lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Christianity
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 09-26-2003, 12:19 PM   #1
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
Christianity

Do u think their is a heaven or hell i don't really think their is i mean i believe in heaven but not hell i don't think that you will burn somewhere for an eternity, i think that is bull to me but i believe their is a heaven and their is a god but i don't think their is a devil, i just don't think it is. Voice me your opinion on this matter cause i have hear alot people don't believe in god or the devil i need to know if you guys agree or don't. I agree about god but not heaven ok.




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 12:28 PM   #2
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Thumbs down

I disagree, how do believe in heaven but no hell? Think about it like this, people go to heaven as a reward, but people go to hell as a punishment. Why would God reward the bad, as well as the good? When you do things agianst God, should God just ignore it? Unless you ask for forgivness.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 12:36 PM   #3
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
no i think if god rewards the good then the bad spirit should stay in their graves and suffer, but i just don't think their is an hell at all, i mean why would their be a place of only flames and a man with a pitchfork and horns, i just don't think their is one




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 12:41 PM   #4
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
no i think if god rewards the good then the bad spirit should stay in their graves and suffer, but i just don't think their is an hell at all, i mean why would their be a place of only flames and a man with a pitchfork and horns, i just don't think their is one
There is no pitchfork...

Why couldnt there be? Your entitled to your opinion. Anyways, being stuck in a grave suffering is pretty much like hell, right? There might be flames, in hell, but theres a lot more than that.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 12:44 PM   #5
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
Quote:
Anyways, being stuck in a grave suffering is pretty much like hell, right? There might be flames, in hell, but theres a lot more than that.
ok i think their is a difference between suffering in a grave and suffering in hell with flames but i still don't think their is one, like what luke?




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 02:32 PM   #6
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I think that the major failing of humanity is that we refuse to acknowledge that our lives are temporary.

We are born and have a lifespan of 75-100 years then die. Afterdeath beliefs abound in nearly every culture and religion of the world, which is likely a manifestation of the denial that we have about ceasing to exist.

Life is precious, particularly to humans, since we are the only animals on the planet (that we know of) that are self-aware. Dogs and cats do not mourn their relatives when they die, nor do deer and mice or any other animal (that has been observed). Yet, when humans die, we mourn and become emotional wrecks. This is because their deaths remind us of our precarious position on this planet. We also recognize that this person is NOT returning.

But humans enter a state of denial and create mythology to 'ease our grief.' We tell each other that "he/she is in a better place." We create mythologies that give that person "eternal life" and "renewed life" (perhaps as a cow, eagle, buffalo, etc. ... even as new persons).

To admit there is a "better place" implies that there must be a "worse place," so we conjure all manner of "hells" in an attempt to guide our behavior here on Earth. Act right, go to good place. Act wrong, go to bad place.

The only supporting evidence for any heaven or hell, is mythology. There has never been anyone who was able to document credibly the transition. There has never been anyone who could credibly prove they were once another person. There has never been anything more than mythological reassurance of either.

If people would just accept that their live here on this planet are finite, I think the world would be a much better place to live. Little respect or reverance is given to life by humans because we have these misguided beliefs that we get "another chance" somewhere or that we can have "eternal life" by simply "believing" in something.

So 70 years or more get wasted. Life is not viewed as unique or the "one of a kind" event that it should be.

But if you take comfort in your beliefs and enjoy the bliss of denial... you'll probably have heaven to look forward to. Send me a postcard.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 03:04 PM   #7
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
I agree with everything you've said SkinWalker, and very well put, but unfortunately it will do no good...

Since your forgetting SkinWalker - there is a perfectly legitimate, tangible proof of life-after-death, heaven and hell - the whole deal...

it's called...

[big dramatic music]

THE BIBLE!

Yes sir, with this one book you can prove BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT the existance of all this - and more.
Not only this, but it renders all other contradictory proofs from any other sources INVALID!
Yes, you heard right folks - absolutely invalid.

Ever wondered whether it's right to stone your neighbour to death?
Are you puzzled as to why members of all those religions with the funny names and strange head-pieces deserve to go to hell?

All these answers and more are in this book.
Isn't it a marvel!!

...and yours for only $5 from any good bookstore.
Buy one today!

(No scientific background required.
Pictures are optional.)


...sorry, I won't post in this thread again. Just felt like a bit of Friday humour!

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 09-27-2003 at 10:52 AM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 06:27 PM   #8
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
I could start a little humor about you. Im actually getting a bit mad at your critism closetheblastdo.

How much of it have you read CTBD? Is it really that bad, so bad you have to make "humorous flames" about it?
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 06:41 PM   #9
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
If a thread gets started with the title "Christianity," expect the opponents to be at least as vocal as the proponents. Particularly if said thread was started by a proponent.

Still, I caution both sides to avoid ad hominem remarks. Just don't think that because one's beliefs being criticized constitutes ad hominem.

CTBD's humor was about an inanimate object, and is therefore not ad hominem. Humor about CTBD could be construed as such, however. Though, I think he could probably take it without complaint. Especially if it were funny.

Parody is an effective tool when dealing some issues.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 06:44 PM   #10
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
THE BIBLE!

On another note... the bible is pretty much the most complete out of all the religions, it talks about creation (i know you dont believe it) when people started making tools, cities, and lists lots of stuff, even people... by name. It lists ages (ive been thinking, you know how the bible says adam, and many other people lived like 900+ years, maybe if i started adding the numbers up [theres a certain way to do so, because of there sons, and/or daughters] maybe it would come out to 200,000 years [when people supposidly appeared] )

anyways, there is proof (a lot of it) that is overlooked (most of the time) correct? You cant say its not totally incorrect.... a lot of stuff is made up from people who havnt read the bible (or not all of it) they assume something, and then everyone believes (gossip) Dont i have a small point here?
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 06:48 PM   #11
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
CTBD's humor was about an inanimate object, and is therefore not ad hominem.
Who cares, read the stuck thread at the top



Quote:
If you flame for another person's beliefs, you will be lucky if you're warned before you're spanked.

The bible represents a lot of christianity, therfore "could" be looked at as an insult, funny or not (also perspective, it was funny the 1st time, but after a while, annoying)
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 07:00 PM   #12
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
But CTBD didn't say a lot of things that he could have said about Christian beliefs. He merely used parody to illustrate his own beliefs about the bible. If you took offense, I feel for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be "flame" material.

As with any discussion on religion, you will be hard pressed to illustrate your point without flaming "another person's beliefs" if his brief parody was to be taken as an example of flame.

In fact, I could argue that christianity itself could not be discussed because the very mention of the religion might "flame another person's beliefs" who views it as a cult of infidels.

Again: criticism and parody are not the same as flames. Even though "flames" can be critical or parodical.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-26-2003, 07:19 PM   #13
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Ok, ill let it go.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-27-2003, 11:17 AM   #14
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Bah - I said I wasnt going to post in this thread again. But - hey -I'm an agnostic - I didn't really know FOR SURE I wasn't going to post again!

Quote:
CTBD's humor was about an inanimate object, and is therefore not ad hominem. Humor about CTBD could be construed as such, however. Though, I think he could probably take it without complaint. Especially if it were funny.
Hehe. Your right - that's a good challenge though. Unfortunately people here don't know me from (lol) Adam, so there isn't that much material to work on.

Luke,
Again, sorry if that offended you, but Skin is absolutely right. Sometimes parody IS the most effective way to get across how illogical the situation is - from my point of view.

I would argue that your not just offended because I used humour, your actually more offended because the use of humour helped to expose obvious illogicalities in much of fundemental christian thinking.
...but I won't put words in your mouth...


Tell ya what - feel free to take the piss out of any of these books which I consider to be "truth":

A brief history of time
By Stephen Hawking

An introduction to the Philosophy Of Science
By Anthony O'Hear

Origin Of The Species
By Charles Darwin

Then we'll be even - OK? And I promise I won't get offended.
(Although, maybe I HAVE to get offended for us to actually be even?! Hmmm....)


Quote:
How much of it have you read CTBD?
I've already told you - cover to cover. Many parts of the Old and New testement MANY times.

Quote:
anyways, there is proof (a lot of it) that is overlooked (most of the time) correct? You cant say its not totally incorrect.... a lot of stuff is made up from people who havnt read the bible (or not all of it) they assume something, and then everyone believes (gossip) Dont i have a small point here?
I've never tried to say the whole thing is false. How many times do I have to say this?!

Many parts of it are undoubtedly based on actual event.
In fact, the bible is actually a really good and thouroughly interesting read. I'd suggest it to anybody.

But just because many parts of it are historically accurate, doesn't mean every single word is true.
ANd please realise, that above statement isn't just my opinion, it is FACT. Just because some of it may be 'historically accurate', that doesn't make it ALL true - that should be obvious to anybody.


Whenever certain evidence is mentioned which seems to contradict your beliefs, one of your standard reply's is:

'Well, certain scientists could be fixing the results, or ignoring evidence' etc. etc.

TO a certain extent I apllaud you. You don't believe everything you hear. That's good. It's a worthy attribute...
...the only trouble is that attribute suddenly switches off as soon as you turn your mind to your own beliefs. As soon as you look at the bible, you suddenly believe everything your told - WITHOUT QUESTION!!

Why aren't you in any way suspicious of the people who wrote the Bible - in the same way you are so suspicioous of today's scientists?
Are you saying they would have NO motive to twist the truth slightly, or even just say things in a more dramatic manner than they actually happenned?!

Because they were presecuted for their beliefs perhaps? I hate to burst your bubble, but LOTS of people have been persecuted - yes, even killed - for all kinds of beliefs - not just christianity. And yet you don't seem to take these other 'martyrs' seriously at all.

Also, does this mean scientists have to start getting crucified by angry mobs before you will take them seriously?!

Also, it is very well known amongst 'serious' biblical scholors that as well as the 'gospels' being written many decades after the actual events, they were significantly ALTERED many times again after that - long after the original 'authors' were long dead.

(Of course, that's assuming the original authors were ACTUALLY Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no evidence I'm aware of to support this other than the names given. But then again, there is no reason NOT to think they were the authors, so I don't dispute that really...)

You don't believe any of this? You don't believe it's even POSSIBLE? Well, I don't expect you to. You don't believe in evolution either.
It's a free country - believe whatever you want...

NOTE TO SELF: Bashing your head against a brick wall will only lead to a cracked skull!!

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 09-27-2003 at 12:38 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-27-2003, 12:51 PM   #15
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
You don't believe in evolution either.

No, i believe parts of it. Adaptation can be observed right in front of me... people adapt very quickly to changing environments. On a hot day, putting your hand in a really cold bucket of water will feel unconfortable at first, but then you adapt after a few minutes, and you dont notice it as much as before. I dont believe the big bang, nor that we evolved from single celled organisms.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-27-2003, 01:41 PM   #16
ShockV1.89
Gen Mo'Kai
 
ShockV1.89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: U S of A, baby!
Posts: 1,391
Quote:
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
No, i believe parts of it. Adaptation can be observed right in front of me... people adapt very quickly to changing environments. On a hot day, putting your hand in a really cold bucket of water will feel unconfortable at first, but then you adapt after a few minutes, and you dont notice it as much as before. I dont believe the big bang, nor that we evolved from single celled organisms.
Adaptation is not always evolution.

How would you respond to the rest of his post? He made a whole lot of good points.

Good post, btw, CTBD.


"Not all one pleads can be granted. But a good hearing soothes the heart." -The Instruction of Ptah-hotep.

"So here I go, it's my shot. Feet fail me not. This may be the only opportunity that I got..." -Eminem
ShockV1.89 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-28-2003, 01:02 AM   #17
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:

But just because many parts of it are historically accurate, doesn't mean every single word is true.
ANd please realise, that above statement isn't just my opinion, it is FACT. Just because some of it may be 'historically accurate', that doesn't make it ALL true - that should be obvious to anybody.

Ive said that... i just said a lot of its true. I know i cant prove God is real... i have no tangable evidence of that, nor can i do any of the miracles listed in the bible, well there is a little...

for example, when Moses split the sea, the israelites crossed the sea on dry land. But when the Egyptains came, Moses made the sea go back, and they all drowned. Well (this may just be a false rumor) but i heard that they found egyptain chariots under the (red?) sea. It could have possibly been because of that.

Quote:
Are you saying they would have NO motive to twist the truth slightly, or even just say things in a more dramatic manner than they actually happenned?!
Take the new testament, its all a bunch of letters, they wrote them each for different churches. Thats all... somehow they are still around today! They didnt know that i would be reading it...

Its possible they had a motive, but what? They knew they would be treated like dirt... and anyways, Paul said if i wanted human praise, i wouldnt be doing this!

Something else that ive been thinking about latley is how God said he would make David famous, known forever (something like that, i think) And look... we know about him at least 3,000 years later! I think he said that to numerous people throughout the bible... those people couldnt even imagine the world we live in today, computers, cars, our architecture, food, technology.... everything is different! If it was made up, how could they expect it to last this long (the promise God made) unless something divine was involved!

I mean, how many people do we know of (in detail) from about 3,000 years ago? there arent a whole lot...
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-29-2003, 11:33 AM   #18
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
Some of the stuff in the bible is sacred but some of it makes no sense to me i have never read all of it but some of it i follow but some i don't like i don't think u can flood the whole world like it is nothin




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-29-2003, 11:37 AM   #19
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Well, it rained a lot... for 40 days straight. All of the water springs started pouring out, so thats a lot of water... Imagine a hurricane rained for 40 days! Plus i think it took months and months for the water to go down.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-29-2003, 12:50 PM   #20
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
i still don't think it happen i mean how i mean it is impossible to do that i don't think it happened like moses parting the waters that is impossible i mean how could u hold water up straight and keep it from falling on peples it makes no sense




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-29-2003, 12:53 PM   #21
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Like ive said, its all impossible to prove.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-29-2003, 12:55 PM   #22
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
it is impossible to prove and it is impossible that it happens i mean who know if the persons who wrote the bible didn't lie about it just to make it more exciting u never know




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 12:55 AM   #23
wassup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally posted by vegietto
it is impossible to prove and it is impossible that it happens i mean who know if the persons who wrote the bible didn't lie about it just to make it more exciting u never know
You are right, we do not know, but that is the basis for all of this. WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW. Sure, there's speculation, there's theories, there's hopes, but nobody in this world has any solid evidence that there is a God, Heave, Hell, etc. The human imagination has a infinite power and possibilities, and I believe so far we have only harnessed a tiny fraction of that power. We have much more to find out and many things that we thought to be 100% true that may prove to be slanted or false.
wassup is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 01:00 AM   #24
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
True, in the long run, it only matters if it IS true, not if it isnt... so, im sticking with it. If it isnt, then theres no big deal, i may just look dumb for believing something, thats not true, but if it is, then i go to heaven. Its worth it, either way, i dont lose. People who dont believe will only win if it isnt true.
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 06:48 AM   #25
Rainer511
 
Rainer511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Haha! No....
Posts: 45
Quote:
i still don't think it happen i mean how i mean it is impossible to do that i don't think it happened like moses parting the waters that is impossible i mean how could u hold water up straight and keep it from falling on peples it makes no sense
If you base your assumptions denying the supernaturual then yes it is impossible. The only limit to God's powers is self contradiction. Ever hear the joke, "Can God make a rock so heavy even he can't pick it up?" The answer to that is he can't, because that would be contradicting himself.

Quote:
Some of the stuff in the bible is sacred but some of it makes no sense to me i have never read all of it but some of it i follow but some i don't like i don't think u can flood the whole world like it is nothin
Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

There are people who say that the water above the expanse was some sort of bubble around the earth making a sort of green house effect. It would help account for the large amount of water invovled with the flood if God caused it to fall and would help account for the long lives of the people mentioned before the flood.

Genesis 7: 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Not only does this mention that the 'floodgates of the heavens were opened up' (possibly this water above the expanse) and it also says that the springs of the great deep burst forth. Again, if you do not deny the supernaturual, these things are possible.

Quote:
anyways, there is proof (a lot of it) that is overlooked (most of the time) correct? You cant say its not totally incorrect.... a lot of stuff is made up from people who havnt read the bible (or not all of it) they assume something, and then everyone believes (gossip) Dont i have a small point here?
There is evidence, but nothing that can prove that God exists. You are correct in saying that these evidences are overlooked by both Christians and non-Christians alike.

Quote:
Also, it is very well known amongst 'serious' biblical scholors that as well as the 'gospels' being written many decades after the actual events, they were significantly ALTERED many times again after that - long after the original 'authors' were long dead.
Let me guess, Jesus Seminar? There are many 'serious' biblical scholars that would disagree. I don't know about the Old Testament, haven't done much reading there, but the New Testament when compared to other works of antiquity stands up extremely well. First off we have more than 20,000 New Testament manuscripts from differnt geological locations and times in which to test its integrity.

The history of Thucydides has about eight manuscripts and we only have ones from about 1,300 years after he wrote it, however this time frame is enough for scholars to say that there is little arguement to its authenticity, so why doesn't that apply to the New Testament?

Quote:
As soon as you look at the bible, you suddenly believe everything your told - WITHOUT QUESTION!!
Not entirely true, at least not for all Christians, I'll get back to you on that later.

Quote:
Because they were presecuted for their beliefs perhaps? I hate to burst your bubble, but LOTS of people have been persecuted - yes, even killed - for all kinds of beliefs - not just christianity. And yet you don't seem to take these other 'martyrs' seriously at all.
Here is your problem though, if Jesus's diciples had stolen the body from the tomb, which would be a feet in itself, they would know it was a lie. 11 out of the 12 diciples were martryrs, and the 12th died of old age. My question to you is who in their right mind would die for something they knew was a lie? If the women visiting the tomb got the wrong tomb, not only would they be the ones in error but the diciples who went back to check the tomb would also have made the mistake of going to the wrong tomb. Even if this was true, once Christianity started up again wouldn't you think that the Pharises would have produced the body? The same goes for the theory that his body was moved. He also appeared to over 500 of his followers after his ressurection, so somehow somebody fooled 500 people into thinking that he was Jesus.

Quote:
Also, does this mean scientists have to start getting crucified by angry mobs before you will take them seriously?!
LOL! Yes, absolutely. You should never listen to a man unless he has been crucified by angry mobs. You shouldn't even consider what they say unless they are crucified-if there is an angry mob, now THATs something... lol... (I'm joking, for anyone who can't tell)

Quote:
You don't believe in evolution either.
I don't believe that the our origin is evolution, or that the universe was created via some soft of catostropic event, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution.

----------------------
I'd like to turn this discussion in a differn't direction. There are many people who say that the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, and they are usually refering to some English translation of the Bible. Your first problem is that the what you are refering to is a translation, not the original text. Words have much deeper meaning in greek, and the word order puts empasis on differnt words-things that can't be translated into English perfectly. So the question becomes, what language is the Bible inerrant in? You could say that it is the language that the book was written in (we are talking about books of the Bible now not the Bible as a whole). The problem here is that we don't have the original manuscripts-we have very early ones by historical standards but not the originals. What about the dead sea scrolls? In them we have versions of Old Testament verses that are slightly differnt than the versions that we have today. There are three versions of the book of Jeremiah, and I don't mean three differnt languages, or three differnt ways that things are said, I mean one of them as a bunch of extra information in it. So which one is the Word of God? I think that rather, the Bible is infallible, which holds a slightly differnt meaning than inerrant. To say that the Bible is infallible is to say that it can't lead you wrong. The message is still there, and it accurately records many historical events, but it may not be in the same way that it was originally written.

Who here has heard of HERO? Its a novel, a comic book, and a rock opera that dipicts a story of a world that is still looking for a messiah in the year 2003. A baby is born in Bethlahem, Pennslyvania who is to be the savior of our world. Its purpose to get people talking about the Bible, and compare what is written with the portrayal done by HERO. Now here is my question, what happens if the Bible is somehow lost in the many years to come, and the only thing Christians have to share their faith is this novel? Now I doubt that will hapen but the question remains would it be any less Christianity because of it?


Student at the Jedi Academy (www.thejediacademy.net)
My Academy alias is Ranja. I also sometimes go by the alias of tritonic.
Rainer511 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 08:43 AM   #26
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Well, Rainer, It's a good thign you have replied. I feel like I can at least try and have a rational debate with you on this...

Quote:
Let me guess, Jesus Seminar? There are many 'serious' biblical scholars that would disagree. I don't know about the Old Testament, haven't done much reading there, but the New Testament when compared to other works of antiquity stands up extremely well. First off we have more than 20,000 New Testament manuscripts from differnt geological locations and times in which to test its integrity.

The history of Thucydides has about eight manuscripts and we only have ones from about 1,300 years after he wrote it, however this time frame is enough for scholars to say that there is little arguement to its authenticity, so why doesn't that apply to the New Testament?
OK - well, you make some good points.

First of all, I'd be interested in knowing if all the books of the New Testament have as many alternate, uncontradicting sources as 20,000. It's mainly the 4 gospels I was refering to in my last post. This is not to dispute what your saying - just want to clarify were talking about the same thing here.
...the fact is I don't think the other books of the new testament are as 'dubious' historically as the 4 gospels are.

I'll conceed that the Bible could have more historical backing relative to another randomly chosen historical document.

But, you slightly miss the mark here - and I'll explain why...
How many people do you know of who claim that every single word in the 'history of Thucydides' are unquestionably true? How many people do you know that base their whole life on it's words? How many people are willing to quite dilliberately turn their minds from modern evidence if the evidence seems to put in doubt the words in this history?

THis is what makes the historical accuracy of the bible (and other holy books) much more important to 'double-check' than any old history. They are meant to be 'holy' - divine in origin. i.e. a directly analogy between the bible and any other 'normal' history is not giving the whole story.
The history of Thucydides does not claim to be of divine origin. THe Bible does. This makes any historical 'anomolies' concerning the Bible all the more important...


Also, about the apparent 'disagreement' amongst serious biblical scholors.
I don't doubt some biblical scholors don't agree with the stuff I posted before. But some simply state it as fact - the evidence is clear.

Who is correct? (They can't both be. Either there are historical discrepancees, or their aren't). And remember, the biblical scholors speaking FOR historical anomolies are - in the most part as far as I'm aware - believers. Their objective is not to destroy the credability of christianity! They are simply coming to the sensible conclusion from the evidence in front of them.

Also, as an example of how supposed 'educated' people can let their beliefs get the better of them:

There is a document the Mormon's refer to as the 'Pearl Of Great Price'. (To any Mormons reading this - I'm probably about to offend you. Oh well - I've offended enough christians already - amy as well keep the record up!)

It is meant to be some lost writings of various Old Testament prophets - including Abraham.
Anyway - I can't remember exactly how he came across this document, but the 'prophet' Joseph Smith apparently translated this document by the 'power of God'. No-one at that time could accurately read Egyptian characters - so no-one could accuratly verify the translation.

Of course today, we are far more knowledgable about Egyptian - and the translation can be verified. Take the original 'Pearl of Great Price' to any repsectable professor on Egyptian hyroglyphics, and they will tell you it's nothing more a standard funeral scroll. (In some places crudely altered - but in it's original form, just a funeral scroll). There are certainly no lost writings of ancient prphets on there!!

BUT - take the Pearl Of Great Price to a professor at - say - BYU - and your likely to get a VERY differnt interperation! (It's one of the only places in the world you'll get such an interpertation mind!)

...the moral of the story? Intelligent, sensible people can be swayed by their religious beliefs in often drastic ways.

You may start arguing - 'well, I don't consider Mormon's Christians anyway - that story means nothing about the Bible.'
But I'm afraid it does.
This kind of thinking is not restricted to any one religious group I'm afraid...

Quote:
Here is your problem though, if Jesus's diciples had stolen the body from the tomb, which would be a feet in itself, they would know it was a lie. 11 out of the 12 diciples were martryrs, and the 12th died of old age. My question to you is who in their right mind would die for something they knew was a lie? If the women visiting the tomb got the wrong tomb, not only would they be the ones in error but the diciples who went back to check the tomb would also have made the mistake of going to the wrong tomb. Even if this was true, once Christianity started up again wouldn't you think that the Pharises would have produced the body? The same goes for the theory that his body was moved. He also appeared to over 500 of his followers after his ressurection, so somehow somebody fooled 500 people into thinking that he was Jesus.
I DON'T think the disciples stole Jesus' body from the tomb.
I DO think that MANY people saw Jesus after his 'supposed' death.
However, I don't believe Jesus was actually dead when he was put into the tomb in the first place...

OK - I can see the utter disgust on yuor face right now! I'm sure you've heard these kinds of theories before, and I'm sure you give them as much credence as I do that Jesus ACTUALLY walked on water!
If your interested (and when I actually have access to a Bible) - I'll be happy to talk you through my reasoning...


Quote:
LOL! Yes, absolutely. You should never listen to a man unless he has been crucified by angry mobs. You shouldn't even consider what they say unless they are crucified-if there is an angry mob, now THATs something... lol... (I'm joking, for anyone who can't tell)

It's refreshing to see a christian with a PROPER sense of humour


Quote:
Who here has heard of HERO? Its a novel, a comic book, and a rock opera that dipicts a story of a world that is still looking for a messiah in the year 2003. A baby is born in Bethlahem, Pennslyvania who is to be the savior of our world. Its purpose to get people talking about the Bible, and compare what is written with the portrayal done by HERO. Now here is my question, what happens if the Bible is somehow lost in the many years to come, and the only thing Christians have to share their faith is this novel? Now I doubt that will hapen but the question remains would it be any less Christianity because of it?
I think you need to clarify what your trying to say here...
Can you explain to someone else the 'Gospel' without having to go through the whole Bible? Sure you can. In fact, the Bible seems to me a very big book to get across a concept you could explain in maybe a chapter or so of a normal book.
THe bible - from where I'm standing at least - is SUPPOST to give Christian belief some kind of grounding - some kind of validity (historically).

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 09-30-2003 at 09:07 AM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 12:05 PM   #27
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
yes that is true but it physically impossible to me i mean it could have happened but their is no proof i need solid evidence that it happened to be fully satified, so until they prove it then i will be happy




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 12:05 PM   #28
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
yes that is true but it physically impossible to me i mean it could have happened but their is no proof i need solid evidence that it happened to be fully satified, so until they prove it then i will be happy




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 12:05 PM   #29
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Quote:
I'd like to turn this discussion in a differn't direction. There are many people who say that the Bible is the Word of God and inerrant, and they are usually refering to some English translation of the Bible. Your first problem is that the what you are refering to is a translation, not the original text. Words have much deeper meaning in greek, and the word order puts empasis on differnt words-things that can't be translated into English perfectly. So the question becomes, what language is the Bible inerrant in? You could say that it is the language that the book was written in (we are talking about books of the Bible now not the Bible as a whole). The problem here is that we don't have the original manuscripts-we have very early ones by historical standards but not the originals. What about the dead sea scrolls? In them we have versions of Old Testament verses that are slightly differnt than the versions that we have today. There are three versions of the book of Jeremiah, and I don't mean three differnt languages, or three differnt ways that things are said, I mean one of them as a bunch of extra information in it. So which one is the Word of God? I think that rather, the Bible is infallible, which holds a slightly differnt meaning than inerrant. To say that the Bible is infallible is to say that it can't lead you wrong. The message is still there, and it accurately records many historical events, but it may not be in the same way that it was originally written.

Im aware of that, but its not that different (like you said) to really make any difference...
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 12:05 PM   #30
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
yes that is true but it physically impossible to me i mean it could have happened but their is no proof i need solid evidence that it happened to be fully satified, so until they prove it then i will be happy




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 02:28 PM   #31
Vestril
The Man
 
Vestril's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 2,062
I don't have enough time to properly post...however my intent was this: Christianity has a reasonably good set of beliefs, however the trouble with it, and with most religions isn't the ideas it promotes, but rather the ideas it restricts. I really wish Christians as a whole could adapt and evolve as science does.

The classic example is mans evolution from apes--which appears to refute christianity's religious origin!! This is not entirely true, however. Through study of something called mitochondrial DNA it is now considered likely that all human beings share a common, fairly localized origin (aka Adam and Eve theory). From a christians perspective: science is a way of interpreting the Bible.

An example of an adaptation we need to make is the one about contraceptives. Specifically Catholics and the pope are against the use of contraceptives because it is their belief that God intends sex only for creating children. For this reason, any sort of sexual activity besides brief intercourse and ejaculation is essentially a sin (which is ironic, when you think about what it causes). A familiar chain of events would be 'young people engage in intercourse for fun, but don't use contraceptives because they are taught it is wrong, or not educated about them because their parents believe they are wrong, girl gets pregnant, justifiably becomes afraid and a) makes her life much harder by having a child or b) has an abortion, protects herr life, but has to pay a fairly terrible price.'

ALL of that stems on a flawed premise: God doesn't want you to enjoy sex, it's just there for making babies. In fact, human beings appear to have specifically evolved (or been created, if you prefer) to not have babies.

1. Women do not show when they ovulate. In most animals, when the female is able to concieve, they either know and 'tell' the males, or they have a physiological change which tells the males that it's time to mate. In human beings, most women can't even tell when they're ovulating, and it wasn't until very recently (1920's...) that science could figure it out. Women are engineered so that we can't figure out when we should be having sex with them. God doesn't want us to know.

2. Human females are very bizzare in that they go through menopause! Most animals gradually die off as they become infertile, but human females do it all at once, and are very clearly intended to last after that. That is more of a sign that God doesn't want us making babies for oour entire lives, but you get the idea.

3. The interesting statistic to me is this: a newlywed couple, having intercourse as often as they possibly can, has only a 28% chance of concieving. In an animal like, say, the cow? That probability is 75%

Science has, in essence, shown us the actual will of God, and it seems clear to me that the idea that sex is just for making babies is some sort of misinterpretation--possibly due to translations or possibly due to human fallibility. Just because the book says it was written perfectly, doesn't make it true

For reference, most of the above ideas have been taken from a book called 'The Third Chimpanzee' written by a clever fellow named Jared Diamond. It's about humans and how we stem from animals, and doesn't bring religion into the subject mostly, though he does make the contraception point. Time to go to school--there was a lot more I wanted to write though lol...


Vestril was here!!!!!!!!!
Vestril is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 08:43 PM   #32
Rainer511
 
Rainer511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Haha! No....
Posts: 45
Quote:
First of all, I'd be interested in knowing if all the books of the New Testament have as many alternate, uncontradicting sources as 20,000. It's mainly the 4 gospels I was refering to in my last post. This is not to dispute what your saying - just want to clarify were talking about the same thing here.
Yeah, the number for the New Testament as a whole is 20,000, the Gospels have 5,000.

You made some good points, but I wasn't trying to prove that the Bible should be considered 'unquestionably true', or that people should base their lives on it because if this fact. Your original comment was that the gospels were significantly altered in the decades between their writings and the authors' deaths. I was simply trying to prove that the New Testament is authentic, that what we have today is what the original authors wrote. The history of Thucydides is considered authentic because the manuscripts have are dated only 1000 years after their original writting-so decades would be considered negligable by this standard.

Quote:
And remember, the biblical scholors speaking FOR historical anomolies are - in the most part as far as I'm aware - believers.
Out of curiosity could you tell me one of these historical anomolies? I'm open to the idea that the Bible can contain errors, but I've yet to hear anything that can't be explained.

Quote:
You may start arguing - 'well, I don't consider Mormon's Christians anyway - that story means nothing about the Bible.'
You'd be correct in saying that I don't consider Mormons Christians, but the story is an analogy on how people can let their beliefs get the best of them. Your delima now is that you start to damn the source based on the beliefs of the source. I could just say, "You shouldn't consider evolution because the ideas are supported mostly by people who aren't Christians." Now that kind of thinking is absurb, but it happens to all people, religous and nonreligous.

Quote:
However, I don't believe Jesus was actually dead when he was put into the tomb in the first place...

OK - I can see the utter disgust on yuor face right now! I'm sure you've heard these kinds of theories before, and I'm sure you give them as much credence as I do that Jesus ACTUALLY walked on water!
If your interested (and when I actually have access to a Bible) - I'll be happy to talk you through my reasoning...
I'm not disgusted, amused maybe, but definately not disgusted. This is a quote of David Friedrich Strauss. It should be noted that he does NOT believe in the ressurection, but has this to say about the idea that had merely fainted.

"It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strenghtening and indulgence, and who still at last ielded to his sufferings, could have given the disciples the impresssion that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship"

Also a question I raise is that if he was not stolen out of the tomb, then how did he get out? How would a half dead man push a two ton boulder from the entrance? A stone that was rolled by means of levers to the entrance. Even if he got past the stone, what about the guards? Did this half dead man somehow overcome the guards? Offenses by which a guard could be put to death included sleeping on duty and leaving their post unattended, something pretty awesome must have happened to make the guards flee from their post.

I would be interested to see your reasoning on this.

Quote:
I think you need to clarify what your trying to say here...
Yeah those last two paragraphs were more focused at believers. There are many people who think that if there was one thing in the Bible that happened to be proved wrong, then somehow the entirity of Christianity becomes invalid. I was trying to move the focus away from the Bible itself but towards the message it portrays. I guess a discussion like that is out of place here.

Quote:
ALL of that stems on a flawed premise: God doesn't want you to enjoy sex, it's just there for making babies. In fact, human beings appear to have specifically evolved (or been created, if you prefer) to not have babies.
PLEASE tell me where it says God doesn't want you to enjoy sex in the Bible.

Quote:
An example of an adaptation we need to make is the one about contraceptives. Specifically Catholics and the pope are against the use of contraceptives because it is their belief that God intends sex only for creating children.
Ugh... sex only for making children? *shudders* umm yeah... I've never met anyone who held this belief. To my knowledge the only thing that Christianity confines sex to is within marriage. I'm looking to have a lot of fun in my sexual life... as soon as I'm married that is :P.

Quote:
Just because the book says it was written perfectly, doesn't make it true
Please show me where the Bible claims that it, the book, in its entirity, in the past and throughout the future, has and always will be inerrant. Because I would love to see it.

As far as contraceptives go, my only problem with them is that they are given to children as a means to make sex "safe", but this is getting a bit off topic I think.


Student at the Jedi Academy (www.thejediacademy.net)
My Academy alias is Ranja. I also sometimes go by the alias of tritonic.

Last edited by Rainer511; 09-30-2003 at 09:09 PM.
Rainer511 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-30-2003, 11:15 PM   #33
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Quote:
You made some good points, but I wasn't trying to prove that the Bible should be considered 'unquestionably true', or that people should base their lives on it because if this fact.
Well - let me clarify.
I wasn't implying that you were trying to prove the bible is 'unquestionably' true - or anything of the sort.
I'm refering to the fact that many christians see it that way. (We've seen plenty of that in these forums...) Not only is it unquestionably true, it gives you the right to seriously question contridictory evidence from any other source - no matter how conclusive.
I'm not accusing you PERSONALLY of any of these things. But it happens. The Bible is considered like some kind of 'super' or 'uber' evidence.

And in this light, any doubt to the historical accuracy of these 'divine' words are very important....

Any evidence has the right to be questioned. I have no problem with anybody questioning evidence I hold to be accurate - as long as it is done rationally.

And again to make it clear - this isn't a critism aimed at your good self...

Quote:
Your original comment was that the gospels were significantly altered in the decades between their writings and the authors' deaths...
Well - I don't personally know one way or the other.
I'm not a biblical scholor! I only said that this is pretty much an accepted fact amongst many biblical scholors.
Be aware I'm not talking about what might be considered 'sweeping' changes - I'm talking about the odd word or phrase - not whole re-writes.

Understand, whether the gospels were altered in any ways after the orignal authoring is not central to my belief or disbelief in christianity. Neither is whether Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually the authors...

...there is enough contridiction in how the gospels portray events right through to Christian teachings themselves to convince me, personally, it is not divine.

I was simply stating that it is most certainly possible the gospels were altered after they were written. This was - again - a comment directed to those who see the Bible as the be all and end all of truth - without question.

As far as the actual evidence of gospel alteration - of course, you can do a quick search on Google and find all kinds of crap (usually with all kinds of hideous background colours!!). So I won't insult your intelligent by linking you to one of those. I will endevour to gather any supporting evidence first hand and then get back to you...

Quote:
I was simply trying to prove that the New Testament is authentic, that what we have today is what the original authors wrote.
Yes- OK. But to be fair, in the same sense that I have not given you the direct 'evidence' of the ambiguity of the gospel 'alterations', you have only mentioned in passing 20,000 new testament manuscripts which apparently show they are genuine.

How so? How early do these 'copies' originate from? As far as I'm aware, the 'alteration' theroies point towards changes being made sometime up to around 300 A.D. or so. (I could very well be off on this though -I would need to double check).
Can these manuscripts be shown to have been made as early as this- ideally before? Only then would you show that the 'original' gospels could not have been altered before this point.

I thing we both need to back up our claims here. As it turns out - especially myself! So while I will endevour to find the 'evidence' which supports my claim, you need to provide more details of your own...

Quote:
The history of Thucydides is considered authentic because the manuscripts have are dated only 1000 years after their original writting-so decades would be considered negligable by this standard.
Now - this is a different matter. I understand that the literal age of a document is not nessesarily THE major issue in the process of assessing it's historical value.
Possibly of more importace - to give one example - would be if whether the particular evidence is backup up by other evidences from the same time period. etc. etc.

Quote:
Out of curiosity could you tell me one of these historical anomolies? I'm open to the idea that the Bible can contain errors, but I've yet to hear anything that can't be explained.
I know the opinions given, and I know that the opinions were given by 'biblical scholors', but they did not go through the evidence which brings them to this conclusion. Again, as I have said - I will have to take it upon myself to look into this further and find out exactly what evidence implies this...

Quote:
Your delima now is that your damning the source based on the beliefs of the source. I could just say, "You shouldn't consider evolution because the ideas are supported mostly by people who aren't Christians." Now that kind of thinking is absurb, but it happens to all people, religous and nonreligous.
I accept that. The point I was making should be obvious - and I didn't have to go on like that. I apologise.


Quote:
...concerning Jesus not dead in tomb...

I'm not disgusted, amused maybe, but definately not disgusted.

Well -it's good that we can find amusement in each other's outlooks! I've been having a good old laugh at the concept of sending good people to hell just because they were bought up in the wrong religion for years now...

Quote:
This is a quote of David Friedrich Strauss...
I have several issues with the statement you quoted.

First of all, it is known that Jesus' 'body' was visited repeatedly during the 3 days till his 'ressurection'. Not only this, but Nicodemous (according to the gospels) took 'healing' herbs - as opposed to 'enbalming'...

So to isinuate he could not have possibly been attended to in any way is fairly nieve to say the least.

The attendence of visitors to the tomb also make clear that Jesus himself would not nessesarily have had to remove the stone solely by himself to have exited the tomb.

The only unknown then left is how he would have managed to leave the tomb past the guards. And yes - sure - I couldn't even pretend to give you THE actual answer to that question.
I could give you SEVERAL possibilities. I could also point out to you much more unfeasible escapes - by people who had NO help in much more secure circumstances (not just two guards) and where people actually knew the potential 'escapee' was indeed alive!!

Ressurection

vs.

an injured man (even a very injured man) getting past two guards (who believe he is dead) - with help...

I know which one I see as more likely.

As far as impressing people that he had conqured death when in an obviously injured state - the fact he was alive at all would have been enough. While it was unheard of to survive crucifixion, it did happen on at least one verifiable occasion. But to the average man, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have come down off the cross alive. So if he then was found alive after the fact - having already been acknowledged at the very least a 'holy man', that's all the evidence of divinity you would rightly need.

This is why I actually give Jesus' followers credit for being genuine believers. It would be perfectly reasonable -given their viewpoint - to see that as nothing less than a miracle.
In fact if Jesus himself had had any doubts up until that point about his divinity - I'm sure they were displelled when he got up and walked when he was suppost to be - by rights - dead!!

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 09-30-2003 at 11:43 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 02:35 AM   #34
Rainer511
 
Rainer511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Haha! No....
Posts: 45
Quote:
How so? How early do these 'copies' originate from? As far as I'm aware, the 'alteration' theroies point towards changes being made sometime up to around 300 A.D. or so. (I could very well be off on this though -I would need to double check).
Code:
From the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict
Extant Greek Manuscripts
Uncials               307
Minuscules          2,860
Lectionaries        2,410
Papyri                109
SUBTOTAL            5,686

Manuscripts in Other Languages
Latin Vulgate     10,000+
Ethiopic           2,000-
Slavic              4,101
Armenian            2,587
Syriac Pashetta      350+
Bohairic              100
Arabic                 75
Old Latin              50
Anglo Saxon             7
Gothic                  6
Sogdian                 3
Old Syriac              2
Persian                 2
Frankish                1
SUBTOTAL           19,284

TOTAL ALL MSS      24,870
I was wrong in my numbers and the 5000 number was for greek manuscripts, not for gospel manuscripts. I must have misread from another book- sorry about that. Also the numbers of manuscripts may vary depending on the source because depending on the size of some fragments it may or may not be counted. The New Testament was written somewhere between 50-100 A.D. The earliest fragments that we have are from 114 A.D. We have books from 200 A.D., by 250 A.D. we have most of the New Testament, and by 325 A.D. we have the complete new testament. That is 225 years max after its original writings.

Quote:
First of all, it is known that Jesus' 'body' was visited repeatedly during the 3 days till his 'ressurection'. Not only this, but Nicodemous (according to the gospels) took 'healing' herbs - as opposed to 'enbalming'...
What makes you come to the conclusion that his body was visited? And if you go on to read this same verse, it says "This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." He brought the aloes and myrrh not to try and nurse Jesus back to health, but just to bury him. And your explaination doesn't support the rest of the ressurection story. When Mary Magdalen saw the empty tomb and ran to tell about it, no one believed her except Peter who didn't really believe himself until he saw the empty tomb. If they had been nursing Jesus back to health for the past three days then why would Jesus's absence from the tomb be such a surprise to the diciples?

Quote:
Well -it's good that we can find amusement in each other's outlooks! I've been having a good old laugh at the concept of sending good people to hell just because they were bought up in the wrong religion for years now...
I like the way that Josh McDowell puts it.

Quote:
From More Than a Carpenter
Here is a probelm that developed as a result of humanity entering into sin. God in eternity past decided to create man and woman. Basically I believe that the Bible indicates he created man and woman in order to share his love and glory with them. But when Adam and Eve rebelled and went their own individual ways, sin entered the human race. At tat point individuals became sinful or separated from God. This is the "predicament" that God found himself in. He created men and women to share his glory with them, yet they spurned his counsel and command and chose to sin. And so he approached them with his love to save them. But because he is not only a loving God, but a holy, just righteous God, his very nature would destroy any sinful individual. The Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death." So, you might say, God had a problem.
Within the Godhead-God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit-a decision was made. Jesus, God the Son, would take upon himself human flesh. He would become the God-man. This is described in John 1 where it says taht the Word became flesh and tabernacled or dwelt among us. And also in Philippians 2 where it says that Christ Jesus emptied himself and took on the form of a man.
Jesus was the God-man. He was just as much man as if he had never been God and Just as much God as if he had never been man. By his own choice he lived a sinless life, wholly obeying the Father. The biblical declaration that "the wages of sin is death" did not apply to him. Because he was only finite man but infinite God, he had the infinite capacity to take upon himself the sins of the world. When he went to the cross almost 2,000 years ago, a holy, just, righteous God poured out his wrath upon his Son. And when Jesus said, "It is finished," the just, righteous nature of God was satisfied. You could say that at that point God was "set free" to deal with humanity in love without having to destroy a sinful individual, because through Jesus' death on the cross, God's righteous nature was satisfied."
Quote:
In fact if Jesus himself had had any doubts up until that point about his divinity - I'm sure they were displelled when he got up and walked when he was suppost to be - by rights - dead!!
Well, who do you think Jesus thought he was? By the way, Jesus himself made claims that he would rise again on the third day, which unless you were sure it was going to happen is a stupid claim to make. I would like to hear your run on the following things.

Jesus' Beliefs about himself
Jesus' Miracles
Jesus' Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies


Student at the Jedi Academy (www.thejediacademy.net)
My Academy alias is Ranja. I also sometimes go by the alias of tritonic.

Last edited by Rainer511; 10-01-2003 at 04:42 AM.
Rainer511 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 03:27 AM   #35
Vestril
The Man
 
Vestril's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 2,062
I suppose I made a mistake in saying that God is against us enjoiying sex, but the argument is rather that sex purely for fun is forbidden, it has a purpose and should not be used in a manner diverging from that purpose. My apologies for my sloppy phrasing, but as you, an apparent linguist, must know--phrasing in english can be very difficult.

As to the argument that it doesn't appear in the Bible--the Pope, the most visible Christian authority (Catholics AND MORMONS are Christians--they believe in Christ as a saivior which makes them Christians whether you agree with their beliefs or not), has stated that Catholic opposition to homosexuality is based solely on the premise that it involves sex without the result of children. This is also the basis for the Catholic opposition to masturbation--otherwise why would religion care at all if people enjoyed themselves in that fashion? I can only assume that the Pope derived his arguments from the Bible, and that he is a superior religious authority when it comes to Christianity and Catholisim specifically.

Also, unless I've been completely mislead, the Bible states that it was written through man, by God. God is capable only of perfection, therefore the Bible states, perhaps indirectly, that it is, as you phrase it, inerrant. Since God is all knowing, I am forced to assume that it would remain so though Religious organization sanctioned trasnlations. Again, the Nuns who taught me religion may have mislead me on this account, but I'm apt to trust them over you (sorry ).


Vestril was here!!!!!!!!!
Vestril is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 05:52 AM   #36
Kain
I'm a ghost
 
Kain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,269
Current Game: Not so much.
Forum Veteran 10 year veteran! 
Christianity seems like the egotistical jock at a school. Everything they say is right and if someone tells them no, they protest(the whole courthouse issue). And they're kinda like 'If you're not one of us you're going to Hell'. I've been condemned by many, but I can't goto Hell. I can't go anywhere I don't believe in. Thats why I can't goto Indiana.
Kain is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 11:57 AM   #37
CloseTheBlastDo
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 185
Rainer511,

OK - well, first of all, I must apologise. I was making my comments on just my memory. The last time I actually read the bible thouroughly was a couple of years ago - and I don't actually keep one in the house anymore.
But through the miracle of the internet, you now have the Bible avaliable online! (Woohoo) So I could refresh my memory about the verses in question very easiely...

What makes me think the tomb was visited 'several' times...?

Quote:
Luke Ch 23:
-----------

52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.
56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Ok - so stating implicitily the tomb was visited 'several' times was a slight over-statement on my part. It was visited at least twice, by two independant groups of people according to the above verses. One was the group who 'prepared' him, and then this other group of women who 'came with him from Galilee' and who 'followed after - and witnessed the body and how it was laid.

Basically, people were free to walk to and from the tomb as they pleased.
This is also backed up by other verses from Matthew:

Quote:
Matt Ch. 27:
------------

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
A watch was only set on the day AFTER the preperation. i.e. more than one full day had passed between Jesus being bought 'dead' off the cross and placed in the tomb by the time the watch was set up.

...now that I have refreshed my memory of the verses, I have now realise my earlier hypothesis was slightly innaccurate. I shouldn't have tried to just remember that stuff - I apologise. First I will run through more verses of particular interest, and then I will re-state my hypothesis more firmly...

Quote:
Luke Ch. 23:
---------------

47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
THe above line is repeated nearly identically in Matthew and Mark. I have chosen to quote the Luke reference, however, because in this version, the centurion interestingly states 'certainly this was a righteous man'. If the centurion did believe this, it is natural to assume the centurion would not have believed he deserved to be killed.

Quote:
Mark CH. 15:
------------

44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
If it's in doubt whether pilate called to the same centurion which said Jesus was a 'righteous' man, take into consideration that just a few verses earlier, the believing centurion was also refered to as 'THE centurion', and there are no other centurions mentioned. I think it's very safe to conclude it was indeed the same centurion.
So - the bottom line:

a. Pilate had at least doubts as to whether Jesus was actually dead. (He hadn't actually spent that long on the cross - only several hours. The gospels differ as to the exact amount of time, but certainly no longer than half a day. Some people survived crucificion for DAYS before finally dying. THat was the point - it was a VERY slow, painful, terrible death)

b. Pilate did not check himself. Instead, he asked the centurion if he was dead - who confirmed that yes - he was indeed dead.

...BUT...

c. The centurion Pilate asked was almost certinly the same centurion who just earlier proclaimed 'this was a righteous man'.

Quote:
John 19:
--------

38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
So Joseph, the man who 'claimed' the body of Jesus was secretly a follower.

Conerning Nicodemous and what he bought to the 'preperation':

Quote:
John Ch. 19
-----------

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
btw - Note that the bit about Nicodemous 'came by night' implies he arrived 'seperately' - very possibly later than everybody else. Again, further building the impression of people freely moving back and forth from the tomb.

The next verse does refer to Jesus' body being wound in linen with the spices. I guess it's natural to assume the spices refered to are the ones Nicodemus bought - but no-where does it say these are 'traditionally' used when preparing the dead.

I mean, I'm not saying that isn't true. I actually don't know. If you have evidence to show this, then that's fair enough. All I'm pointing out is that it's not implied in the scriptures.
...and in any case, the healing virtues - used 'traditionally' or otherwise - of these substances is unquestionable, regardless of this fact.

The medical benifits of aloe vera (extract of the aloe leaf) are well documented and avaliable from all sorts of sources. I would hope you won't expect me to provide 'proof' of something so obvious.

Quote:
Myrrh:

---Medicinal Action and Uses---Astringent, healing. Tonic and stimulant. A direct emmenagogue, a tonic in dyspepsia, an expectorant in the absence of feverish symptoms, a stimulant to the mucous tissues, a stomachic carminative, exciting appetite and the flow of gastric juice, and an astringent wash.

It is used in chronic catarrh, phthisis pulmonalis, chlorosis, and in amenorrhoea is often combined with aloes and iron. As a wash it is good for spongy gums, ulcerated throat and aphthous stomatitis, and the tincture is also applied to foul and indolentulcers. It has been found helpful in bronchorrhoea and leucorrhoea. It has also been used as a vermifuge.

When long-continued rubefacient effect is needed, a plaster may be made with 1 1/2 OZ. each of camphor, myrrh, and balsam of Peru rubbed together and added to 32 OZ. of melted lead plaster, the whole being stirred until cooling causes it to thicken.

Myrrh is a common ingredient of toothpowders, and is used with borax in tincture, with other ingredients, as a mouth-wash.

The Compound Tincture, or Horse Tincture, is used in veterinary practice for healing wounds.

Meetiga, the trade-name of Arabian Myrrh, is more brittle and gummy than that of Somaliland and has not its white markings.
FROM:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fra.../myrrh-66.html

This is not a religious (or anti-religious site). It is totally unbiased.


Ok - so here's the final analysis of these verses:

Jesus' death is confirmed by a centurion who 'believed' in his righteousness, unbeknown to Pilate. (If Pilate HAD known the centurion believed, he certainly wouldn't have trusted HIS word - and his word alone - on whether Jesus was indeed dead!)

Jesus' body was taken away - ALSO - by a secret follower of his ministry.

His body was then taken to a tomb and left unattended by anybody in authority for over a day! 'Several' people came back and forth from the tomb during this period - without checks.

Nicodemous bought substances which have known healing properties to the tomb.


So the question no longer is - would it have been possible for Jesus to leave the tomb if he came off the cross alive - but which of the many perfectly plausible possibilities do you choose as to how it actually happenned...!

The error I made in my earlier hypothesis was I forgot that the issue of Jesus getting past the guards is probably not even relavent - the guards were not nessesarily even there at the time!

There is only one, BIG remaining riddle to solve. When the tomb was eventually 'sealed' (sometime on the second day), how did they not know that Jesus was not there?

I'll move onto that in part II! I have to get on with some work while I'm - well - at work!
(I know you have other issues with the theory, but I don't see them as massive holes - and I'll explain why...)

Dont' worry - I'll hit all your points in due course...
I'll give you a chance to digest and dispute my above comments before I start my next barrage!

Last edited by CloseTheBlastDo; 10-01-2003 at 04:48 PM.
CloseTheBlastDo is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 12:10 PM   #38
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
yall all have very good points but i still say that it is physically impossible to make it rain 40 days an 40 nights and raise water and keep lions from eating daniel, i mean yeah some could possibly happened but i don't think so i mean their is no way that someone could walk over water now that lizard thing can but no human can do it if they can i want some prove of a human walking on water




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 12:39 PM   #39
shukrallah
White Dragon
 
shukrallah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,250
Nothing is impossible, with God...

Jesus was fully God, fully man, so he could do what he wants....
shukrallah is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-01-2003, 12:42 PM   #40
vegietto
 
vegietto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin 4
Posts: 397
i mean i know that god has a plan for us but starving people is his plan well that really bites i mean how could u let people starve like that huh




Thanks to joetheeskimo05 for the sig!

Under the great training of Zbomber
vegietto is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Christianity

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.