the right religion

[Astravalon]

God pre knowing everyones future is a false teaching

You don't believe God is omniscient?

that is why we have free will, to choose the path we will walk. .

We have the ability to choose to an extent, but our wills are not free in the truest sense of the term. Try this experiment: By sheer force of your will, see if you can change your eye color. You'll find it can't be done. Now, why would God be so adamant about something as superficial as eye color and yet leave something as critical as salvation up to mankind?


-

 

[England my lionheart]

First let me say that no matter how many I list, it could be 3 or 50 and it will make no difference to you. If you are open to belief there is more than enough evidence, if not no amount of evidence is enough. For what it is worth:

1. Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome
2. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):
   
3. Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
   
4. Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
   
5. Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
   
6. Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:
   
7. The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
   
8. Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
   
9. Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:
   
10. The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:
    
11. The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:
    
12. The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:
    
13. The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos
    
14. Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):
    
15. Phlegon,
    
16. Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
    
17. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
    
18. Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
    
19. Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
    
20. Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
    

I could keep going but there is no point.
Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus
The Historicity of Jesus Christ: Did Jesus really exist?
Extra Biblical Writings about Jesus
Is There Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?


I await your arbitrary dismissal. I think a couple of these only mention Christians of the second century not Christ. Regardless there have not been any Christians without him. Some of these plus others at different sites are neutral or even hostile to Chrstianity. Many mention details such as the darkening of the sun or the earthquake that happened at the crucifixion. There is far less textual evidence for any other ancient historical fugure.

Perhaps for many people that would be more than enough,for myself its not,if they were eye witness accounts it would be more compelling though.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps for many people that would be more than enough,for myself its not,if they were eye witness accounts it would be more compelling though.

That is just about what I thought and wrote that would be the case. For every one I listed there are two more in existance. Some better than others. The bible has as authors at least four eye witnesses. It also contains thousands of other eyewitnesses in the text. It was also completed within the lifetime of thousands of eye witnesses and there exists not one single counter claim made by any of these witnesses at all or at least not even a fraction of the weight and reliablity the bible carries (according to historical methods this is very compelling). All this combined is only a small fragment of the total evidence available that leads directly to faith if not opposed by a precondition of the heart.

So by your own standards you must reject as reliable every single other character in ancient history because none of them have as much textual evidence for thier reality as Jesus. Are you willing to do so or do you have seperate standards? I already know the answer to this as well probably but would still like a response.

 

[kjw47]

You don't believe God is omniscient?

We have the ability to choose to an extent, but our wills are not free in the truest sense of the term. Try this experiment: By sheer force of your will, see if you can change your eye color. You'll find it can't be done. Now, why would God be so adamant about something as superficial as eye color and yet leave something as critical as salvation up to mankind?


-

God dignified mankind with free will so that they could choose to be his servants, choose to love him because he only wants good for us. Not be robots doing whatever he wants without a choice. Changing ones eye color is an impossibility--choosing to love God is a free will choice. Actions prove much more than words prove. Many claim to love God with lip service yet their actions prove the opposite.

 

[Astravalon]

God dignified mankind with free will so that they could choose to be his servants, choose to love him because he only wants good for us.

Since He only wants good for us, why would He permit us to free-will ourselves into "hell" and yet insist on something trivial like what color our eyes would be?

Not be robots doing whatever he wants without a choice.

If doing what He wants makes us robots, and that's somehow a bad thing, why does Christianity teach that doing whatever God wants (i.e., not sin) is a good thing? Are you saying that once we get to heaven we're all robots?

Changing ones eye color is an impossibility--

Why? I thought we had free will? Nothing's impossible for a truly free will, right?

As I mentioned to you in another thread, there's sufficient scripture which suggests that human free will is anything but. If you wish, I can post those passages for you.

-

 

[confused453]

"God dignified mankind with free will so that they could choose to be his servants..."

Don't you think it would make more sense for God to give free will to mankind, so they can do whatever they want, or whatever is best for mankind in general?

..love him because he only wants good for us.

pedophile priests is not good, human certain parts mutilation, religious dogma stuff is not good too. What makes you think that God loves you?

 

[camanintx]

First let me say that no matter how many I list, it could be 3 or 50 and it will make no difference to you. If you are open to belief there is more than enough evidence, if not no amount of evidence is enough. For what it is worth:

1. Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome
2. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):
   
3. Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:
   
4. Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
   
5. Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
   
6. Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:
   
7. The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD
   
8. Lucian, a second century Greek satirist
   
9. Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:
   
10. The Gospel of Truth, probably by Valentius, around 135-160 AD:
    
11. The Aprocryphon of John, probably by Saturninus, around 120-130 AD:
    
12. The Gospel of Thomas, probably from 140-200 AD:
    
13. The Treatise On Resurrection, by uncertain author of the late second century, to Rheginos
    
14. Acts of Pontius Pilate, reports sent from Pilate to Tiberius, referred to by Justin Martyr (150 AD):
    
15. Phlegon,
    
16. Clement, elder of Rome, letter to the Corinthian church (95 AD):
    
17. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):
    
18. Ignatius, letter to the Smyrneans (110-115 AD):
    
19. Quadratus, to Emperor Hadrian about 125 AD:
    
20. Justin Martyr, to Emperor Antoninus Pius about 150 AD:
    

I could keep going but there is no point.
Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus
The Historicity of Jesus Christ: Did Jesus really exist?
Extra Biblical Writings about Jesus
Is There Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?


I await your arbitrary dismissal. I think a couple of these only mention Christians of the second century not Christ. Regardless there have not been any Christians without him. Some of these plus others at different sites are neutral or even hostile to Chrstianity. Many mention details such as the darkening of the sun or the earthquake that happened at the crucifixion. There is far less textual evidence for any other ancient historical fugure.

You do realize that none of these are contemporaries of Jesus. At best, they are evidence that Christians existed which is not in question. If Jesus did even a fraction of what the Bible claims, you would think that the people living then would have written it down somewhere.

 

[camanintx]

We have the ability to choose to an extent, but our wills are not free in the truest sense of the term. Try this experiment: By sheer force of your will, see if you can change your eye color. You'll find it can't be done. Now, why would God be so adamant about something as superficial as eye color and yet leave something as critical as salvation up to mankind?

So if we don't have the ability to choose our salvation, why did God feel the need to absolve us of our sins? Free will is critical to Christian doctrine because without it how could we have sinned in the first place.

 

[kjw47]

Don't you think it would make more sense for God to give free will to mankind, so they can do whatever they want, or whatever is best for mankind in general?


pedophile priests is not good, human certain parts mutilation, religious dogma stuff is not good too. What makes you think that God loves you?

God doesnt want mankind to choose sin, he wants them to choose righteousness.
99% of all religions are false, Jesus started one single religion,God never had or needed more than one single religion.

 

[1robin]

You do realize that none of these are contemporaries of Jesus. At best, they are evidence that Christians existed which is not in question. If Jesus did even a fraction of what the Bible claims, you would think that the people living then would have written it down somewhere.

You do realise that many of these and the others I mentioned are relateing events recorded in earlier documents or referencing official records from eye witnesses? I never claimed that they were eyewitnesses and by themselves they would still make his existance and nature pretty sure but not proof. Combined with eyewitness acounts and since some of them were written within the lifetime of many witnesses then they have a very good pedigree and all add up to more than any court would require. I can supply internationally respected law experts who say this themselves.

There were not many things of any kind written down at that time. There was not even paper as we know it. Parchments was very expensive and rare and Israel did not contain many people who would buy it. The fact that anything survives is a small miracle.

If a person has a preconcieved bias to unbelief then if Jesus died yesterday and was resurrected on three networks then a whole new set of reasons to dismiss him would be used. I have lived on both sides and know the mentality of both very well. Even in Hebrew law two witnesses was the criteria here we got 4 plus dozens of circumstantial testimony as well. Why were there all these Christians (which was life threatening at that time) so soon and so commited if Jesus didn't exist or his nature was not extremely remarkable or was simply killed and buried?

 

[confused453]

God doesnt want mankind to choose sin, he wants them to choose righteousness.
99% of all religions are false, Jesus started one single religion,God never had or needed more than one single religion.

What is actually sin?? As far as I understand, sin is an act that violates the will of God (or Laws of God). Human laws evolve with time. Something that may be seen as witchcraft in the past, today may be considered as science (we don't burn scientists, we actually need them). But do God's laws evolve? Should God's laws evolve? Do we have any indication that God updates the laws?

 

[camanintx]

You do realise that many of these and the others I mentioned are relateing events recorded in earlier documents or referencing official records from eye witnesses? I never claimed that they were eyewitnesses and by themselves they would still make his existance and nature pretty sure but not proof. Combined with eyewitness acounts and since some of them were written within the lifetime of many witnesses then they have a very good pedigree and all add up to more than any court would require. I can supply internationally respected law experts who say this themselves.

So where are these eyewitness accounts? All you have presented is third hand representations which even your internationally respected law experts would admit are hearsay.

There were not many things of any kind written down at that time. There was not even paper as we know it. Parchments was very expensive and rare and Israel did not contain many people who would buy it. The fact that anything survives is a small miracle.

We have writings dating back almost 4,000 years. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey date back to 1,200 BC. Wikipedia lists 19 known historians from the first century BC. You can't tell me that none of them heard about someone walking on water, stopping the sun or rising from the dead.

If a person has a preconcieved bias to unbelief then if Jesus died yesterday and was resurrected on three networks then a whole new set of reasons to dismiss him would be used. I have lived on both sides and know the mentality of both very well. Even in Hebrew law two witnesses was the criteria here we got 4 plus dozens of circumstantial testimony as well. Why were there all these Christians (which was life threatening at that time) so soon and so commited if Jesus didn't exist or his nature was not extremely remarkable or was simply killed and buried?

You might have a point if you could produce first person accounts instead of third hand recollections dated nearly 100 years after the fact.

 

[Nakosis]

But do God's laws evolve? Should God's laws evolve? Do we have any indication that God updates the laws?

The New Testament?

 

[Astravalon]

So if we don't have the ability to choose our salvation, why did God feel the need to absolve us of our sins? Free will is critical to Christian doctrine because without it how could we have sinned in the first place.

Well, that's just it -- it's debatable as to whether such a move on God's part was even necessary.

Did mankind actually fall (in God's eyes), or did mankind's perception just get skewed? Assuming the story of Adam and Eve is true, they were the ones who suddenly thought being naked was an issue, not God. Which raises the question: What really "fell" -- mankind itself, or just its perception?






-

 

[England my lionheart]

That is just about what I thought and wrote that would be the case. For every one I listed there are two more in existance. Some better than others. The bible has as authors at least four eye witnesses. It also contains thousands of other eyewitnesses in the text. It was also completed within the lifetime of thousands of eye witnesses and there exists not one single counter claim made by any of these witnesses at all or at least not even a fraction of the weight and reliablity the bible carries (according to historical methods this is very compelling). All this combined is only a small fragment of the total evidence available that leads directly to faith if not opposed by a precondition of the heart.

I wonder if four eyewitness accounts of something that supposedly happened 2000 years ago can be enough,not only that but the stories were not universally inclusive.

So by your own standards you must reject as reliable every single other character in ancient history because none of them have as much textual evidence for thier reality as Jesus. Are you willing to do so or do you have seperate standards? I already know the answer to this as well probably but would still like a response.

Not reject,if you could prove beyond doubt that the things in the books of the Bible OT & NT really occured i would accept them,as it stands i think of the Bible as a collection of old myths with some of the characters sharing the characteristics of older ones like say Moses.

 

[kjw47]

What is actually sin?? As far as I understand, sin is an act that violates the will of God (or Laws of God). Human laws evolve with time. Something that may be seen as witchcraft in the past, today may be considered as science (we don't burn scientists, we actually need them). But do God's laws evolve? Should God's laws evolve? Do we have any indication that God updates the laws?

Gods word is clear on what God will not accept--Those who love Jesus listened to him and he taught--Man does not live by bread alone, but by every utterance of Gods. Someone who loves God and Jesus surely took their time and learned every utterance to be sure of gaining entrance into Gods kingdom.

 

[kjw47]

Since He only wants good for us, why would He permit us to free-will ourselves into "hell" and yet insist on something trivial like what color our eyes would be?

If doing what He wants makes us robots, and that's somehow a bad thing, why does Christianity teach that doing whatever God wants (i.e., not sin) is a good thing? Are you saying that once we get to heaven we're all robots?

Why? I thought we had free will? Nothing's impossible for a truly free will, right?

As I mentioned to you in another thread, there's sufficient scripture which suggests that human free will is anything but. If you wish, I can post those passages for you.

-

Genes from ones parents determine eye color, not free will-you are grasping at straws their. The God taught by the bible did not create a place of eternal torment, false religions that do not know God take that literally.

 

[Astravalon]

Genes from ones parents determine eye color, not free will-you are grasping at straws their.

I did not say that we choose our eye color -- that's my whole point.

I am asking you, why would God not permit us to be able to choose something as trivial as eye-color, and yet permit us to choose something as critical as our eternal destiny?

The God taught by the bible did not create a place of eternal torment, false religions that do not know God take that literally.

I agree that there's no place of eternal torment, but that is what the majority of Christianity teaches. Just curious... where do you believe those who die in unbelief end up?


-

 

[waitasec]

You do realise that many of these and the others I mentioned are relateing events recorded in earlier documents or referencing official records from eye witnesses?

what we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies
based on an oral tradition

 

[1robin]

Not reject,if you could prove beyond doubt that the things in the books of the Bible OT & NT really occured i would accept them,as it stands i think of the Bible as a collection of old myths with some of the characters sharing the characteristics of older ones like say Moses.

The bible provides far more evidence for things it claims than any other ancient event. I was actually going to compile a exhaustive list of the evidence for the bible but have run out of time for today. I will do so soon for you and Camanintx. For now I will just add some great legal scholars opinions.

1.Simon Greenleaf authored the three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which, according to Dr. Wilbur Smith “is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature on legal procedure.” (In Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), p. 423) Greenleaf wrote The Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice, a volume in which he examined the legal value of the apostles’ testimony to the resurrection of Christ. He observed that it was impossible that the apostles “could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.”
Greenleaf concluded that the resurrection of Christ was one of the best supported events in history, according to the laws of legal evidence administered in courts of justice.

2. John Singleton Copley (Lord Lyndhurst, 1772-1863) is recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history. He was Solicitor General of the British government, Attorney General of Great Britain, three times the High Chancellor of England and elected High Steward of the University of Cambridge. He challenges, “I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet.” (In Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972), p. 425, cf., p. 584.)

3.J. N. D. Anderson, in the words of Armand Nicholi of the Harvard Medical School (Christianity Today, March 29, 1968), is a scholar of international repute, eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on Muslim law, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of London, Chairman of the Department of Oriental Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. Anderson further emphasizes, “Lastly, it can be asserted with confidence that men and women disbelieve the Easter story not because of the evidence but in spite of it.” (J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History, (London: Tyndale Press, 1970), p. 105.)
The Truthfulness of the Eyewitness Accounts as Presented in the Bible
Bolding mine. Names don't get much bigger than these and there are countless more.

This last one is what I have found to be the case in my research and experience. Most people accept countless claims about history based on far less evidence than the bible has. There is not one thing older than writing that is reliably known but we have an endeless procession of scholars claiming this and that to be a fact and people just swallow it whole. The bible says it best. I think it was Jesus that said "you will swallow a camel and choke on a gnat. People will just automatically adopt what is spewed out in universities but where God is concerned no amount of evidence is enough. There is more evidence for Jesus than any other character in ancient history. The bible is the most reliable and richest text in ancient history. The ressurection has so much and such reliable information that the Earth's greates law scholars say it is much more than enough and yet people will ask for more but spout that macr-evolution is true without a single example or record. As I have and countless others have said it is the heart not the evidence that determines faith in the bible.

I hope to actually provide a coprehensive post that includes most major forms of evidence used for the bible with some comments if I have time.

Shalom,