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.
And as a skeptic I realize there are those of other faiths who are able to defend their religious accounts of Jesus. To me they sound just as credible as you.
I agree! I believe the other writings and claims about Jesus are equally (in)valid and (in)accurate.
I dont think anybody actually believes the Big Bang was an actual explosion.
If something is more difficult to believe, it is going to be scrutinized a little more closely
True; they could both be wrong! But if one person claimed he did something that people do all the time, then another person claimed he did something that is impossible for any person to do; which person are you more likely to believe?
Because you also have to believe Jesus only told the truth! Did he not link his resurrection to Joana in the belly of the whale? (Matthew 12:40). Did he not link his second coming to the story of Noah? Matthew 24:36-39? It is obvious Jesus believed the stories of the Old Testament were actual events; that they were not allegorical. To believe the bible claims of Jesus, you have to believe the Old Testament stories as well.
The problem with Jesus is he never wrote anything down. The only thing we know about Jesus is what other people claimed he said, but how do you know the people you choose to believe are telling the truth? How do you know they are telling you what Jesus actually said instead of what they wanted Jesus to say? It seems to me if God is all knowing and all wise and he was going to send his son to earth for 30+ years, he should have had his son write the message instead of have various people write what they claimed was the message; then many years later have a bunch of other men vote on which messages are legitimate and which messages are not!(The cannon) This gives the bible the appearance of human tampering. If Jesus wrote the Bible, nobody would dare tamper with it.
The same is true of almost any all ancient historical figures. There are very few autographs. All we have are copies that tell us what they think he said. At much greater distances from the events than what the gospels are.
That's where Textual criticism and analysis comes in
I can't pretend to know Gods reasoning. But the question remains "is it true? not "who wrote it"
Thats not quite what happened, but it is an entirely different subject.
Do you have any evdidence that it has been tampered with?
That is true. We are created in Gods image so we share some of his characteristics, but our image has been marred by the fall. Our emotions are often expressed in imperfect ways. Not so with God.
;
What you see are people writing about what and how things really happened. They had no desire to put a positive spin on things.
Thats true. Jesus said "when you have seen me you have seen the Father"
Yes
By examining the evidence for it in the same way we examine any other historical claim.
He did
He did
When he started his ministry there was no "choir" of already committed believers . It was his preaching that created the choir. And 2000 years later it still is.
Not to be picky but there is no Roman Empire today.
How many records will there be left of our execututions in 2000 years? Jesus was a minor insurrectionist in a backwater part of their empire. There was no reason they would have paid special attention to it. Even when the Apostles began to preach the resurrection Rome regarded just as a spat among the Jews. Only when Paul appealed to Caesar did they begin to take notice of Jesus.
If it wasn't covered how do you know about it?
In point of fact you have never really asked to see the evidence for the truth of it, even though I claim that it is there. Wouldn't that be the simplest way to resolve this question
I don't know too much about Alexander the Great; maybe if I did I would have my doubts about him as well. You will have to take that up with someone who knows more about Alexander the Great.
No my question is why didn't he write it? (remember I am giving you my reasons not somebody elses)
No that's part of the subject. Are you saying the Catholic Church didn't decide which books were to be considered authentic enough to be considered a part of the bible?
It was written by imperfect humans. Imperfect Humans decided which books were considered good and which books were bad
I consider Jealousy, anger, regret, and changing your mind as a sign of imperfection. Do you?
Yes! Because he didn't act in a way that makes sense to me. (remember I am giving reasons for my disbelief)
Seems to me, if all of God's actions were perfect, nobody would have to put a positive spin on anything, everything he did would appear perfect.
No, according to the Bible, when Jesus rose from the grave he only showed himself to people who already believed.
I am talking aboutthe records from the Roman Empire.
That is a claim of the Bible
If you have evidence that you haven't already presented, I would be happy to see what you've got
Well thats going to be a bit hard isn't it. But would you pose the same demand on scientists that propose theories like worm holes and multi universes. It seems people are happy enough to accept those but when it mentions God they suddenly up the ante.
The quantum world. This is the micro world where they are saying things come into existence. So this is the point at which the qualities of God can be seen more clearly. If God is the creator and He made something from nothing then maybe this quantum world is closely associated with that. Well it has to be or is very close to it.
You may say its ignorance but I see it as something that makes sense to me. The naturalistic explanation will only work with our reality. But our reality may not be what everything is made up of. What we see and how we see it working may not be what makes up everything.
Well according to what I have read and understood it is. It contradicts our reality. The laws of physics that apply to our reality dont apply to quantum reality. It doesn't work the same way or it cant be tested the same way. That is why it is invoking these far fetched hypothesis like holograms theories and multi universes. From what I have seen of the subject anyone would thing they were looking at a magical world where almost anything can happen.
Then you either dont understand all the qualities of God or you havnt read the bible properly. This is what happens in the quantum world.
No they have theorized that this is how they were formed. They have not proved this. But even if this is the case this is only the reality that we see. This is not how things came into existence in the beginning. The moon sits in a perfect spot next to our earth and floating in a dark space that makes up most of our universe. That dark space also adds some influence to how that moon can sit in its perfect position and not fly off or smash into us. Its more than just gravity. Even so do we really understand how gravity works in the scheme of things. That dark empty space isn't empty and has an effect on everything in the universe. But it is all so finely balanced and working together like some big clock. This cannot have happened through a naturalistic process out of chaos. Things just didn't happen to fall into place in such a finely tuned universe.
What does that even mean. Our common sense understanding of reality is exactly what I said. So if it contradicts it which is more what causes things to be the one we see or the one we dont. Which set of physics shall we go by to determine how things work in this world.
And the quantum level is in everything. What we see is made up of that quantum level. So its in everything. What we see is just the visible result of that quantum level.
Of course and I'm not saying that quantum physics itself is some far fetched theory. I am saying what it is indicating is pointing to something beyond our reality.
The bible can give us some indications of who God is. That is what the bible is for. We can read about His qualities but that doesn't mean we can comprehend what it means. I can read about genetics and get some understanding and appreciation of what its about. But i cant comprehend its overall ability. The qualities of God are what God is made up of.
Well they sure act like they are. But they are not just particles like you are trying to make out. They are different to the particles you are thinking of. They can also act like waves. They can also be in many positions at the same time. Yes they are particles with magical abilities. Take a look at some of the theories scientists are promoting like multi universes. According to that we can have billions of copies of ourselves in other dimensions all doing something different. Or we can be a hologram of ourselves like a projection and fade in and out of reality. That is what scientists are coming up with and it sounds pretty super natural to me. Something we would see in a science fiction movie.
The particles that are at the point of existence in the quantum world act like this. They also have other attributes like being able to affect each other at a distance instantaneously. They can also pop in and out of existence and be in many places at the same time because of these attributes. So the bible doesn't have to say God is a particle or wave. The quantum world has the attributes of being many things at the same time and so does God. It says that God was in the beginning. That he is in all things and is everywhere. That he can make things from nothing and that everything is held together by Him. I think that just about covers every possible form that existence can be.
No but I,m beginning to think yours is maybe this argument out of ignorance all the time you claim I am doing. I am not just saying God done it and not even try and explain it. I am trying to give it some explanation and that explanation can have just as much possibility as the many far fetched ones that some scientists have come up with which are being accepted as possibilities as well. All based on indirect evidence.
Fair enough. But what about Plato, Socrates, Homer, Cyrus, Julius Caesar ect. By your criteria you would have to doubt almost all of ancient history.
I'll ask him next time I see him. However are you telling me that a document claiming to be written by Jesus Christ is really all it wold take to make you a believer?
No it really isn't but...
Well first of all, there was only one universal church prior to the reformation. So to say Catholic Church as opposed to just the church is a bit of a misnomer. The issue they were deciding was not what books were authentic enough, but what books were authentic at all. It was not an eeny meeny miney mo process. They followed a strict criteria and in the end the books they canonized were essentially the books regarded as authentic by the early church. There is no reason or evidence to believe that there are any authentic but un-canonized works out there.
Since that is the case for all writings, I don't know why that would be a problem only for the Bible.
They decided which books were authentic or not, which is how all of ancient history is decided.
Not of necessity. Sometimes those emotions are justified and perfectly rational.
As I said before I cant argue with what you believe.
I would say it means that God saw no reason to guild the lily insofar as his actions are concerned. Perfect actions do not always have to be pleasant.
In a literal sense thats true. Figuratively he shows himself to people even today.
I know, I was just being picky
Which is a historically accurate document.
I haven't really presented any evidence yet. So far we just been discussing the possibility of there being evidence.
Alright then. However to help keep us focused on the subject at hand and to avoid anyone else jumping in, would you consider moving this part of our conversation over to the formal debate section?
