Why is hell even necessary?

[razeontherock]

.

 

[LOCO]

Really? Those are the only two options? Maybe he was a liar? Maybe the people who wrote the Bible were liars and Jesus didn't really say what the Bible reports. Maybe he wasn't a liar but was just wrong (although I guess that would make him a lunatic)

This general theme of atheists post that "every other sentence is either irrelevant, personal attack, or naked assertion" is tiresome.

I can usually discern when a question (from an atheist) is just derisive argument or whether its a legitimate quest for the truth that is poking at their conscience.

Is the answer to this question going to change anything in your mind?

Are you suddenly going to convert to Catholicism?

I can provide historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Bible and its authors but how much independent secular/religious evidence, proof or documentation is enough for you?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

This general theme of atheists post that "every other sentence is either irrelevant, personal attack, or naked assertion" is tiresome.

I can usually discern when a question (from an atheist) is just derisive argument or whether its a legitimate quest for the truth that is poking at their conscience.

Is the answer to this question going to change anything in your mind?

Are you suddenly going to convert to Catholicism?

I can provide historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Bible and its authors but how much independent secular/religious evidence, proof or documentation is enough for you?

I thought it was a legitimate rebuttal. If someone makes a claim, there are always more options than "he's telling the truth" or "he's crazy." The issue becomes even more muddled when the man's claims are written down a generation after he died by people with an incentive to make him larger than life.

And I'm sure you have evidence that Jesus existed, but that doesn't prove that he said what the Bible claims. Those things are really only found in the Bible.

 

[LOCO]

I thought it was a legitimate rebuttal. If someone makes a claim, there are always more options than "he's telling the truth" or "he's crazy." The issue becomes even more muddled when the man's claims are written down a generation after he died by people with an incentive to make him larger than life.

And I'm sure you have evidence that Jesus existed, but that doesn't prove that he said what the Bible claims. Those things are really only found in the Bible.

No, these claims were not written down generations after he died.

The Bible itself as we know was not put together until much later but the written letters, Gospels and documents existed prior to that.

The four Gospels and the letters of Paul were written between 35-45AD and that the Letters, James, Jude, Peter, John and John's Revelation, were written before 68AD.

There were more letters and Gospels which were not included in the Bible and are kept at the Vatican library.

Secular and religious scholars do not doubt the authenticity of the Bible. They may disagree on whether it is the 'word of God'.

You cannot deny Jesus existed, you cannot deny the Bibles authenticity. You can deny that Jesus is God.

What incentive would they have had back then to make him larger than life? These are people who saw him raise the dead and heal the lame. There were no book deals, film royalties etc on offer.

What Jesus said and did is NOT only found in the Bible. The events of his trial and execution has also been recorded in official documents of the Romans who were the occupying force in Israel at the time. These correspond with events recorded in the Bible. These documents are in the Vatican library and other secular institutions.

Consider the written historical evidence of Jesus from these varied sources ...

1. Non-Christian, non-Jewish sources (principally Roman, Greek). These consist of the writings of a number of Greek or Roman historians, and refer to the history of Jesus because of the trouble the Christian movement was causing in the empire at the time. The records are normally antagonistic, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events.
>Non-Christian, Non-Jewish Historians Comment on the History of Jesus

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 55-120)

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).

Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)1.

Some points to note about the narrative from Tacitus:

He mistakenly refers to Jesus as "Christus", however this was a common practice among the pagan writers at that time.
He supports the fact that Christ existed, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate - agreeing with the Christian scriptures.
He alludes to "the pernicious superstition" which broke out, was repressed, but then spread even more - even throughout the city of Rome itself. This may indeed be referring to the core belief which caused the early church to explode and "turn the world upside down" -- that Jesus had died indeed, but that He had also risen from the grave.



2. Jewish sources - Josephus, the Talmud. Josephus, a Jewish aristocrat turned politician, was recruited by the Romans during the first Jewish revolt to act as a mediator and write a historical record of events at the time. He records that Jesus was a wise man that did many wonderful works, and that many people - both Jews and Gentiles - followed after him. The Talmud, written by Jewish sources at the time, is (not surprisingly) unfriendly toward the founder of Christianity. The important point, however, is that Jewish sources do not deny that Jesus was a real historical figure -- they only promote a different interpretation of of his conception.
>Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about 52 A.D., wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world (Habernas, VECELJ, 93). Although the original writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian historian of the late second century (2221 A,D.), was familiar with them and quotes from them. One very interesting passage from Thallus relates to the darkness that enveloped the land at the time of Christ's crucifixion. Julius Africanus writes as follows:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me (unreasonably, of course, because a <span>solar eclipse</span> could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died." (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1)

Points to note:

This quote testifies that the gospel accounts of darkness falling upon the land about the time of Christ's death were well known, and thus required a naturalistic explanation from non-Christians.
Thallus did not dispute that Jesus has been crucified -- he was more concerned with coming up with another explanation for the darkness that enveloped the land

I suspect nothing will be enough proof for you though?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

No, these claims were not written down generations after he died.

The Bible itself as we know was not put together until much later but the written letters, Gospels and documents existed prior to that.

The four Gospels and the letters of Paul were written between 35-45AD and that the Letters, James, Jude, Peter, John and John's Revelation, were written before 68AD.

And how old are our oldest copies?

Secular and religious scholars do not doubt the authenticity of the Bible. They may disagree on whether it is the 'word of God'.

I'm sorry but you're mistaken.

In fact, here's a Bible scholar now.

YouTube - &#x202a;Misquoting Jesus, Stanford Lecture, How Bible Got Tainted 1/10&#x202c;&rlm;

You cannot deny Jesus existed,

It's dubious. If he existed, he wasn't very important. He probably blended in with all the other doomsday prophets at the time/

you cannot deny the Bibles authenticity.

You're right. The Bible is a Bona Fide ancient book. But that doesn't mean what is written inside is accurate. Even if what we have today was the exact thing as what was originally written, why are there so many contradictions between the gospels? That doesn't seem very credible.

What incentive would they have had back then to make him larger than life? These are people who saw him raise the dead and heal the lame. There were no book deals, film royalties etc on offer.

Power?

Consider the written historical evidence of Jesus from these varied sources ...

I suspect nothing will be enough proof for you though?

No I see that there is some evidence that someone named Jesus existed. But is there any evidence that he was anything more than the most successful messianic/doomsday prophet of the time? Did Tacitus record his miracles or his resurrection? Did anyone record his message besides his followers?

And again, all of the mentions of Jesus in the world mean nothing if they don't agree with each other. The central, most important records of his life, the Gospels, don't agree with each other.

 

[razeontherock]

Mike, the foolish logic you espouse here is obvious. Anyone corroborating the Gospel accounts WAS Christian, by definition. And would therefore have no need or reason to furnish an independent account. And every reason not to. Next up, the differences that do exist between Gospel accounts mesh perfectly with what we know of actual human experience, whereas if they had been faked they would've been careful to cover all that up.

A man walks into a classroom full of the brightest of the bright, (fake) shoots himself in the head, and once the commotion dies down everyone writes down their account. No 2 accounts agree. Surely you're familiar with this?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Mike, the foolish logic you espouse here is obvious. Anyone corroborating the Gospel accounts WAS Christian, by definition. And would therefore have no need or reason to furnish an independent account. And every reason not to. Next up, the differences that do exist between Gospel accounts mesh perfectly with what we know of actual human experience, whereas if they had been faked they would've been careful to cover all that up.

A man walks into a classroom full of the brightest of the bright, (fake) shoots himself in the head, and once the commotion dies down everyone writes down their account. No 2 accounts agree. Surely you're familiar with this?

Right so the gospels are flawed. Which contradicting account should I believe?


EDIT: Or better yet, let's pretend they all agree perfectly (they don't), our options then return to: Either Jesus (and his followers, since Jesus didn't write it all down himself) were right or they were lairs/lunatics. Without any additional evidence, it's technically 50/50 even though option 2 seems more plausible. Why choose number one?

 

[razeontherock]

What supposed errors are you worried about? Pick one that has any relevance on anything you or I might do tomorrow.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

What supposed errors are you worried about? Pick one that has any relevance on anything you or I might do tomorrow.

Well tomorrow I MIGHT repent of my sins and accept Jesus as my savior if it weren't the Bible being so uncredible.

For example, here are two Gospel contradictions chosen at random from a video. Watch from 4:00-5:00

YouTube - &#x202a;Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)&#x202c;&rlm;

If you have time, the whole video is worth a watch. I know I posted it earlier in the thread when I was arguing with someone else but I got the impression that no one watched it.

 

[razeontherock]

I watched it then. It's only value is humor. Every instance is explainable and understandable, and none have any bearing on anything you or I might actually do tomorrow.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I watched it then. It's only value is humor. Every instance is explainable and understandable, and none have any bearing on anything you or I might actually do tomorrow.

Ok then explain them

 

[razeontherock]

Go back to post #188

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Go back to post #188

I posted contradictions. The fact that their ARE contradictions worries me and effects my decision to become a Christian. So, explain how they're not really contradictions.

 

[razeontherock]

Pick one that matters

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Pick one that matters

It matters to me. It is one of the main reasons I don't believe any more. The whole concept is tenuous anyway because, like I said, even if every thing added up, there's still the chance that the authors or Jesus were lying. But throw serious inconsistencies, contradictions, and translation errors into the mix and there's really no reason to think it's credible. It doesn't have the hallmarks of a divinely inspired text. In fact it looks a LOT like all the other holy books of other religions.

So I'll accept your answer and assume you mean that you accept that it's flawed.

 

[razeontherock]

Or, as others pointed out earlier, you're really not thinking this through for yourself and just relying on other's objections. I'd rather think that's not the case, but expecting me to argue against videos you didn't even make isn't reasonable.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Or, as others pointed out earlier, you're really not thinking this through for yourself and just relying on other's objections. I'd rather think that's not the case, but expecting me to argue against videos you didn't even make isn't reasonable.

As I pointed out much earlier in the thread when I was arguing with...whoever that guy was, any contradiction I post is going to be found on google anyway because I don't have the entire Bible memorized. My thought process would be "What was that one Bible contradiction again? The one about the two thieves? I guess I'll google 'bible contradictions' since I can't find the reference....AH here it is."

I figured I'd just make it more interesting by posting it in hilarious cartoon format.

You're dodging the issue though. The fact is that the Bible is NOT inerrant. Do you admit that? Does it bother you? If not, that's fine. But don't ignore the question just because I don't have the entire thing committed to memory and therefore have to sometimes resort to asking the experts.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well tomorrow I MIGHT repent of my sins and accept Jesus as my savior if it weren't the Bible being so uncredible.

For example, here are two Gospel contradictions chosen at random from a video. Watch from 4:00-5:00

YouTube - &#x202a;Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)&#x202c;&rlm;

If you have time, the whole video is worth a watch. I know I posted it earlier in the thread when I was arguing with someone else but I got the impression that no one watched it.

as someone has already stated, all of these contradictions have already been answered on any one of these sites.....

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered

Bible Contradictions Answered

Errors and Contradictions in the Bible?

 

[razeontherock]

any contradiction I post is going to be found on google anyway

Sorry Mike, but I just don't find that to be a credible complaint. If YOU were seeking the Lord, and YOU encountered something YOU found problematic, I (and many others) would do everything possible to help you iron it out. What you're presenting here is much like a lady in a prayer group that asks me to pray for her favorite character in a soap opera. I just can't do it, ya know?

Bottom line: C is not based on a book. It rests on Christ's Person, and His finished work in the cross. We partake of that personally. The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ, and His Words contain the same Spirit. As we are led into all Truth, we can see what is apparently now veiled to you. (And yes, there are things I have "seen" before that currently I am not privy to, so don't take this as condemnation)

This could mean you previously actually understood some of these things you now have issue with, and you are now in a different "place," so your previous view is now obscured. Or it could be you never had answers for any of the doubts that now plague you; only you know.

because I don't have the entire Bible memorized. My thought process would be "What was that one Bible contradiction again? The one about the two thieves?

I don't know what you believe, but I have never memorized Scripture. I never even memorized Isaiah 12, one of my favorite chapters, even though it's VERY SHORT and I tried for a long time. I get the gist of it. Yet when needed, the Lord pops Scripture into my mouth and out it comes, so fast and fluent I can only listen. And people are amazed at how well I know the Scriptures when the fact is, I have never known them well enough.

So you'll forgive me if I don't think it's coincidence that in this instance, the one example I asked you for happens to be something I got in an argument about at the age of 20, in a car with another young person, with my first Pastor there with us both. He highly embarrassed me for the way I handled the disagreement, and let that distress stay a while until he dispensed the truth of the matter.

Both the person I was arguing with and I had valid points. Yes, the text says "two thieves and two malefactors." Yes that can be read as 4 crooks + 1 Jesus = 5 crucifixions. It is also true that this is very common use of language in the Bible, to clarify a point via repetition.

So WHAT'S THE POINT?

Jesus died for ALL. Rome crucified a lot more than 3, and a lot more than 5. Someone who prefers to hold a slightly different account of events for whatever reason, including never having thought it through, or even just plain being stupid, is still someone for whom Christ died, and not someone we should hate and therefore murder them in our heart.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Sorry Mike, but I just don't find that to be a credible complaint. If YOU were seeking the Lord, and YOU encountered something YOU found problematic, I (and many others) would do everything possible to help you iron it out. What you're presenting here is much like a lady in a prayer group that asks me to pray for her favorite character in a soap opera. I just can't do it, ya know?

Bottom line: C is not based on a book. It rests on Christ's Person, and His finished work in the cross. We partake of that personally. The Holy Spirit testifies of Christ, and His Words contain the same Spirit. As we are led into all Truth, we can see what is apparently now veiled to you. (And yes, there are things I have "seen" before that currently I am not privy to, so don't take this as condemnation)

This could mean you previously actually understood some of these things you now have issue with, and you are now in a different "place," so your previous view is now obscured. Or it could be you never had answers for any of the doubts that now plague you; only you know.



I don't know what you believe, but I have never memorized Scripture. I never even memorized Isaiah 12, one of my favorite chapters, even though it's VERY SHORT and I tried for a long time. I get the gist of it. Yet when needed, the Lord pops Scripture into my mouth and out it comes, so fast and fluent I can only listen. And people are amazed at how well I know the Scriptures when the fact is, I have never known them well enough.

So you'll forgive me if I don't think it's coincidence that in this instance, the one example I asked you for happens to be something I got in an argument about at the age of 20, in a car with another young person, with my first Pastor there with us both. He highly embarrassed me for the way I handled the disagreement, and let that distress stay a while until he dispensed the truth of the matter.

Both the person I was arguing with and I had valid points. Yes, the text says "two thieves and two malefactors." Yes that can be read as 4 crooks + 1 Jesus = 5 crucifixions. It is also true that this is very common use of language in the Bible, to clarify a point via repetition.

So WHAT'S THE POINT?

Jesus died for ALL. Rome crucified a lot more than 3, and a lot more than 5. Someone who prefers to hold a slightly different account of events for whatever reason, including never having thought it through, or even just plain being stupid, is still someone for whom Christ died, and not someone we should hate and therefore murder them in our heart.

Ok that's fine. So are you saying that a little of the little nit picky details of the Bible might have been misinterpreted or might be just plain wrong?