Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why is there so little information about Jesus outside of scripture? If the claims were true, would we not have a wealth of first century historians informing us of his ministry? Why is there so little?
Do you realise how sparse non-Christian texts are for that period in that place?Why is there so little information about Jesus outside of scripture? If the claims were true, would we not have a wealth of first century historians informing us of his ministry? Why is there so little?
Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?
Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?
Ian, given the historical data that we know about certain key figures in the Roman Empire, within and prior to that time period, and even the Chinese Dynasties, I don't think it is such a stretch to assume that we would have perhaps a little bit more detailed evidence; given the substantial number of witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Some form of documentation or more credible and substantive proof should surely be available. Many argue that he existed, in one form or another, but the miraculous claims should, if true, allow for a wider range of historical data outside of scripture. Is that not too plausible a theory?
If you honestly think science can only support discoveries made by science you have a lot to learn.
Proving Jesus was not divine (again, how do you prove a negative?) would not prove that God does not exist.
People a long time before him. Who was Nebuchadnezzar's son?
I have just provided evidence. Now let's watch you reject it......
Charles Thaxton is an intelligent design person. It's not having a different philosophy to me that is the problem, nor being a Christian. There are plenty of reasonable scientists that are also Christians. It is ignoring all of the scientific evidence that causes me to label him that way.
The main problem is you using a book published in 1984 by a fringe group of scientists and saying it reflects "increasing" evidence of a supernatural creator nearly 30 years later.
I have neither read the Koran or the Bible. I have some basic understanding of the bible from school and some of the stories.
I don't think I've made up any stories from the bible to discredit it.
I very much doubt Muslims claim that the Koran isn't true or historically accurate. I'm only going on my own personal experience here, so maybe there are Muslims that claim it is untrue and the bible is the truth.
..
Where's the list?
Is that any worse than you ignoring biblical evidence; the kind of evidence that has convinced these scientists?
And to go back to the "nutcase" allegation, do you realise that a difference in a persons core philosophy which cannot be tolerated by someone with an opposing viewpoint is bigotry? I don't hear proponents of ID referred to their opposors as nutcases.....
Have read any of the other more contemporary that books I've listed in my previous posts then?
Fair enough.
No, but if you're discussing Christian issues then it would be quite useful to get your own understanding of them directly from the bible and think it through properly for yourself before engaging with serious debate with other people.
You demonstrating some glaring errors and accusations (such as "most Christians disowned the OT anyways") which could be avoided, because I've no clue where you got this from. Quite simply, none of the NT makes any sense at all without the OT.
You've previously said that "It's easy to say one book is true if you don't read any others".
And now you've said you've read neither of these books?
So if you've NOT read either book, is it true to say that BOTH are NOT truth..??
To answer your question (very very simply), Islam and Christianity teach opposites on a number of fundamental/ core beliefs. Islam is the only religion in the world which is in direct opposition to Christianity; it is the ONLY religion that contains teaching that directly go against what Christianity teaches - primarily about Jesus.
The law of non-contradiction leaves us with situation where opposites cannot both be true. Christianity teaches Jesus dies on a cross, and Islam teaches that Jesus escaped death and someone else was killed in his place. Christianity teaches that God has a (only begotten) son. Islam teaches teaches that God has no son (la sharika lahu - this is inscribed on the inside of the dome of the Dome of the rock in Jerusalem).
Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. They both could be false, but as a minimum one of these religions MUST be false - this is a logical necessity. Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity) or he did not die(Islam)> He cannot have both died and not died at the same time. If it were not at the same time then we are talking about 2 different people. God either has a son (Christianity) or he does not have a son (Islam) - He cannot both have and not have a son at the same time..
1+2. Same can be said for Harry Potter, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes etc etc ad nauseam. That is not a reason to believe they exist.There might be a bit of overlap with some of these, but here is the list anyway:
(1) Adam and Eve are presented as actual people, (2) the narrative outlines important events in their lives, (3) they gave birth to literal children, (4) the phrase "this is the account of.." is used frequently to record history in Genesis, (5) OT chronology puts Adam at the top of the list, (6) NT chronology puts Adam at the beginning of Jesus' literal ancestors, (7) Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first actual "male and female" (Matt 19:4-5), (8) Paul describes a literal death bought in to the world by a literal Adam (Rom 5:12-14), (9) Adam is called the "first Adam" and Jesus the "last Adam" in 1 Cor 15:45 showing that Adam was seen as a literal historical figure, (10) Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14 mentions when "Adam was first formed, then Eve" showing that he was referring to literal people, the temptation of Eve is mentioned in (11) 1 Tim 2:14 and (12) 2 Cor 11:3 and in both cases described as literal events..
It's certainly what you've implied. What are you saying?Sorry, wrong conclusion - I'm not saying that
Why more than one? Your claim is that there has never been a single error found in the bible so a single person would meet that requirement. In fairness, I actually have no idea who was the first person to point out that Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar's son and not actually king, but it was someone long before Dawkins.Name some of them ?
Proponents of ID might not call people nutcases, but instead they lie, present false evidence, misrepresent their opponents position and destroy young minds which IMHO is far far worse.
I'm only trying to debate the science here. I'm trying to deal with claims in the bible that can actually be tested, not those that cannot. We can't for example know whether Jesus walked on water, however we do know that the order of events in Genesis is incorrect.
In summary, 10 of your reasons rely on the books of the bible being self-supporting, and the other 5 are really a single point -writing style shows that the text in Genesis is meant as historical narrative.
Firstly not all types of evidence are born equal. If you claim biblical evidence is the same as scientific evidence then you can equally claim any written account is on a par with scientific evidence.
I am very happy calling someone a nutcase. They have the same right to call me one as I do them. If I were to discriminate against them then that would be different. Proponents of ID might not call people nutcases, but instead they lie, present false evidence, misrepresent their opponents position and destroy young minds which IMHO is far far worse.
As far as the OT goes, I'm only going on the few Christians I know and have spoken to. I'm sure some Christians think it's great that God was so immoral in the OT and believe talking snakes went around informing humans of their dinner choices.
Neither the bible nor the Koran say man evolved. I don't need to read the whole of either book to know that neither say man evolved nor the universe formed in the way it did.
Hi Tony...
Can you explain how being a proponent of ID is to "destroy young minds"?
Also, can you present me with evidence that proves the order of events in Genesis is incorrect?
Thanks...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?