can you be a "moral" person...

[madaz]

If the evidence is scarce or non existent then it wont be supported. Some may want to make it a certain way but if it cant be supported then it wont stand up to scrutiny.

Exactly, first of all you claim that psalm is a prophecy, secondly you claim the word pierced is used, thirdly you claim other scripture supports it.

Under scrutiny, I fail to see the validity in all three of your claims. So I'm sorry it just doesn't stand up.

But your not really understanding what I mean. I was talking about the bible supporting the bible for believers and not whether the bible is true according to non believers. Sometimes when someone doesn't understand a verse in the bible you can clarify its meaning by referring to other parts of the bible that will confirm it. Or in the case of prophesy refer to other parts of the bible to support that prophesy. If several parts of the bible support what it said then there is no made up conclusion. The bible itself has made the statement. All that is being done is confirming it with other parts of the same book.

ie the meaning of pieced is confirmed by the fact that it is used in the middle of other verses that speak about Jesus such as they draw lots for his garments and the writer David speaks out my God why have you forsaken me. These were the words of Jesus on the cross and the soldiers also drew lots for His cloths over a 1000 years into the future from when this psalm was written. King David represented the coming of Jesus and has many parallels with Him. So using other verses that support that also reference Jesus we can build support for what the true meaning of the verse represents. So the Hebrew word does mean pieced as in Jesus being pieced and nothing to do with lion as that meaning doesn't go with the rest of what the psalm is referring to. So the surrounding support confirms the meaning of the word and not the word taken in isolation which can be misleading.


So it is cross referencing bible verses even from the old testament to the new and visa versa that we can confirm and get the true meanings. But if you take the verses in isolation you can easily be misguided and get things wrong or out of context and this is what some do when they bring up examples.

Did you stop and think the reason for this might be because the earliest scribes had a desired
conclusion and altered the scripture to suit?

So if someone says God is an evil God for example because of a verse they see they need to understand what this verse represents in the context of the whole story and even other parts of the bible that will give more understanding why things were the way they were. This is the same for when people try to justify actions in the name of God. This is a good practice with any research in any subject.

I'm sorry mate but the behaviour of your God (as described in the bible) is indeed evil, and no amount of rationalising its behaviour by attempting to understand what a verse represents in the context of the whole story will ever justify it.

 

[stevevw]

You are making a lot of assumptions; assuming a being from another planet is technologically more advanced than us and would be able to figure a lot of stuff out that we cannot. You don't know that.

Yes perhaps I am. But I would think that if an alien could travel all the way to our planet then they would be pretty clever, more than us I would say. If animals can have a sense of self and others then surely all living creatures must have some sort of awareness of nature and design. Of movement and ability to make things. Otherwise its just a blob that just sits there breathing and doing nothing.

But like I said that wasn't really the point. Whether it is hard to tell how it was made or not or whether it was natural or unnatural it still looks like it is designed. The most important thing is that we can only deal with what we have and know. At the moment to me we live in a universe that looks designed and everything around us has some design. It doesn't look like it would come from nothing and a process that built something from a non designed method.

An alien would probably assume the moth was just a victim of a person who likes to paint insects.

Perhaps they would. But you said it, it looks like someone painted a mural on the moths wings. So it speaks about a process of intelligent creator like an artist and not some chance random process. How can this happen by little bits of the mural being imprinted on the wings with new mutations all piecing together such a specific picture of the one fly in nature that will deter its predators. How can it do that without knowing what it needed to do in the first place. It had to have produced that whole picture in one go to be so precise and specific.

 

[stevevw]

Exactly, first of all you claim that psalm is a prophecy, secondly you claim the word pierced is used, thirdly you claim other scripture supports it.

Under scrutiny, I fail to see the validity in all three of your claims. So I'm sorry it just doesn't stand up.

Well I am not sure how much time you have spent on researching this but it takes more than a quick dismissal. Like you said before if you have it in your mind that its not true in the first place then maybe you wont bother to check it out completely to find out. But any scholar or even lay person in this case can find out easily.

As I said look at what is said. The words my God why have you forsaken me are used by the psalmist. They are the exact words Jesus used on the cross. The reference to they cast lots for my garments is used by the psalmist. The exact thing happened to Jesus on the cross. The rest is referring to being rejected by many which is also what happened to Jesus. So the Hebrew word which could have more than one meaning being like a lion or pieced sits well with pieced and doesn't make any sense with like a lion. On top of this all ancient Hebrew texts have pieced. The dead sea scrolls have pieced as well. Add to this that David in the psalms is linked so much with Jesus and also prophesies about him on other occasions there can be no doubt. So using several pieces of support we can add them together to get strong support that this is the true meaning.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/441-does-psalm-22-prophesy-the-crucifixion-of-christ

Did you stop and think the reason for this might be because the earliest scribes had a desired
conclusion and altered the scripture to suit?

That is a different assertion. I was talking about verifying the old testament verses being correctly interpreted. As for the other are you saying that the new testament writers made their stories to match the prophesies. If so this could be the case.

But we know that Jesus was crucified by historians and was accused for claiming to be the Son of God. So He himself is doing the fulfillment's. There are over 300 prophesies that have been fulfilled. I would say that is going a bit to far to make sure you were being recognized as the Messiah. Besides in the writings He is often not promoting this. The writings are to detailed to be something that was made up be many different writers who didn't know each other. But it is possible but would be an extreme length to go to.

I'm sorry mate but the behaviour of your God (as described in the bible) is indeed evil, and no amount of rationalising its behaviour by attempting to understand what a verse represents in the context of the whole story will ever justify it.

Like you said if someone has already made their mind up then they will see it the way they do and no amount of reasoning will change that.

 

[Euler]

Exactly, first of all you claim that psalm is a prophecy, secondly you claim the word pierced is used, thirdly you claim other scripture supports it.

Under scrutiny, I fail to see the validity in all three of your claims. So I'm sorry it just doesn't stand up.


Did you stop and think the reason for this might be because the earliest scribes had a desired
conclusion and altered the scripture to suit?


I'm sorry mate but the behaviour of your God (as described in the bible) is indeed evil, and no amount of rationalising its behaviour by attempting to understand what a verse represents in the context of the whole story will ever justify it.

Exactly. Which provides further evidence that these stories are NOT about the actions of gods, but are merely the chronicles of ancient people justifying their ancient violent urges.

As I asked in another thread, why does this God demand that the Jews mercilessly slaughter the tribes which oppose them - man, woman and newborn baby? Can't he do his own dirty work, as he has shown so many other times? The answer is simple, isn't it? These were the actions of PEOPLE, not gods.

 

[madaz]

As for the other are you saying that the new testament writers made their stories to match the prophesies. If so this could be the case.

Im suggesting new testament writers (and scribes) made up (and/or altered) the stories in the first few centuries of the common era.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

Ken-1122

The bible is a series of small books, and the books do not always agree with each other; what is written in some of the books will even contradict what is written in some of the other books.
People will often quote books and scriptures that will support their agenda, and ignore the books and scriptures that contradict their agenda. Because of that; as mankind evolves; so does Christianity. Just as people’s morals are not the same as they were 100 years ago; neither is Christianity.

Well that should dispel those who say that the bible was made up then. As if it was and collaborated and then specially chosen to push an agenda then it would have these contradictions and almost embarrassing claims. In fact these are some of the evidences that are used to show that the writings must be from those who either witnessed the events or had inside knowledge of events. If you were going to write some books that were false and be convincing you would use convincing supports. But there are many things included like Jesus who was suppose to be the great king and Messiah being a Nazarene which was lowly. A tax collector claiming to wright the book of Matthew who were not trusted.

Many of the contradictions can be shown not to be contradictions actually but differences in the way people saw things. The emphasis placed on a certain aspect or a perspective seen that was different from another. So each contradiction can have a reasonable explanation to it if you choose to check them out. But some will latch onto this and not bother to give one inch of benefit because they have chosen to not believe in the first place. Yet when it comes to other situations that dont involve God there is plenty of benefit and leeway given.

Science (unlike religion) is designed to be able to make corrections when it is proven wrong.

Yes this is whats suppose to happen. Many say that science is like this unbiased entity that rolls along and cannot get involved in personal beliefs and only seeks the truth. That is true if you just take science itself as a mechanism to look at things. But when you add humans with their potential for personal views and beliefs and biases this can get distorted. They say that there is a very high percentage of bias in even peer reviewed papers. Scientists are not immune to gathering together and forming a religious type belief about some of the stuff they promote. If you listen to some of the ways some scientists talk about what is basically unproven hypothesis you would thing it was a fact.

 

[stevevw]

Im suggesting new testament writers (and scribes) made up (and/or altered) the stories in the first few centuries of the common era.

Well there is evidence to show that the new testament was written not to long after the death of Jesus. Some of Paul's letters have been shown to have been written only a few years after Jesus. There is to much 1st hand testimony that goes into great detail about things that shows whoever wrote them was either a witness or knew someone who was there. It would be a mighty big elaborate effort to make 100s of false claims line up with others. It would have to be done much later and done by one group of people to ensure it all was collaborated with every bit of writing that was around before anyone else seen it.

But we have little bits of writings from many authors and from various places. We have disciples of disciples also relaying the same testimony. We have people testifying that they were witnesses and swearing they tell the truth. This would be one big conspiracy of massive proportions. Yet in the 2000 years that has gone by we have heard not one challenge to any of it. Not any saying they know the true story or calling the original writers or early church leaders liars.

 

[Strathos]

Nonsense. The disagreement centers around the VIEWS of those people, not the people themselves. To be antitheist is to attack theism, not theists.

If I attack your political stance as being harmful/unjust/illogical, am I being bigoted?

A Christian's identity is inextricably tied to their faith. If you attack the latter, you are attacking them as a person as well.

Good point! How many times have we heard them say "hate the sin, not the sinner" but as soon as this logic is used on them, they cry bigotry!

K

Faith in God is the exact opposite of sin.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A Christian's identity is inextricably tied to their faith. If you attack the latter, you are attacking them as a person as well.

Don't you see that as a problem? How can anyone ever debate ideas when people have such thin skins?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

Well there is evidence to show that the new testament was written not to long after the death of Jesus. Some of Paul's letters have been shown to have been written only a few years after Jesus. There is to much 1st hand testimony that goes into great detail about things that shows whoever wrote them was either a witness or knew someone who was there.

stevew, there is absolutely no 1st hand testimony in the NT. Not a single author lived during Jesus time.

It would be a mighty big elaborate effort to make 100s of false claims line up with others. It would have to be done much later and done by one group of people to ensure it all was collaborated with every bit of writing that was around before anyone else seen it.

Small alterations over hundreds of years could easily supercede any mighty elaborate effort over a short period of time. Such small individual changes will go unnoticed or challenged.

But we have little bits of writings from many authors and from various places. We have disciples of disciples also relaying the same testimony. We have people testifying that they were witnesses and swearing they tell the truth. This would be one big conspiracy of massive proportions. Yet in the 2000 years that has gone by we have heard not one challenge to any of it.
Not any saying they know the true story or calling the original writers or early church leaders liars.

It is the biggest conspiracy in human history, and the challenges to it are numerous.

 

[madaz]

A Christian's identity is inextricably tied to their faith. If you attack the latter, you are attacking them as a person as well.

No, you are not attacking them (the theist), they (the theist) simply perceive themselves as being attacked. Because it certainly make discussion tense when they believe they are being attacked personally. More so Muslims than Christians from my experience.

Faith in God is the exact opposite of sin.

Faith in god(s) is the exact opposite of reason. Sin is just a mere concept.

 

[Euler]

A Christian's identity is inextricably tied to their faith. If you attack the latter, you are attacking them as a person as well.

Yawn. And so, for some people, is their identity tied to their political stance. Won't stop me for a second trashing their political beliefs.

Faith in God is the exact opposite of sin.

How about the faith that inspired Joshua to slaughter every man, woman (virgins excepted of course!), and baby of his enemies? That the opposite of sin?

How about the faith that inspires Westboro Baptists to obscenely picket the funerals of troops? Is that the opposite of sin?

How about the faith that JWs display when they withhold medical help from their dying children? Is that the opposite of sin?

How about the faith that inspired 19 Saudis to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? Is that..........................

 

[Strathos]

Don't you see that as a problem? How can anyone ever debate ideas when people have such thin skins?


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's only a problem if you think it's correct to attack people's faith.

No, you are not attacking them (the theist), they (the theist) simply perceive themselves as being attacked. Because it certainly make discussion tense when they believe they are being attacked personally. More so Muslims than Christians from my experience.

Isn't it up to the perception of the individual whether they are being insulted or not?

Faith in god(s) is the exact opposite of reason. Sin is just a mere concept.

A concept you apparently don't understand.

Yawn. And so, for some people, is their identity tied to their political stance. Won't stop me for a second trashing their political beliefs.

Not in the way faith is.

How about the faith that inspired Joshua to slaughter every man, woman (virgins excepted of course!), and baby of his enemies? That the opposite of sin?

How about the faith that inspires Westboro Baptists to obscenely picket the funerals of troops? Is that the opposite of sin?

How about the faith that JWs display when they withhold medical help from their dying children? Is that the opposite of sin?

How about the faith that inspired 19 Saudis to fly airplanes into skyscrapers? Is that..........................

Those are not examples of faith, they are examples of actions done (not necessarily correctly) in the name of faith (although in the case of WBC money and attention probably has more to do with it).

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's only a problem if you think it's correct to attack people's faith.

I don't see any ideas as so sacrosanct that they can't be examined and questioned dispassionately.

That isn't about "attacking" anything. Socrates wasn't "attacking" anyone when he questioned the views of his fellow Athenians. They did put him to death because they felt attacked. I see that as the real problem, and a serious one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

Isn't it up to the perception of the individual whether they are being insulted or not?

Correct, perception being the key word here. Unfortunately theists perceive they are being personally attacked when their doctrine is challenged. This is a grave problem that is detrimental to progress as well as making it difficult for honest discourse.

Religion and it's "sacred cows" are not excempt from scrutiny and/or challenges.

And such challenges are not personal attacks on its followers.

A concept you apparently don't understand.

I understand the concept, I just dimiss the concept as utter nonsense.

 

[Euler]

It's only a problem if you think it's correct to attack people's faith.



Isn't it up to the perception of the individual whether they are being insulted or not?



A concept you apparently don't understand.



Not in the way faith is.



Those are not examples of faith, they are examples of actions done (not necessarily correctly) in the name of faith (although in the case of WBC money and attention probably has more to do with it).

I can guarantee you that each and every one of the people taking those "actions" would attest that their faith was directing them. That you consider them 'incorrect' is nothing more than a personal opinion (incidentally, you think that Joshua was 'incorrect' in supposedly following his god's word to the letter?).

In other words, you mistrust their faith as a basis for justifying their actions.

Just like me.

 

[Euler]

stevew, there is absolutely no 1st hand testimony in the NT. Not a single author lived during Jesus time.





Small alterations over hundreds of years could easily supercede any mighty elaborate effort over a short period of time. Such small individual changes will go unnoticed or challenged.




It is the biggest conspiracy in human history, and the challenges to it are numerous.

He clearly has no idea about how the Bible came to be compiled. That there were dozens more stories that were filtered out of the final collection. Little wonder then, that there is some similarity between different accounts - they were selected to fit!

And the "1st hand testimony" just cracks me up!

 

[stevevw]

stevew, there is absolutely no 1st hand testimony in the NT. Not a single author lived during Jesus time.

How do you know this. There is intimate information included that reeks of a personal knowledge. It is spoken in the 1st person and studies have shown that the manner in which it is written can only come from someone who was there or knew the inside information of someone who was there.

Small alterations over hundreds of years could easily supersede any mighty elaborate effort over a short period of time. Such small individual changes will go unnoticed or challenged.

But all those small changes would be caught out by the other documents that surfaced that spoke about the same events. The author of some of the books also taught and passed that info verbally onto others and they also wrote commentaries on this which matched what was written. It all lines up and is collaborated.

It is the biggest conspiracy in human history, and the challenges to it are numerous.

There is as much if not more support for it that there is challenges. Like I said during the early times when it was first coming out and making headlines no one challenges it. No one said this Jesus is a phony or didn't exist. The bible claimed Jesus rose from the dead and 500 seen Him come back to life yet no one said it was a false hood. No one challenged the miracles He did and this was all know from the early days. In fact some called Him a sorcerer so they acknowledge Him but still didn't dispute that He was associated with some sort of magic and unusual events. There was no disputing the biblical writings either in all that time. Most of the disputes have come in the age of skepticism and atheism which will dispute just about everything no matter what. The bible has been verified with archeological digs time and time again. Luke's gospel is very well supported by archeological evidence.

the bible is the most accurate historical book of all times. No other historical writing was written so close to the actual events and no other matches it in the volume of what was and is available. Some of Paul's letters are written only a few years after Christ. The exact same letters that were written 2000 years ago remain the same today and havnt been changed. Paul supports what was in the Gospels so it all collaborates each other.

Of the approximately 138,000 words in the New Testament only about 1,400 remain in doubt. The text of the New Testament is thus about 99% established. That means that when you pick up a (Greek) New Testament today, you can be confident that you are reading the text as it was originally written. Moreover, that 1% that remains uncertain has to do with trivial words on which nothing of importance hangs.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-gospels-reliability#ixzz3LyaBhlZs

​

 

[stevevw]

The so called many books that were not chosen for good reasons. When you consider many of the fringe ones are just plain irrelevant and ridiculous and turn up 100s of years after the events. But of the small number which may have some claim to be included they still have good reason not to be in the bible and have little bearing on whats in the bible.

Many of them were inconsistent but were inconsistent on their own. The many books in the bible collaborated each other and therefore were supportive and consistent. Some of the books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Epistle of Barnabas could have made it in but were not chosen because they didn't meet the high standard of what was required. But they dont say anything controversial. But the other books were totally irrelevant and inconsistent.

Of the others Apocalypse of Peter, Infancy Gospel of James, 1 Clement, The Didache, Lost Epistle to the Corinthians, Third Letter to the Corinthians and the supposed Q document which is not even in existence. But none of these books are inconsistent with the bible and in fact just add more weight to what is in the bible as they are more writings supporting what was said. But they didn't make it because they were either completely lost, partly lost or didn't meet the high standard for one reason or another.

Of the others there are ones like Gospel of Mani which only has a part of it and claims to be the only true gospel and that the Christian gospels are false. But it is the only one and written in the 3rd century. Then there's the Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Apelles, Gospel of Bardesanes, Gospel of Basilides. These are one offs written in the late 2nd century and have been disputed sinse the early days. Then it starts to get even more ridiculous with others like Pilate Gospels which make Pilate a christian.

There are others but they are all one offs or written much later or have ridiculous topics which are completely irrelevant. But if there is a single gospel that may make some controversy about say Jesus being married what do you believe the large consistent content of the bible or a single book written 2 or 3 hundred years later. When people talk about the mythical Jesus all these other books written much later are actually the false mythical books which makes the bible have even more true status. But of the ones that are consistent that didn't make it we have even more books that all support each other from even more authors. So this would only add more weight to the support of the bible.