Any other book

[RealDealNeverstop]

Why was the Antioch piece quoted?

For the last time....the Bible is not Hebrew history. Judaism does not recognize the NT and all 3 major Christian groups have different versions of the Old Testament is not the Torah....it is a part of the Bible.

1. We know the first Christians were Jewish, that's who the gospel went to first. All the disciples were Jewish, Christ was a Jew, but the gospel was preached to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. But it was also in the New Testament where the term "Christian" was coined and we have 3 scriptures that show us that the they did use and acknowledge the term "Christian."

Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.​

2. The Old Testament most certainly do tell us the history of the Israelites, though it might not tell us every part of their history, it does speak of their history. You can go ahead and look at the Israelites history (before the time of Christ) and you will find a good bit of it that is stated in scripture. Now, the New Testament doesn't really concentrate on the history of the Israelites, it's mostly focuses on the spreading of the gospel and the teachings of Christ.

3. All I know is that the same books that is in the Tenakh are the same books, no more/no less, that are in the Old Testament in the bibles that I use.

 

[OzSpen]

Real Deal,

For the last time....the Bible is not Hebrew history. Judaism does not recognize the NT and all 3 major Christian groups have different versions of the Old Testament is not the Torah....it is a part of the Bible.

Please tell me if Abraham and Ur of the Chaldeans are part of Jewish history.

Genesis 11:27-32 records:

"This is the account of Terah.
Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no children. 31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.
32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran" (NIV)

We know archaeologically that Sir Leonard Wooley excavated Ur of the Chaldeans, dating to the time of Abraham in ca. AD 2000. Wooley found portions of Ur

and his findings allow us to visualize some of the city as Abraham knew it. Ur was protected by a defensive wall approximately two-and-a-half miles in circumference. its religious center was situated near the center of the city, occupied an area of two hundred yards by four hundred yards, and had changed little since the days of Ur-Nammu . . . The moon god Nanna was worshiped as chief deity of Ur" (Alfred J. Hoerth 1998, Archaeology & the Old Testament, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan)

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Abraham is part of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian history. What does that have to do with my post?

Real Deal,
Please tell me if Abraham and Ur of the Chaldeans are part of Jewish history.

Genesis 11:27-32 records:
We know archaeologically that Sir Leonard Wooley excavated Ur of the Chaldeans, dating to the time of Abraham in ca. AD 2000. Wooley found portions of Ur

 

[OzSpen]

RealDeal,

Abraham is part of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian history. What does that have to do with my post?

It was you who said:

the Bible is not Hebrew history

Abraham is regarded as the father of the Jewish (Hebrew) nation. You say, on the one hand, that the Bible is not Hebrew history. Now you say that Abraham is part of Islamic, Jewish and Christian history.

Jewish history is Hebrew history. You have made contradictory statements, when you say that the Bible is not Hebrew history and yet you claim that Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, is part of Jewish history. Don't you see the nature of your contradictory statements?

I provided archaeological statements confirming the historical nature of Ur of the Chaldeans, a city of Abraham's sojourn.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Why was the Antioch piece quoted?

For the last time....the Bible is not Hebrew history. Judaism does not recognize the NT and all 3 major Christian groups have different versions of the Old Testament is not the Torah....it is a part of the Bible.

The Old Testament is Hebrew History...absolutely no one said anything about the New Testament being Hebrew History. The OT is recognized by Judaism because it is the exact same thing as their Tanakh.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Daydreamergurl15,

Thank you for providing us with the biblical evidence that the Jews (house of Israel) did crucify Jesus, but it was done according to the Lord's plan for Jesus to take the iniquity of us all on himself.

If we read the Scriptures carefully, it does tell us clearly what happened for salvation to be made available for all of us through the shedding of Christ's blood.

That's why I put "why was He crucified" and I quoted Isaiah, plus reading the New Testament, we know He was crucified for God's purpose and He willingly did it and with that, I thank God for, for because of Him, we have the right to be called children of God.

 

[wayseer]

I figured, why not let the bible tell us who crucified Christ...

DDG - the book of Acts was written well into the first century and is anti-Semitic in its orientation. Quite simple, the author has an axe to grind.

The historical record makes it quite clear what happened. To continue to maintain that the Jews killed Jesus is to pretend that American foreign policy lead to the loss of life on 9/11.

Besides, as I noted earlier, Jesus said, 'Father forgive them ... ' Do Christ's words have so little relevance?

 

[OzSpen]

Wayseer,

DDG - the book of Acts was written well into the first century and is anti-Semitic in its orientation. Quite simple, the author has an axe to grind.

Emeritus professor of NT and early Judaism at the University of Tubingen, Dr. Martin Hengel, begs to differ with your sceptical assessment of the Book of Acts. He

"makes a bold departure from radical NT scholar-ship in supporting the historical integrity of the Acts of the Apostles. . . and demonstrates that Luke's account is historically reliable. . . ." (From the jacket of Hengel's Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

There is no room for scepticism about the archaeological confirmation of the historicity of the Book of Acts. Archaeologist, John McRay, writes in “Archaeology & the Book of Acts”:

The unbridled skepticism of Knox and Leudemann concerning the trustworthiness of Acts for constructing a reliable, if not detailed, chronology of its events has been effectively neutralized by the careful work of less radical scholars.

A century ago, one of the greatest archaeologists up to his era, Sir William Ramsay, concluded:

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense . . . In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915).

While there have been sceptics who doubted Ramsay’s conclusions, the winds of archaeology are blowing again in support of Ramsay’s assessment of the historicity of the Book of Acts.

These archaeological scholars are not of your persuasion and cause me to regard the Book of Acts as a substantial historical book with attested verification.

It sounds more like you have an axe to grind rather than Luke, the human author of the Book of Acts!

 

[wayseer]

OzPen - You can quote your sources - so what? There are any number of sources that contradict each other - that is the nature of scholarship. To suggest some final position is questionable. What you have attempted, yet again, is to take was I said out of the context of the original post and turn that comment into something to suit your own agenda.

My statement was in direct response to an argument put up from another poster that cites the book of Acts as their sole source for claiming that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. Try and stay with the topic.

If I have an axe to grind it is against those who insist the Jews killed Jesus when the historical evidence clearly indicates otherwise. To maintain that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus is similar to those who claim that it was the American foreign policy that lead to the killing on 9/11.

If you want to address that issue please do.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Oh boy. There is no contradiction. Let me try to spell it out in a different way:

The Torah is Hebrew history.

The Bible is Christian history

The Koran is Islamic history.

RealDeal,

It was you who said:

Abraham is regarded as the father of the Jewish (Hebrew) nation. You say, on the one hand, that the Bible is not Hebrew history. Now you say that Abraham is part of Islamic, Jewish and Christian history.

Jewish history is Hebrew history. You have made contradictory statements, when you say that the Bible is not Hebrew history and yet you claim that Abraham, the father of the Hebrew nation, is part of Jewish history. Don't you see the nature of your contradictory statements?

I provided archaeological statements confirming the historical nature of Ur of the Chaldeans, a city of Abraham's sojourn.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I never said it was claimed the NT is Hebrew history.....what I pointed out as incorrect was the claim the Bible is hebrew history
http://www.christianforums.com/t7375888-61/#post52342271

Also, the Tanakh is not the same thing as the OT. One example is the Catholic OT has 6 books not found in the Torah.

The Old Testament is Hebrew History...absolutely no one said anything about the New Testament being Hebrew History. The OT is recognized by Judaism because it is the exact same thing as their Tanakh.

 

[OzSpen]

Wayseer,

You can quote your sources - so what? There are any number of sources that contradict each other - that is the nature of scholarship. To suggest some final position is questionable.

You provided ZERO evidence. I provided archaeological evidence that the Book of Acts is a reliable historical document.

My statement was in direct response to an argument put up from another poster that cites the book of Acts as their sole source for claiming that it was the Jews who killed Jesus. Try and stay with the topic.

I was right on topic, but you don't like the historical evidence that I provided: In the reliable historical document, the Book of Acts, it states clearly that

"Men of Israel, hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth . . . , you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless mans" (Acts 2:22-23).

The historical evidence in the historically reliable Book of Acts clearly states that Jesus was killed by the "men of Israel" -- the Jews.

No matter how much you try to wriggle out of this, the historical evidence is reliable from the Book of Acts, and contradicts your view.

 

[liars_paradox]

Let's engage in fantasy for a moment like Darwinists do and pretend that the bible wasn't written by God but by a fallible human author, particularly a fiction novelist since

Actually, it would be authors, since we know that multiple humans physically wrote in this same collection of books. But, not all Darwinists are non-believers.

the secular world claims that the bible is fiction.

Do you even know what Secularism is? NO WHERE IN ANY SECULAR WRITING WILL YOU FIND THIS TO BE THE CASE. That isn't what secularism is about. Many secular ethicists and founders of various secular moral systems were also Christian.

For instance, just wikipedia Immanuel Kant. His Categorical Imperatives aren't too dissimilar to Jesus' Golden Rule, but rather than use his faith to justify this principle to non-Believers (as it is written in 1 Cor 5:12 something a Christian shouldn't do), he uses the laws of Logic and reason to make his argument. Which, if you don't know what those are, you can also look up symbolic logic on the internet as well. Side note, I've heard someone use the "universal laws of logic" as evidence of God's existence before.

In any case, the whole point of secularism is so that multiple faiths would be able to function within the same society. Much of the principles from our faith are also things which non-believers view as being right too. Trying to find a common ground among those with a different religion than yours is not the same as calling one's faith fiction.

Would you argue and fight about words in a fiction book and try to change the words in it? How much time would you spend trying to change the ending of "Little red Riding Hood" to make the "Big Bad Wolf" into a good guy?

If a fiction author said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster condemned you to hell, would you get furious and slander the author?

Of course not...unless you had some kind of mental disorder. Yet that's what the secular world tries to do with the bible that they claim is fiction. So either the secular world is so deluded that they can't tell fact from fantasy, or they know deep inside that the bible is the infallible Word of God, or both.

Don't pretend to know what other people are thinking. Again, the secular world makes no such claim. It only talks about the world outside of religion and leaves it at that.

I've asked this same question before to atheists and their response was;

"We're not afraid of the bible, we're afraid of Christians who believe the bible.

And, you don't see that as being rational? This is why Paul tells us not to judge others outside our faith. You may not see it, because you probably grew up in a "strong-Christian" background, but for those of us who has family that doesn't believe and have their opinions of Christians shaped by professing Christians we know how bad some Christians are. Angry talk like this will NEVER attract someone to our faith, you really should think about your stance on some things.

My response to them is; Are you afraid of "Trekkies" (Star Trek fans)? Are you afraid of the fans of Harry Potter books? And better yet, do you curse the "Big Bad Wolf", Darth Vader or any other fiction character you consider a villain? If they tried to convince you that those books are true, would you argue with them? Or would you dismiss them as lunatics?

No, but to those who don't believe, you are an even worse lunatic because you think your "fiction" is real and you even go so far as to tell them that they're going to Hell. Now, I understand that it's within our theology that this might be the case but it's hard to get someone from the outside to join when that means that people they care about who have already passed away are suffering in Eternal Hell flames. Whereas so many immoral professing Christians who preach hate are not going to share the same fate.

So sorry, but trying to change the words of a book you claim is fiction betrays your real knowledge that you know the bible was written by God and is thus, true.

So God is right, as always, in Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless men who have suppressed the truth by their wickedness." That it is.

So instead of trying to prove God wrong or think you know better than God does, you would fare much better if you listened to Him because only He can determine your ultimate fate.

The same goes for you. You're not one to speak for God, read 1 Corinthians 5:12 and Matthews 7:21-23 and consider what you've written here.

 

[OzSpen]

liars_paradox,

This is why Paul tells us not to judge others outside our faith.

Are the following people outside our faith (and Paul is the speaker)?

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Tim. 3:1-5 ESV)

Paul says that these people are “outside our faith” and we are told to “avoid such people.” This sure sounds like judging others to me.

 

[wayseer]

I was right on topic, but you don't like the historical evidence that I provided: In the reliable historical document, the Book of Acts, it states clearly that ...

If you base your claims on the 'historical' accuracy of Acts then you fly in the face of most scholars. The effective result of your 'inerrancy' theory is that you have to claim that the Bible is accurate in all respects - which is hardly scholarly. Your secular theology that argues such is the only way to 'read' the Bible is a relic of early 20th century thinking.

 

[OzSpen]

Wayseer,

If you base your claims on the 'historical' accuracy of Acts then you fly in the face of most scholars. The effective result of your 'inerrancy' theory is that you have to claim that the Bible is accurate in all respects - which is hardly scholarly. Your secular theology that argues such is the only way to 'read' the Bible is a relic of early 20th century thinking.

These are your assertions. You have provided no evidence.

I have posted a link to the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s article, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” that provides the evidence for the inerrancy of the original documents, but you don’t seem to want to engage with that evidence.

Your statement that “the Bible is accurate in all respects – which is hardly scholarly” is a blatantly false statement. I have the volume on my desk, Inerrancy, Norman L. Geisler (ed), Zondervan 1979, that has 14 chapters by these biblical scholars:

• John W. Wenham, MA BD;
• Edwin A. Blum, Th.D., D.Theol;
• Gleason L. Archer PhD;
• J. Barton Payne PhD;
• Walter C. Kaiser Jr. PhD;
• Greg L. Bahnsen, PhD;
• James I Packer, DPhil;
• Gordon R. Lewis PhD;
• Paul D. Feinberg Th.D, PhD;
• Norman L. Geisler PhD;
• R. C. Sproul Drs Free University of Amsterdam;
• Robert D. Preus PhD, D.Theol;
• John H. Gerstner PhD; and
• Henry Krabbendam Th.D.

These scholars are not dumbos. All of these are scholars in their own right. Two of them have PhDs from Harvard University; two of them have taught at Oxford University. They have provided reasoned biblical, logical and rational evidence in support of the inerrancy of Scripture. I currently am working on my PhD dissertation in NT.

It is a scholarly position that the God of truth, who does not lie, who “breathed out” the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16), provided the infallible/inerrant Scriptures in the autographa (original manuscripts).

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[wayseer]

It is a scholarly position that the God of truth, who does not lie, who “breathed out” the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16), provided the infallible/inerrant Scriptures in the autographa (original manuscripts).

You have demonstrated exactly what I have been saying - you are working from a position that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. No doubt there are any number of academics that support that position. But none of these are convincing and cannot adequately explain the glaring inconsistencies contained in the Bible. In an attempt to explain away these inconsistencies the references you cite do little more than create a climate of spin and manipulation which has no other agenda than to support their, and your, premise - that the Bible is inerrant anyway. Such circular arguments are hardly scholarly.

If you want to impress me you might begin by demonstrating how many of your references critique the story that the earth was created in six days. But I've asked you this before and you have failed to provide any adequate response other than quoting yet more references as if quoting references is the sole mechanism of your thinking.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I never said it was claimed the NT is Hebrew history.....what I pointed out as incorrect was the claim the Bible is hebrew history
http://www.christianforums.com/t7375888-61/#post52342271

Also, the Tanakh is not the same thing as the OT. One example is the Catholic OT has 6 books not found in the Torah.

If I am not mistaken, I did say that my bible have the exact same books that are in the Tenakh. I do not own a Catholic bible. And yes, the Old Testament does tell us of Hebrew history, it does not tell us ALL of Hebrew History.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

DDG - the book of Acts was written well into the first century and is anti-Semitic in its orientation. Quite simple, the author has an axe to grind.

The historical record makes it quite clear what happened. To continue to maintain that the Jews killed Jesus is to pretend that American foreign policy lead to the loss of life on 9/11.

Besides, as I noted earlier, Jesus said, 'Father forgive them ... ' Do Christ's words have so little relevance?

I'm supposed to believe that Acts was anti-Semitic, which is part of the bible, yet I'm supposed to pick and choose and believe the bible. If I am not mistaken, Christ told God to "forgive them" and yet, the accounts of all that happened is in scripture, God forgave them already, for Christ died according to His purpose, yet, it is still written for our knowledge.

The person who claimed to have said those words in Acts, was a Jew who was speaking to Jewish people, if you claim Anti-Semitic okay, but I'm still going to trust what the bible says, the person actually witnessed the account, I wasn't there.

This phrase made me laugh "the author has an axe to grind', its funny because after what was said in verse 36, the next 3 verses says this:

Acts 2:37-39

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."​

That is some weird axe their grinding.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Oh boy. There is no contradiction. Let me try to spell it out in a different way:

The Torah is Hebrew history.

The Bible is Christian history

The Koran is Islamic history.

The Torah is the first five books, the Tanakh is Hebrew history...and for my bible at least, the same books that are in the Tanakh are the same books that are in my Old Testament.

The bible include both the Old Testament and New Testament, and the New Testament gives us the teachings of Christ and a history of the spreading of the gospel and teachings.

I only read a little portion of the Koran (Quran) so I'm going to leave that one alone.