "whole" before the bible was constructed.

 

[jaxword]

So is the Koran all true? Or is it a giant conspiracy?

One thing you will notice about religious arguing: People who are hardcore into Christianity or Islam have their arguments primed and ready to take on the atheists/nonbelievers.

However...these same people, they know who they are, very rarely open fire on each other. I've yet to see the most fundamentalist Christians on this forum openly argue with the Fundamentalist Muslims with the same fire and vigor. Maybe it IS happening in PMs or something, but rarely in these religious threads.

It's like schoolyard bullying. Pick on the easy target, the lower weight class, but not the big boy the same size as you.

 

[OttomanScribe]

One thing you will notice about religious arguing: People who are hardcore into Christianity or Islam have their arguments primed and ready to take on the atheists/nonbelievers.

However...these same people, they know who they are, very rarely open fire on each other. I've yet to see the most fundamentalist Christians on this forum openly argue with the Fundamentalist Muslims with the same fire and vigor. Maybe it IS happening in PMs or something, but rarely in these religious threads.

It's like schoolyard bullying. Pick on the easy target, the lower weight class, but not the big boy the same size as you.

Really? There have been many debates.

Also on Gaf, we are hardly either equal size, or picking on the poor ickle atheists.