the right religion

[Astravalon]

of course it was done independent of value...silly

it was done on the premise of you DOING something... you FOUND christ

YOU saved YOURSELF

you saving yourself was done independently of value
but now, YOU ARE saved because you FOUND christ
:bow:

The irony is that their bible indicates no one seeks God. God is the one who does the seeking. I think the finding of Christ is more of a modern turn-of-phrase and really has no basis in scripture.

why does the word of god depend on qualified commentators?
what makes someone more qualified than me when it comes to understanding something written in the bible...are these qualified commentators supposed to enter my head and flip a switch?

I've wondered that myself, even with choosing the right preacher to listen to. If I'm qualified enough to choose the right preacher, why aren't I qualified enough to just hear from God who indwells me already first-hand and eliminate the middle-men entirely? Otherwise, who am I actually placing my faith in -- God, or the middle-man?

 

[camanintx]

Today there are still respected book being written on the civil war or the wars of Caesar. However the bible has something that no other text has.

Unlike the Bible, in addition to the works being written today, we have what the people wrote while these wars were actually happening.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things Which I said to you (

John 14:26).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm
There are only two choices.
1. The bible was dictated to men by God. The authors said it was. In which case time is irrelevant.
2. It was not given by God and so it is its self irrelevant and time doesn't matter.

So when the New Testament was written is irrelevant to you. You believe it's true because it says it's true.

I find that very hard to believe but given modern pop culture who gets reality from TV I guess it is possible.

1. We can conclude that the NT doesn't contain myth
2. The style is not that of myth. Unlike myth the NT has no overblown, spectacular, childish exaggerated events. Unlike myth it has psychological depth, and remarkable character depth and development. Unlike myth it is not verbose, in fact it has an economy of words. It is full of indications of eyewitness description.
3. To be a myth, the writers of the Gospels must have invented the new genre of realistic fantasy 19 centuries before it was reinvented in the 20th century.

There is not enough time for myths and legends to have been developed and incorporated into the Gospels. Several generations have to pass before the added mythological elements can be mistakenly believed as fact - instead there is only twenty years (50 AD's) before we find documented information about Jesus - containing all the main claims of Christianity!
4. There is no evidence of the earlier 'non-mythic' layer
5. The accounts include dozens details that could not have been known by someone not living in that time and place, and there are no second-century anachronisms.

Who invented the myth and with what motivated. For until the edict of Milan in AD 313, Christians were persecuted and killed for their beliefs.

First-century Jews and Christians were not prone to believe myths

Eyewitness testimony would have refuted any myths

The Bibliographical test has shown that we have accurate copies of the original documents i.e. mythic / additional elements were not added over time

The writers specifically claim that they are not telling myths. If this is not true, then the writings must be a 'lie' not 'myth'
http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/internal_test_myths.htm

The Book of Mormon contains eyewitness testimony to several miracles and fulfilled prophesy attributed to Joseph Smith less than two centuries ago. Within a generation, several thousand people professed their belief in these events. Today that number has grown to over 14 million. If myth is really so difficult to create and propagate, they you must accept the Book of Mormon at its word as revealed truth as well.

The NT has as it's cornerstone the supernatural that is why it says:

New Living Translation(©2007)
And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-14.htm
In other words the faith its self centers on the resurrection. If they knew that ressurection did not happen there is nothing to believe in. That does not exist in any cult type ritual suicide. What the cult leaders promise is not something they have access to and know to be untrue. I have unfortunately heard the audio from Jim Jones cool aid and those people did not martyr themselves willingly for the most part.

If Christianity centers on the resurrection then the resurrection centers on the fall, for without original sin there is no need for redemption. You've done a decent job of defending the New Testament but the idea that the human race descended from just two people 77 generations before Jesus is a whole different level of absurd.

 

[Katzpur]

The Book of Mormon contains eyewitness testimony to several miracles and fulfilled prophesy attributed to Joseph Smith less than two centuries ago.

Actually it doesn't. You're probably thinking of the Doctrine & Covenants. The Book of Mormon is believed to be an ancient text, translated by Joseph Smith. He made performed no miracles and fulfilled no prophesy in the book.

 

[1robin]

Unlike the Bible, in addition to the works being written today, we have what the people wrote while these wars were actually happening.

How is something written during an event (and in many cases known to be wrong which is why the debates still rage) and something that was witnessed and written later different reliability wise. If you know anything about textual criticism, you know that information recorded after an event is in mostcases far more accurate than in the heat of events and after other data can be compared and included. The far more reliable accounts of cival war battles are recorded well after the events. A single soldiers persepective is so small his input is very trivial. It is when these individuals are interviewed and other information is included that accurate comprehensive works can be written. That is exactly what the bible authors did. Many of histories greatest experts (contained at the link I gave) have said that the evidence in written form of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is greater than any other ancient figure. They also say it meets every demand of modern day Jurice Prudence. Many of them were not even Christians.

So when the New Testament was written is irrelevant to you. You believe it's true because it says it's true.

If it is said by textual experts to be reliable given the dates it was written there is absolutely no reason to dismiss it unless your preconcieved world view requires it.

The Book of Mormon contains eyewitness testimony to several miracles and fulfilled prophesy attributed to Joseph Smith less than two centuries ago. Within a generation, several thousand people professed their belief in these events. Today that number has grown to over 14 million. If myth is really so difficult to create and propagate, they you must accept the Book of Mormon at its word as revealed truth as well.

The book of Mormon used an existing text as it's archetype. It is mere fiction but borrows legitimate style and content from the bible. This reduces the time to generate myth. It was also written in a time period where communication speeds and written works were common and fast. The bible was written during a time when communication was larorious and writeing a very difficult operation. They time frame for which a myth requires to develope depends on several things. The basis for the myth (how much is readily available), the complexity of the myth, speed of communication and unity of the group where it is spread, the proliferation and ease of writing and or copying. The book of morman had an vastly easier go at every category.

If Christianity centers on the resurrection then the resurrection centers on the fall, for without original sin there is no need for redemption. You've done a decent job of defending the New Testament but the idea that the human race descended from just two people 77 generations before Jesus is a whole different level of absurd.

Something as evident as the inherent sinful propensity of man is hardly worthy of debate. There can be no doubt we have a serious problem with sin. I am not nearly as familiar with the OT and rarely defend it but this particular issue does not require much defending. Find me a single perfect person besides Christ who has ever lived and then it might be worthy of debate.

 

[waitasec]

How is something written during an event (and in many cases known to be wrong which is why the debates still rage) and something that was witnessed and written later different reliability wise. If you know anything about textual criticism, you know that information recorded after an event is in mostcases far more accurate than in the heat of events and after other data can be compared and included.

have you considered the idea these things were penned from a subjective POV...and once one gets a birds eye view, then all the pieces that can be put together makes up a picture of what was going on.

the gospel of mark was in reaction to the destruction of the second temple...
the other gospels were written, in part, as a reaction to the belief of the parousia that never came to fruition as jesus told the sanhedrin in mark 14 that he would personally see jesus return on a cloud....as mark was the oldest and more popular oral tradition, wheels on goal post were put in place and then the other gospels simply have jesus saying something else to the sanhedrin altogether

 

[1robin]

have you considered the idea these things were penned from a subjective POV...and once one gets a birds eye view, then all the pieces that can be put together makes up a picture of what was going on.

When you have multiple witnesses that agree and are as consistent (despite false accusations of contradiction) as in the Gospels then the narrative is quite reliable.

the gospel of mark was in reaction to the destruction of the second temple...
the other gospels were written, in part, as a reaction to the belief of the parousia that never came to fruition as jesus told the sanhedrin in mark 14 that he would personally see jesus return on a cloud....as mark was the oldest and more popular oral tradition, wheels on goal post were put in place and then the other gospels simply have jesus saying something else to the sanhedrin altogether

This is conjecture rooted in Bias, but I aim to please. If you will give the verses that you say are contradictory I will clear them up.

 

[waitasec]

When you have multiple witnesses that agree and are as consistent (despite false accusations of contradiction) as in the Gospels then the narrative is quite reliable. This is conjecture rooted in Bias,

no it's not
your response is...

The Priority of Mark

do you believe your opinion is somehow more credible...because it's, ahem....yours, and therefore you dismiss anything that contradicts your argument as conjecture?

 

[waitasec]

If you will give the verses that you say are contradictory I will clear them up.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2-i-think-discrepancy-rather-interesting.html

 

[1robin]

no it's not
your response is...

The Priority of Mark

do you believe your opinion is somehow more credible...because it's, ahem....yours, and therefore you dismiss anything that contradicts your argument as conjecture?

I don't know what the link is for. Would you please make complete sentences and thoughts. Conjecture means drawing conclusions which the evidence does no bear out fully. It was simply an opinion you made. It can't be proven or shown to be the likely case. My opinion lines up with the commentators, scholars, plain reading of the text, etc...... so is not conjecture. That is why I wanted the actual verses because they can bu used to establish something concrete.

 

[waitasec]

i refer you to post 2348...

 

[1robin]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...2-i-think-discrepancy-rather-interesting.html

I already told you I am not qualified to tackle this one. This one is hard and complicated. The commentators do but I don't like their answers and so this is one that belongs in the .1% I have no answer for. There is an answer I just do not have it. Surely this single unclear example is not the totality of what your argument is based in so try a different one.

 

[waitasec]

I don't know what the link is for. Would you please make complete sentences and thoughts. Conjecture means drawing conclusions which the evidence does no bear out fully. It was simply an opinion you made. It can't be proven or shown to be the likely case. My opinion lines up with the commentators, scholars, plain reading of the text, etc...... so is not conjecture. That is why I wanted the actual verses because they can bu used to establish something concrete.

you caught me in the middle of me editing my post...

boy your desperate to shoot me down, aren't you?

 

[waitasec]

I already told you I am not qualified to tackle this one. This one is hard and complicated. The commentators do but I don't like their answers and so this is one that belongs in the .1% I have no answer for. There is an answer I just do not have it. Surely this single unclear example is not the totality of what your argument is based in so try a different one.

no really...???

so it all boils down to you not liking something....
interesting.

 

[1robin]

you caught me in the middle of me editing my post...

boy your desperate to shoot me down, aren't you?

What are you talking about. There was nothing any more blunt or aggresive about that post than any other one. Oh I think you mean the time factor. I am bored and can't do any work because we are in classified mode and there isn't many responses today. My two competent opponents are researching stuff.

 

[Katzpur]

The book of Mormon used an existing text as it's archetype.

Which one? Solomon Spaulding's manuscript, Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews"? Or perhaps Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass"? :biglaugh:Sorry, but that theory was disproven over a hundred years ago. Or have you sorry Baptists come up with yet a new one?

 

[waitasec]

this is one that belongs in the .1% I have no answer for.

this .1%
weighs pretty heavily in the current understanding of the christian dogma, don't you think...you are so eager to down play the things you cannot explain yet you are so eager to claim the bible is infallible...

**yawn**

 

[1robin]

no really...???

so it all boils down to you not liking something....
interesting.

By like I meant I do not have complete confidence in their take on this one. This one is truly complecated and hard. I require convincing interpretations and explenations. Since you already knew that why do you keep reinterpreting what I say and put it in the most negative form possible? You know what I meant.

 

[waitasec]

It is mere fiction but borrows legitimate style and content from the bible.

and i say
christianity is mere fiction but borrows legitimate style and content from the jewish tradition...

 

[1robin]

this .1%
weighs pretty heavily in the current understanding of the christian dogma, don't you think...you are so eager to down play the things you cannot explain yet you are so eager to claim the bible is infallible...

**yawn**

Nope, It is hardly an earth shattering revelation that I do not know everything about every verse in the bible. These double standards are pathetic. You do not know everything about anything why do you require it or find it meaningful only concerning the bible. I am not playing anything down (another example of twisting things to slant them) how can I address something I do not understand. There isn't a large portion that this involves. I wish scientists were this honest.

 

[waitasec]

By like I meant I do not have complete confidence in their take on this one. This one is truly complecated and hard. I require convincing interpretations and explenations. Since you already knew that why do you keep reinterpreting what I say and put it in the most negative form possible? You know what I meant.

stop assuming...your .1% comment down plays the point...
knowing that pauls letters (another piece of the puzzle) were written before the gospels and during the time marks oral tradition was floating around, also supports the notion that jesus was coming back in 1 cor 7 where tells married couples to live as they were not...because why? the time was short...oops.