reason to believe

[Sketcher]

Having read some of Strobel's other works, and hearing some of his lectures, I can safely say he's a lying charlatan.

You think he's lying about the way Jesus changed his life?

 

[Isambard]

Isambard. I wasn't referring to Strobel himself my friend. But the scholars and archaeologists themselves, the ones He interviewed. But seeing Stobel being an Atheist at one point, there could be a strong case on that as well my friend. The Gospels are not contradictory, some more specific then others, but no contradiction. But you also have to look at the audience they were writing to. Matt. -Jews, Mark- Romans, Luke- A friend curious in our Lord, John- for showing His love and deity. But again, they do not contradict, some more specific, and others focus particular events. Again, b/c of the audience they were writing to...

Acts 1:18 (New International Version - UK)

18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Matthew 27:5-10 (New American Standard Bible)



5And he threw the pieces of silver into (A)the temple sanctuary and departed; and (B)he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."
7And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers.
8(C)For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
9Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "(D)AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10(E)AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME."



Thats a pretty big contradiction.

That said, which argument documented by Strobel are you presenting?

Extra-biblical records affirm that Jesus was no ordinary man. But the Lord has confirmed it to me through prayer, personally.

Which extra biblical stuff are you referring to?

Archeology has never contradicted it, and in some cases supported it. In fact, for studying places such as ancient Tyre, the Bible is one of the top sources that historians turn to. But if you want some more proof than that, look no further than the Jewish people and the fact that they are still around. Would that have been likely if they were just as hated and just as persecuted (more than any other group in history) and they were completely on their own? I don't think so.

What about civilizations existing before 6000 years ago, or you know, evolution.

 

[EazyMack]

or you know, evolution.

Such as Darwin's theory thereof?

 

[Isambard]

Such as Darwin's theory thereof?

Yep. Sorta makes the entire Genisis account silly.

 

[EazyMack]

Seems a lot of folks (other than "religious" folks) are saying that Darwin's theory is too full of holes to hold water.

 

[christian08]

One hole in evolution is the scientists Carbon Dating my friend is constantly inaccurate. in three different test they show up thousands of years difference, but they choose the one closest to their estimate. Isambard, as for your question on the two scriptures you gave in Matt and acts... My friend they are a DIRECT link to each other, no contradiction. The ONLY confusing part is in Acts the write uses Judas' name. BUT in matt. it tells you the Priests purchased it after his death. So the priests did buy the land, BUT LEGALLY the money was Judas'. So by that law is the reason why Luke, the write of Acts, calls it Judas' land. No contradiction, in fact a direct link, there just needs to be an understanding of their law and the context.

 

[Sketcher]

Which extra biblical stuff are you referring to?

Josephus, Tacitus, even the Talmud.

What about civilizations existing before 6000 years ago, or you know, evolution.

Carbon dating is not an exact science. Furthermore, there was a global flood during the history of man. That's going to skew some of those dating results.

Evolution is not archaeology. But there are believers who do accept it as well as what the Bible says.

 

[Sketcher]

Acts 1:18 (New International Version - UK)

18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

Matthew 27:5-10 (New American Standard Bible)



5And he threw the pieces of silver into (A)the temple sanctuary and departed; and (B)he went away and hanged himself.
6The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood."
7And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers.
8(C)For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
9Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "(D)AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10(E)AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME."



Thats a pretty big contradiction.

What, the rope can't break or be tied to a weak tree limb?

 

[CTP]

now I don't know what to say about the apparent contradictions between the book of Genesis and the fact of evolution; I haven't gotten that far along in my investigation into the faith, if that's what you want to call it.

I trust science to a pretty fair degree. evolution is a sure fact. I won't argue with anybody about that.

what I would like to ask the thread skeptic though (that's you, Isambard ) is what you think about the apostles. this is one of the questions I'm wrestling with right now.

it's a popular question: why would twelve guys die for a message that they knew was a lie?

or, worded differently: if Jesus told the apostles he'd die and come back, and he never did, then why would they have given their lives for him?

personally, I'm stumped. it seems to me that this is a pretty sure evidence for the Faith, but then again the question doesn't seem to bother folks like you. I'm just trying to hear every side here in the hopes of getting closer to a conclusion.


P.S. Merry Christmas!

 

[growth643]

Let me use a small analogy.. and i'll put in my two cents...

Imagine.. all of the Christians who believe Jesus Died on the cross and rose from the grave, were in a swimming pool.. and we are all soaking wet, duh!

Now you, and other non-believers are outside of the pooling telling us that we are NOT wet, when you are not in the pool... You can't believe that we claim we are wet and therefore don't believe it. When we sure know we are defidentally wet, we are in water!

We experience this first hand.. and know that gods grace and love abounds in all places... he loves you and he's just waiting for you to stretch out your hands and take his... and believe in him... and walk by faith and not by sight...

You must choose to believe... and after that... after you give your life to the lord.. you will begin to see miraculous things happen.. you will begin to understand and hunger for the word in a way you never have before... There is no point in arguing this topic... it is your choice, And the lord will not force it upon you... thats what makes him so great... And he is always waiting with open arms for you to come running back to him...

 

[explodingboy]

Seems a lot of folks (other than "religious" folks) are saying that Darwin's theory is too full of holes to hold water.

That's probably because only simpletons still believe that we are following Darwinian evolution. What Darwin proposed was the starting point of what we have now, just like Freud was one of the farther of psychology yet everyone who has sat through even a single Psych 101 class will be able to tell you that modern day psychology is far beyond what Freud started, and that most Freudian studies are full of inaccuracies and really not worth paying any attention too at all.

 

[explodingboy]

One hole in evolution is the scientists Carbon Dating my friend is constantly inaccurate.

Again, stop trying to pick holes, and claim it proves everything to be wrong. Do you honestly believe that the scientists behind carbon dating, don't realize it has limitations?

Carbon dating is old science once again, the world has moved on while your busy twiddling your thumbs and claiming it can't be.

There is more than one method to date an object, and dates are given by combination of methods, not one soul measurement that has well known limitations and flaws.

Carbon dating is not an exact science. Furthermore, there was a global flood during the history of man. That's going to skew some of those dating results.

Again, A-see above, and B - We have written historical accounts that sit bang smack in the middle of a supposed world wide flood that wipes out all but Noah, and we have several Ancient civilizations that happily existed during a time period that you want to claim everyone was wiped out during.

Not to mention, I have yet to see a single good explanation of where all this water is supposed to have come from and gone too.

it's a popular question: why would twelve guys die for a message that they knew was a lie?

or, worded differently: if Jesus told the apostles he'd die and come back, and he never did, then why would they have given their lives for him?

What makes you so sure Jesus is the only person to have come back from the dead?

That and 12 guys dieing for a lie really isn't that impressive at all, that can be matched by most small time cults.

 

[CTP]

What makes you so sure Jesus is the only person to have come back from the dead?

who else is there that's done it?

That and 12 guys dieing for a lie really isn't that impressive at all, that can be matched by most small time cults.

not really. I haven't seen another religion where the faith of its believers depends so much on the death and resurrection of their savior. the lies the small-time cults have died for in history are generally beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven, they don't require the cult's central figure pulling off pretty much the greatest parlor trick of all time.

if you have some examples though I'll take a look at them.

 

[explodingboy]

who else is there that's done it?

Well in terms of deities resurrection was a pretty common trick, there is also one other around the time, of a magician of sorts of burns himself to death in front of a crowd of followers and returns from the grave, unfortunately I don't have the notebook with his name to hand, as it's still in the USA.

but I'll dig around see if I can find it.

Food for thought though, it's a good idea to look into the early churches beliefs about Jesus, you'll be surprised by how they view the miracles, since your talking about a time in history where miracle workers are ten a penny, and gods roam the earth as men.

The question wasn't how to prove his divinity but rather to prove his humanity.

 

[christian08]

Exploding... First my friend carbon dating can't be said that it's old science if by its results is how scientists and schools wrongfully STILL teach the earths "age" or the dinosaurs' age. And so forth. Second as for the early church fathers. You must not be reading it right my friend or not understanding... For example, Ignatius of Antioch was a pupil of Paul the Apostle, Paul writing to the Phillippians makes it clear of Christs humanity. Or how about Tertullian? They mention His humanity, b/c if they didn't then all their teachings and quoting FROM scripture wouldn't re-create the whole new testament, excluding 11 verses.

 

[CTP]

Well in terms of deities resurrection was a pretty common trick, there is also one other around the time, of a magician of sorts of burns himself to death in front of a crowd of followers and returns from the grave, unfortunately I don't have the notebook with his name to hand, as it's still in the USA.

but I'll dig around see if I can find it.

resurrection was a common trick with the deities, but like I said from what I've read it was pretty uncommon for a religion to hinge so much on the historicity of the death and resurrection of the central figure. I don't think it was a trick attempted too often, and evidently it was rarely successful either or else we'd remember these other messiahs too.

Food for thought though, it's a good idea to look into the early churches beliefs about Jesus, you'll be surprised by how they view the miracles, since your talking about a time in history where miracle workers are ten a penny, and gods roam the earth as men.

The question wasn't how to prove his divinity but rather to prove his humanity.

off the top of my head from what I recollect about the early church's beliefs about Jesus didn't they pretty much go around bragging about how Christ had defeated death?

 

[explodingboy]

resurrection was a common trick with the deities, but like I said from what I've read it was pretty uncommon for a religion to hinge so much on the historicity of the death and resurrection of the central figure. I don't think it was a trick attempted too often, and evidently it was rarely successful either or else we'd remember these other messiahs too.

Which is why I mentioned there is a non deity performing the same trick.. Just annoyed that I can't recall the name of him

off the top of my head from what I recollect about the early church's beliefs about Jesus didn't they pretty much go around bragging about how Christ had defeated death?

but again this where you see the change, in modern day arguing this makes him a deity, where as the early church focuses on him rising as a man.

 

[christian08]

exploding.... Read some of the writings from the fathers of the church mentioned. They, and more importantly, the NT itself all agree with the opposite... Our Lord was man, and when He resurrected He completed what He had to. BUT no where does it mention that He was JUST man and THEN God after, or vise versa. If that were true my friend then the Gospel would have no power, WHICH it does.

 

[CTP]

Which is why I mentioned there is a non deity performing the same trick.. Just annoyed that I can't recall the name of him

if you can remember his name or find where you wrote it down, we can discuss him. I'm betting though that there isn't much of a case for his death and resurrection, and I don't know but I bet he didn't have a slew of followers willing to die for their belief in his rising again either.

but again this where you see the change, in modern day arguing this makes him a deity, where as the early church focuses on him rising as a man.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. clarify.

the earliest creeds stressed his divinity, his saving grace, and the death and resurrection of his being.

 

[EazyMack]

That's probably because only simpletons still believe that we are following Darwinian evolution.

I was just responding to Mr. Isambard.

Microevolution I will gladly accept. Macroevolution, not so much. But, if enough evidence to support the theory finally popped up, that would be fine too. Christianity is not hinged on the belief that every material thing exists today the way it did at the beginning of time. Though there are some religious prudes who would disagree with me... they can be considered the Christian simpleton equivalent to Darwinists, if you like.

To put it another way, if macroevolution is fact, God is still the creator of it.