Here Is Why I Don't Believe

[Kat22]

Are we talking about Alexander III, Megas Alexandros, dead 323 BC? Why is that 400 years after his death?

 

Sorry, I accidentally put down the date of his death instead of the date of his oldest biography available to us. Oldest biography: Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus.

 

And why is that evidence that all legends always start 500 years later, when your other source say that Gospel of Peter had an embellished story about jesus 100 years after?

 

--edit--

 

Just because we can't find any legend stories about Alexander, there are other examples of legends building faster than 500 years. I gave you one, the Cargo Cult, and you gave me one, Gospel of Peter. So you can't assert that all legends take 500 years. Because we can see in history that it is generally wrong. Legends is always built around spectacular situations or people, but we don't always hear about them. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. In the case of Alexander, it's just one.

 

I am still gathering all my info. Please be patient, it takes time. I am learning as I talk to all of you. This is not something that I have all together. Part of the reason why I even entered this site the first time is to be challeneged just like this because I have a lot that I want to learn and I do not want it all based off of the things that pro-Christian sources have to say.

 

By the way, you're probably referring to this: "A quantity of the more legendary material coalesced into a text known as the Alexander Romance, the basis of all the Alexander legends of the middle ages, originated during the time of the Ptolemies, but in its present form belongs to the 3rd century AD. Its author is usually known as pseudo-Callisthenes, although in the Latin translation by Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius (beginning of the 4th century) it is ascribed to a certain Aesopus; Aristotle, Antisthenes, Onesicritus and Arrian have also been credited with the authorship."

 

But notice, "legends ... originated during the time of the Ptolemies". When did Ptolemies live? Somewhere betwen 305 BC to 30 BC. So if the Alexander Romance was a collection of legends from somewhere between 300 and 30 BC, then the legends were not so old after all. These things aren't for certain, but neither is that statement that the legends were "created" when the Romance was written. They were only a collection of earlier stories. Does it make sense?

 

If you notice, that quote says "the basis of all the Alexander legends of the middle ages, originated during the time of the Ptolemies, but in its present form belongs to the 3rd century AD". In order to know for certain that the basis was already legend forming, we would need to know what that basis was. Also, as you can see with Anabasis Alexandri, there was still reliable sources to go off of until at least the 2nd century (about 400 years after his death). And this one was formed partly by the biography of Ptolomy himself, not just souces during the time of the Ptolemies. Therefore, even if stories started close to the death of Alexander, there were still documents of at least his public actions that could be counted on for accuracy until a minimum of 400 years after his death. Same thing with the cargo cult. Reliable accounts and documents have been available since the CC popped up. I guess I need to re-phrase my statement from before. Myths may be around closer to the time of a figure/event. However, reliable documentation to dispute any myths are still constructed centuries afterward.

 

 

Your answer is found in comparing other documents. Which is why I keep comming back to Alexander the Great. Whe his first biography was written (around 323 BC), 400 years after his death, historians have found it to be reliably accurate.

 

Obviously you ignored my post. Alexander the Great and Jesus is no comparision. And it is bogus that he did have contempories

 

Once again here you go, incase you forgot to read

 

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1b.html

 

All these authors lived more than three centuries after the events they described, but they used older, nearly contemporary sources, that are now lost

 

Please see the website for the contemporary of Alexander.

 

If you are claiming that the Gospels are historically accurate, then please tell provide me with historical and even biblical evidence for the following stupendous event which surpasses even Jesus's own resurrection

Matt 27:50-53

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

i await your answer, and I am still waiting for the following claim you made

Kindly point us to historical or biblical evidence that all the apostles died for their beliefs

 

and

 

name one non-christian documentation that says the disciples were martyred.

 

Again, patience please. I am still gathering the information together and I am one person while you are many. And I never said all the apostles were martered (if I did, it was by mistake). I said that apostles were martyred/ At least one lived a full life (I think it was Matthew). Also, if the accuracy of the NT can be proved, then the disciples being martyred is found in there. However, I will look for non-biblical accounts anyway.

[Kat22]

 

First, I just wanted to commend you for knowing when to concede and having a partially open mind.

 

If you believe in God, that's fine with us. A lot of us here are deists and agnostics, so it doesnt bother us. Our problem now, well at least mine anyway, is that you choose to worship a book, which you admit contains inconsistencies and contradictions. How can you do that?

 

Yes, I know it's a technicality but I never said I worship a book. I said I trust the book as the inspired word of the one that I worship. Of all the "words" out there, I believe that it is the most reliable and accurate. Even if there are some contradictions (though most can be explained if one has enough information). If you think about it, the fact that the contradictions are there adds to it's reliability. Why? Because no one changed the contradictions (and I am sure they were noticed) when the books were copied. They kept it just as it was because, to change it, would be altering it from the original. At that point, it would not be trustworthy anymore.

[Kat22]

Congratulations. Not many christians who come here have the courage to do such a thing - admitting when they're wrong. If you managed to do so, it could really mean that we can have a honest discussion with you.

 

About Alexander the great - yes, there are contemporary accounts of Alexander, look at the pictures here - a marble inscription of 330 BC, a greek statuette retrieved near tian shan (400 - 300 bc), a coin with alexander on it of 323 BC, and another one of 305 BC (yes, this one is not contemporary, but it's way better than 500 years later, no?) then there is a contemporary bust... and so on. Look at them if you want to.

 

Do you think all of those things are fake? If you think so, that's ok, but explain us why.

 

I am not sure I understand your argument. Did I say there wasn't contemporary accounts of Alexander? If I did, I take it back. My whole discussion about Alexander is that the latest known accurate biography is from the 2nd century.

 

Hm... I don't think it works this way. This is wanting to see things either black or white. Meaning: god has been good to you (giving you strenght, helping you find him, answering your prayers...) so he MUST be good in everything he does. Or - god has been evil with certain people, so he MUST be evil in everything he does and in such a way you would easily recognize it. Let's look it from another perspective: as you know, Hitler had a lover, she was called Eva Braun. Do you think that Hitler was evil with Eva? Do you think that he treated her badly? If so, why do you think so? He was very kind with her, as far as we know, and even put her along him on propaganda posters sometimes, even if he was catholic and catholics heavily frown over non-married couples (as was his case).

 

So if hitler can be evil, even if he was good with Eva, because he ordered the slaughter of 6 millions people and more, can it be that god is evil, even if he was good wth you, because he slaughtered personally the whole world population (even infants) exception made for 1 family?

 

I hope this question will sound logical to you.

 

1) Comparing an insane human (with which we have video, pictures and news releases documenting his insanity) to God is quite a stretch.

 

2) God isn't just a blessing to me. I am not the only one who has seen his love and mercy. Millions of people all around the world have seen His power work through their lives. The conclusion is soundly based on His complete actions of love and forgiveness, not just His actions towards me. I just used myself as an example cause I do not have permission to give an account of the experiences that others have had.

 

 

Another thing, though: I want to ask you... can you pray for Hansolo? This would be the proof many of us need to go back to worshiping your god. Hansolo has very serious problems, his son can't walk anymore, seeing as god answers your prayers but he didn't answer Hansolo's, could you pray for his son to start walking again?

 

After all, there is no reason God shouldn't listen to your prayers, right? ... or is there?

 

 

1) I would be more than happy to pray for him.

 

2) If you read my entire entry (yes I know that can be hard to do w/o falling asleep) you will see that I said I do not always get a "yes". As a matter of fact, I often get a "no" and it isn't till later that I find out why. Nonetheless, he and his son will be in my prayers.

 

3) If these prayers are answered with a "yes", the bible will still be the bible. It won't all of a sudden bend to your will so that you can agree with everything that is within. Why change your opinion just because of a miracle? That just seems like you are saying "It's possible for all this to be true, God. But I won't believe it until you SHOW me you are there by doing this". You know how far that got the pharisees. As a matter of fact... please do not make fun of this because this is quite a leap for me. I will put a prayer right here....

 

Father, God...

 

I know I am in a place where many are calling. So many voices that want to know what your truth really is. You did say "seek and ye shall find" and you encourage us to ask questions. These people have asked those questions and have not been given an answer that satisfies them. I lift them up to you and place them in your very capable hands.

 

God, I praise you for what you are. For all that you have shown me and those around me. I thank you for your wisdom in all things, even if I still question some. Please, Lord... forgive me for my arrogance in thinking that I have all the answers. I came here seeking to shed light on those in the dark and have been humbled. I thank you for hearing this prayer that is done in such an unusual way. But it doesn't have to be with voice that one comes to you. The heart is all that matters.

 

Lord I now lift up this man, whom I only know as Hansolo, and his son. God, only you can see into his heart. Only you can travel through his home and know what he is going through as he watches his son. Only you really know what his son is going through. I call on you, as a child of the living God and seek your healing for his son. Father, this plead comes from my heart and I know you say "ask and you shall receive". But I also know that this is not a statement meant for every situation. Sometimes your wisdom shows that there is a greater purpose for saying no. I do not ask for my own will to be done, but for yours and yours alone. Put your hands upon the hearts of this man and his son. Let them have strength in your arms. Hold them up, Lord God. For they need you more than they know. And, Lord, if your answer is no... I pray that this man has a peace that he has never felt before. That he is surrounded by those who can support him and give him comfort.

 

God, I pray for his son to touch his heart with wisdom and strength. That he can look at the attitude of his son and be so amazed that he can do nothing but marvel.

 

I thank for your answer God, whatever that may be. And I say that I do not worship you because the results will be my way (for my way would be to heal this young man). I worship you because you are the Almighty. And giving me a chance to have life and learn about you, alone, makes you worthy of my devotion.

 

In the name of your Son and my Savior, Jesus Christ... amen.

[NotBlinded]

 

2) God isn't just a blessing to me. I am not the only one who has seen his love and mercy. Millions of people all around the world have seen His power work through their lives. The conclusion is soundly based on His complete actions of love and forgiveness, not just His actions towards me. I just used myself as an example cause I do not have permission to give an account of the experiences that others have had.

Yes...and many, many non-Christians have felt it too. I am being sincere. There are no limits to God and certainly no favorites. You and these people have allowed yourself to become open spiritually. I just don't want to see you claim this is only for Christians because then you would close yourself off again and trouble will ensue with people that don't feel as you do. What good can come from feeling you are part of a group that god favors? The ego loves it. I know many evils can come from it. How geniune is your spirituality if you limit God?

[crazy-tiger]

I will put a prayer right here....

 

<<snip a nice long public prayer>>

Thanks so much for doing exactly what Jesus said you should NOT do... Guess you should start praying for forgiveness.

 

 

 

Just make sure you do it in private, just like Jesus commanded you to do... since the public praying was condemmed by him.

[Skankboy]

This is a very good point NBTB. Millions upon millions of people have had experiences like she's describing and only a very small fraction of them were Christians.

 

How do you reconcile the exclusivity of christianity with the wealth of non-christian religious experiences?

[Kat22]

No. I will not "tear it apart". I won't give you the satisfaction of playing the martyr for Christ. You seem to believe that we're simply cruel mockers, who take delight in trying to shake your faith.

 

Well, you're wrong. We're just people having a discussion with a person who holds an opposing view. A person who DECIDED to enter into a discussion with us, ON HER OWN ACCORD. So, please, quit with the breast beating. It's tiresome.

 

Again, comments made are not directed at everyone. There are those who choose to mock me for my comments. Those are the ones that the last comment was directed at so, if you were not one of them feel free to ignore it.

 

With THAT out of the way, I will ask you something, Kat22: Why does the idea of SELF-WORTH offend you so much?

 

You seem to be taking perverse delight in giving god the glory for all of YOUR accomplishments. And you take offense to us when we even suggest that it was ALL YOU who overcame and overcome your struggles. No "god" held you up, or held your hands. YOU did it! Congratulations!

 

Is it REALLY so awful to realize that it was YOU who had the inner strength and character to succeed in life despite the odds? Are we really such awful people for wanting to congratulate YOU for being a success, instead of your Imaginary Friend?

 

I don't understand all of this Christian "humility" nonsense. Why is self-worth so "sinful"?

 

(And please, spare me the Biblical answer. I'm well aware of what the book says. I'm an ex-preacher as well as ex-Christian. I want to hear from your heart, why you believe mankind is "wicked" or "evil" for self-accomplishments. Why MUST it be "god" and nothing else?)

 

I never said that mankind is "wicked" or "evil" for self-accomplishments. There are many things that we do (like getting an education and choosing to use it to help others) where we can say with pride "I chose to take that path and look at the good it has done". Pride is not a bad thing but it must be in balance lest any man boast of something that is not his own. I pride myself in the fact that I chose to listen to what God had to say. But God set the rules for what works and what doesn't. So, if following His instruction leads to the blessings that I have experienced, those blessings come from the fact that God planned out what will work and what doesn't. Therefore, the blessings come from God.

 

I also cannot take credit for the obviously "from God" blessings we have been given. Like the times we have helped someone finanacially and, with a short period of time, have been blessed with 10 times (exactly) what we gave. I cannot take credit for the fact that, before my husband and I started tithing, we struggled financially and were getting deeper into debt. After we started tithing, for some strange reason, the less amount of money we had stretched farther than it ever had before. Cars would last longer without breaking down... less unexpected costs would creep up... unexpected money would come from, what seemed like, out of nowhere. We are not rich at all. But we never want for anything that we need. Ever since we started tithing. Is that a coincidence? It could be. If it only lasted for a little while and then went back to the way it was. But it has been like this for years.

 

So I am happy to say that I am the one that chooses to follow God and God gets the glory for the blessings He gives me. What's wrong with that? I don't feellike I am missing anything by giving Him the credit for the blessings. As a matter of fact, since I started doing that, I have had much less trouble with true arrogance. THAT almost cost me my marraige (on top of all the other stuff that was going on).

 

 

 

2) God isn't just a blessing to me. I am not the only one who has seen his love and mercy. Millions of people all around the world have seen His power work through their lives. The conclusion is soundly based on His complete actions of love and forgiveness, not just His actions towards me. I just used myself as an example cause I do not have permission to give an account of the experiences that others have had.

Yes...and many, many non-Christians have felt it too. I am being sincere. There are no limits to God and certainly no favorites. You and these people have allowed yourself to become open spiritually. I just don't want to see you claim this is only for Christians because then you would close yourself off again and trouble will ensue with people that don't feel as you do. What good can come from feeling you are part of a group that god favors? The ego loves it. I know many evils can come from it. How geniune is your spirituality if you limit God?

 

Obviously you are not paying attention to my posts. I have said before that Non-Christians have had the blessings of God as well. A lot of the time, however, they just don't know that it's God.

 

I will put a prayer right here....

 

<<snip a nice long public prayer>>

Thanks so much for doing exactly what Jesus said you should NOT do... Guess you should start praying for forgiveness.

 

 

 

Just make sure you do it in private, just like Jesus commanded you to do... since the public praying was condemmed by him.

 

If you understood those scriptures, you would know that He said "to be seen by men". In other words "Don't pray so that others can tell you how spiritual you are because of you longwinded prayer. If I wanted to be seen as spiritual for a public prayer, this is definately not the place to do it. God does not care about your words but your heart. Never presume to know someone's intentions.

 

More importantly, my prayer was not placed for the sake of a smartass retort. It was placed because I felt prompted to do so.

[Skankboy]

Obviously you are not paying attention to my posts. I have said before that Non-Christians have had the blessings of God as well. A lot of the time, however, they just don't know that it's God.

 

That's great! So we don't need christianity at all! God will bless us either way. So you must believe that those "who never heard the word" will go to heaven?

[NotBlinded]

 

2) God isn't just a blessing to me. I am not the only one who has seen his love and mercy. Millions of people all around the world have seen His power work through their lives. The conclusion is soundly based on His complete actions of love and forgiveness, not just His actions towards me. I just used myself as an example cause I do not have permission to give an account of the experiences that others have had.

Yes...and many, many non-Christians have felt it too. I am being sincere. There are no limits to God and certainly no favorites. You and these people have allowed yourself to become open spiritually. I just don't want to see you claim this is only for Christians because then you would close yourself off again and trouble will ensue with people that don't feel as you do. What good can come from feeling you are part of a group that god favors? The ego loves it. I know many evils can come from it. How geniune is your spirituality if you limit God?

 

Obviously you are not paying attention to my posts. I have said before that Non-Christians have had the blessings of God as well. A lot of the time, however, they just don't know that it's God.

You mean they don't know it's the Christian God giving them the blessings? How utterly arrogant of you if that is what you mean. You can stick a label on God if you wish, but I will not. Because in doing this, I have defined what God is and I cannot do that. Neither can you no matter how much you wish God to be what one book has defined It to be. So, when a non-believer has something miraculous happen to them, or have blessings showered upon them, do you tell them that it was your God that intervened? Do you boast in that 'knowledge'? All you are doing is limiting your understanding of God when you choose one path. There is nothing wrong with having a favorite path to follow as long as you can acknowledge that all the other paths to God are equally as valid as yours.

 

And by the way...I think you missed my point. Please pay attention.

[Asuryan]

I am not sure I understand your argument. Did I say there wasn't contemporary accounts of Alexander? If I did, I take it back. My whole discussion about Alexander is that the latest known accurate biography is from the 2nd century.

 

well then, why did you choose to speak about Alexander's biography, exactly?

 

1) Comparing an insane human (with which we have video, pictures and news releases documenting his insanity) to God is quite a stretch.

 

I don't think so. In the documentaries, we see him walking during parades, and speaking to the people. But you never see him do patently evil things such as killing little kitten, nor you see him doing patently crazy things like throwing poop to the assembled public. I don't think that hitler was insane, mind you: almost all germany decided to follow him and to be an accomplice of his politics. Were they all insane? I think not. I think they were products of their time... but I tackled this subject on another thread anyway, I guess.

 

However, I did compare Hitler to God. My question still stands. Hitler wasn't evil ALL THE TIME. So by following this logic, even god could choose to not be evil ALL THE TIME, and to show some godly grace every now and then.

 

You didn't really provide a reason why I shouldn't do such a comparison. I understand it could seem disrespectful for you, but it is a serious question, not meant to mock.

 

 

2) God isn't just a blessing to me. I am not the only one who has seen his love and mercy.

 

 

But christianity is not the only religion whose followers claim to have seen extraordinary things... Don't other religions, or sects, think just the same thing? That their gods or god have changed their lives for the better, and that they've felt the gods' presence near them?

 

But you don't believe in those gods, right?

Why, if their point of view is exacly akin to yours?

 

2) If you read my entire entry (yes I know that can be hard to do w/o falling asleep) you will see that I said I do not always get a "yes". As a matter of fact, I often get a "no" and it isn't till later that I find out why.

 

 

So, you're saying that

 

- Either god will answer your plea, and help Hansolo, or

 

- He won't answer, but he only won't answer because he has a precise reason to avoid answering that prayer.

 

Is that right?

 

Thanks for your prayers

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, I accidentally put down the date of his death instead of the date of his oldest biography available to us. Oldest biography: Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus.

I figured as much, but wanted to give you a nudge!

 

I am still gathering all my info. Please be patient, it takes time. I am learning as I talk to all of you. This is not something that I have all together. Part of the reason why I even entered this site the first time is to be challeneged just like this because I have a lot that I want to learn and I do not want it all based off of the things that pro-Christian sources have to say.

Kudos to you to admit and wanting to learn and study. I try my best to do the same.

 

For instance I have had to retract some of my views on this site, I don't longer hold that Jesus is a complete fabrication or mythology, but I still withhold the opinion that he is a a character somewhere between legend and myth. I can see there is a possibility that Jesus was a teacher or a "Mother Theresa" of his time, but I doubt that he would have done any more real miracles/magic than Mother Theresa or Simon Magus.

 

One legend about Simon Magus is described as this: He is said to have had a celestial chariot upon which he was seen flying through the air. He could not, however, withstand the superior magic powers of Peter, and fell from the chariot, breaking his legs (Syriac "Didascalia," i. 18; Arnobius, "Contra Gentes," ii. 12). . Arnobius of Sicca lived within the magical 500 year mark too.

 

Or look at Mother Theresa, 5 years after her death, she suddenly have 600 miracles ascribed to her. What will she have in 50-60 years from now? She'll be the reincarnate Virgin Mary by then!

 

 

If you notice, that quote says "the basis of all the Alexander legends of the middle ages, originated during the time of the Ptolemies, but in its present form belongs to the 3rd century AD". In order to know for certain that the basis was already legend forming, we would need to know what that basis was. Also, as you can see with Anabasis Alexandri, there was still reliable sources to go off of until at least the 2nd century (about 400 years after his death). And this one was formed partly by the biography of Ptolomy himself, not just souces during the time of the Ptolemies. Therefore, even if stories started close to the death of Alexander, there were still documents of at least his public actions that could be counted on for accuracy until a minimum of 400 years after his death. Same thing with the cargo cult. Reliable accounts and documents have been available since the CC popped up. I guess I need to re-phrase my statement from before. Myths may be around closer to the time of a figure/event. However, reliable documentation to dispute any myths are still constructed centuries afterward.

The big difference IMO with Alexander is that you have historical accounts of him, even things that he wrote him self. And the historian authors actually tried to write a fair and honest report of him, and reduce all the "magic" flavoring to the stories. Unfortunately we don't have any document like that about Jesus, and the stories we have sounds way too much like a Superman Comic than a historical report.

[NotBlinded]

Obviously you are not paying attention to my posts. I have said before that Non-Christians have had the blessings of God as well. A lot of the time, however, they just don't know that it's God.

 

That's great! So we don't need christianity at all! God will bless us either way. So you must believe that those "who never heard the word" will go to heaven?

Pssst...Skankboy...when she says God, she means the Christian God.

 

 

By the way...I know you know that...I just wanted you to know that I know what you mean too.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the prayer. To give you a background story. Accident 10 years ago, all kids injured and wife, one kid paraplegic. We got prayed for by churches in USA, Sweden, Africa, Europe and many other places we never though would know about us. We even got a letter from President Clinton. (Beat that if you can! ) Anyway. He can't walk. His spine is damaged in three places. And there's a lot more stuff than that, which I won't bore you with here. And yeah, our case made changes to the laws. Just minor stuff. We had our 15 minutes of fame on local news too.

 

My response though is that you prayed for me to have peace. That's the funny thing. That's what I got when I lost my faith. The religion was binding me in stress, anger, frustration, confusion and much more. But when I finally gave up and let it all go, and I asked God to give me faith, he didn't answer that either. So I'm still waiting, but meanwhile, I'm as happy as ever. So if that was the answer from God, then God wants me to be an apostate. And I'll promise to be the best apostate he ever anointed!

[crazy-tiger]

I will put a prayer right here....

 

<<snip a nice long public prayer>>

Thanks so much for doing exactly what Jesus said you should NOT do... Guess you should start praying for forgiveness.

 

 

 

Just make sure you do it in private, just like Jesus commanded you to do... since the public praying was condemmed by him.

 

If you understood those scriptures, you would know that He said "to be seen by men". In other words "Don't pray so that others can tell you how spiritual you are because of you longwinded prayer.

Uh-huh... and you know Jesus's intentions there... how?

If I wanted to be seen as spiritual for a public prayer, this is definately not the place to do it. God does not care about your words but your heart. Never presume to know someone's intentions.

Why not... it's just what you've just done...

More importantly, my prayer was not placed for the sake of a smartass retort. It was placed because I felt prompted to do so.

Yes, and you felt prompted to make a very longwinded prayer when a simple "please God, help Hansolo and his son. Amen" would have done.

 

Now tell me... how is that any different from what Jesus was condemning?

 

 

And while we're at it, mind telling me how you know my intention was a smartass retort? Or are you just presuming it was such...?

[RHEMtron]

Yes, I know it's a technicality but I never said I worship a book. I said I trust the book as the inspired word of the one that I worship.

granted...

 

Of all the "words" out there, I believe that it is the most reliable and accurate.

First off, which "inspired word" do you place your trust in? Catholic Bible, Any of the Reformation Bibles, etc. Im not trying to bait you into another discussion, or tear up your comments. I just want to be able to understand where youre coming from.

 

Second, why do you believe it to be the most reliable and accurate?

 

Even if there are some contradictions (though most can be explained if one has enough information). If you think about it, the fact that the contradictions are there adds to it's reliability. Why? Because no one changed the contradictions (and I am sure they were noticed) when the books were copied.

Im sorry. Im not understanding the logic. A book that has errors and contradictions does not add to it's reliability. If in med-school, my surgical books said to "never inject coccaine into a patient, but instead always give topically," but in another part of it it says "always inject coccaine into a patient," we would have a problem there. One, it's true to never inject coccaine. Two, I would lose my license for doing so. Three, i'd have to question everything the book had taught. Four, i'd have to reject that book and learn from a new one.

 

Great. The issue of contradictions we can discuss in another thread then

 

They kept it just as it was because, to change it, would be altering it from the original. At that point, it would not be trustworthy anymore.

I still contend a book is more trustworthy for not having any errors. But again i ask, what makes the book you read more trustworthy from other "inspired words" of God? Is it because what the other scriptures say dont agree with what you were taught to believe? And also, what makes it more trustworthy than any other religious books?

 

We can all contend here that it has been altered from it's original. In more ways than one i might add. Evidence shows, through comparisons of later discoveries of older manuscripts and linguistics, that the synoptic Gospels have been altered. The most famous one is in "the Great Commission". It is widely accepted by secular and non-secular scholars that Mark 16:9-20 were later added to try and coincide with the Epistles of Paul.

 

Another way, though more of a technicality but still misleading, is how the New Testament quotes phrophecies in the Old Testament (I will not speak of how the prophecies are taken out of context because it's not relevant at this point. That we can discuss in a separate thread). In the verses they quote, the words are altered in a way to change the meaning of the prophecy. Changing the word Ephratha, which is the name of a person and a clan, with the land of Judah greatly changes the meaning of a verse.

 

you can check out what i speak of here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry191922

 

All i know is, any book that misleads, contains errors, and contradicts i choose not to trust. Applying it to a person, it doesnt makes them more trustworthy either. Moreover, a person in a book that contradicts themeselves and the book, doesnt make them trustworthy either.

 

-Rhem

[Kat22]

The big difference IMO with Alexander is that you have historical accounts of him, even things that he wrote him self. And the historian authors actually tried to write a fair and honest report of him, and reduce all the "magic" flavoring to the stories. Unfortunately we don't have any document like that about Jesus, and the stories we have sounds way too much like a Superman Comic than a historical report.

 

1) What does IMO mean?

2) For the sake of argument, let's say the bible is the word of God for a moment. God didn't write a thing from the OT, why should Christ when He is just the incarnation of God?

3) Who's to say that the accounts of Christ weren't fair and honest? Just because both Believers and non believers of the time both claim he did miraculous things? Maybe that means He did. Even the jews who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah still did not deny that Christ performed miracles. They just say that he was a magician and not sent from God.

 

Account from Josephus. I used this particular site because it does not favor Christianity but accuses them of rewriting the account. Then it gives an Arabic account which is deemed (by this site) as more accurate. I am fine with that. It still shows, for those who deny that Jesus ever existed, that He was a real person, was crucified and was claimed to be seen alive again.

 

Tertullian A slanderous account of Christ. Does not deny marvelous works but calls him demon possessed. Then goes on to say that he really was absent (he says stolen) from the cave. Confirming that the tomb WAS empty.

 

3rd century quote from 2nd century Celsus. Another slanderous claim against Christ. Trying to reason away to claim that Christ was born of a virgin.

 

The previous claim that Christ was born a "bastard" is based off of an obscure quote from a genealogy found bySimeon b. Azzai that is sometimes being used in reference to Jesus.

 

Here is an account that also accuses Him of sorcery. As well as speaking of the execution of five of the apostles. They seem to have believed that Jesus had five students (whether the rest were called something else or not, we don't know).

 

So there are a few of the earlier claims, from people who saw Jesus as anything BUT God, that not only do not deny His miracles but try to pawn it off as coming from a demon possessed bastard (granted, the bastard part is an extreme reach due to the quote the claim comes from). I know... I'm leaving myself wide open. But, hey, I'm going for stuff that are accounts from people who do not think Christ is divine. So, of course, they will bash his character. The question is, was He demon possessed or not? And, If I have just proved that there are accounts (outside the bible) of disciples being martyred, imagine how many more there are. So they were killed and refused to say that it was a lie.

 

 

Yes, I know it's a technicality but I never said I worship a book. I said I trust the book as the inspired word of the one that I worship.

granted...

 

Of all the "words" out there, I believe that it is the most reliable and accurate.

First off, which "inspired word" do you place your trust in? Catholic Bible, Any of the Reformation Bibles, etc. Im not trying to bait you into another discussion, or tear up your comments. I just want to be able to understand where youre coming from.

 

Second, why do you believe it to be the most reliable and accurate?

 

Even if there are some contradictions (though most can be explained if one has enough information). If you think about it, the fact that the contradictions are there adds to it's reliability. Why? Because no one changed the contradictions (and I am sure they were noticed) when the books were copied.

Im sorry. Im not understanding the logic. A book that has errors and contradictions does not add to it's reliability. If in med-school, my surgical books said to "never inject coccaine into a patient, but instead always give topically," but in another part of it it says "always inject coccaine into a patient," we would have a problem there. One, it's true to never inject coccaine. Two, I would lose my license for doing so. Three, i'd have to question everything the book had taught. Four, i'd have to reject that book and learn from a new one.

 

Great. The issue of contradictions we can discuss in another thread then

 

They kept it just as it was because, to change it, would be altering it from the original. At that point, it would not be trustworthy anymore.

I still contend a book is more trustworthy for not having any errors. But again i ask, what makes the book you read more trustworthy from other "inspired words" of God? Is it because what the other scriptures say dont agree with what you were taught to believe? And also, what makes it more trustworthy than any other religious books?

 

We can all contend here that it has been altered from it's original. In more ways than one i might add. Evidence shows, through comparisons of later discoveries of older manuscripts and linguistics, that the synoptic Gospels have been altered. The most famous one is in "the Great Commission". It is widely accepted by secular and non-secular scholars that Mark 16:9-20 were later added to try and coincide with the Epistles of Paul.

 

Another way, though more of a technicality but still misleading, is how the New Testament quotes phrophecies in the Old Testament (I will not speak of how the prophecies are taken out of context because it's not relevant at this point. That we can discuss in a separate thread). In the verses they quote, the words are altered in a way to change the meaning of the prophecy. Changing the word Ephratha, which is the name of a person and a clan, with the land of Judah greatly changes the meaning of a verse.

 

you can check out what i speak of here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry191922

 

All i know is, any book that misleads, contains errors, and contradicts i choose not to trust. Applying it to a person, it doesnt makes them more trustworthy either. Moreover, a person in a book that contradicts themeselves and the book, doesnt make them trustworthy either.

 

-Rhem

 

To sum it up shortly (I know, I'm not too good at that), it comes down to their claims of Christ. Everything I have read and studied (so far) leans more towards the claims of the NT being true. As my preveous post demonstrates in part. Non-Christain Jewish accounts show that they do not deny, even from early times, that Christ performed miracles. They, of all people, are the least likely to put myth/legend into the story of Jesus. They would go to any length to make sure that their accounts did not show Him doing something miraculous if He didn't really do it.

 

Sorry, let me clarify.

 

To sum it up shortly (I know, I'm not too good at that), it comes down to the fact that their claims of Christ do not line up with the NT. Everything I have read and studied (so far) leans more towards the claims of the NT being true than anything else. As my preveous post demonstrates in part. Non-Christain Jewish accounts show that they do not deny, even from early times, that Christ performed miracles and that his tomb was empty and he was claimed to be risen from the dead. And they also confirm that at least five (from the accounts I have posted) apostles were killed because of their faith in Him. They, of all people, are the least likely to put myth/legend into the story of Jesus. They would go to any length to make sure that their accounts did not show Him doing something miraculous if He didn't really do it.

[Ouroboros]

1) What does IMO mean?

IMO = "In My Opinion"

IMHO = "In My Humble Opinion" (but I'm not that very humble, so I prefer the one above.)

 

2) For the sake of argument, let's say the bible is the word of God for a moment. God didn't write a thing from the OT, why should Christ when He is just the incarnation of God?

Why didn't Jesus assign the task to one of the disciples to write down the journey while they were doing it, instead of waiting 40+ years? Wasn't the message that important to be untarnished and unchanged from source-to-paper? Why did Jesus even pick out 12 followers, unless they were to carry the message, but again he didn't want them to write it down?

 

Example: When I instruct someone to do something, I'm picky about that they have a notebook and write down at least something about what I'm saying, or it is 110% guaranteed that they will forget or get the details wrong. I see it with highly skilled, professional, smart, intelligent, computer-geeks that know what they're doing, and I know if they don't write down (and it counts for me too), then 1-2 weeks later, they come back and ask: "how was it again, was it click-scan-enter-save or was it supposed to be enter-click-scan-save?" etc

 

I know, as I have been testifying in court, how hard it is to remember details only a few years back. I can't remember, even in catastrophic events, exactly what was said. For instance, 9/11, can you tell me exactly who was with you and exactly what they said during those few hours? Just must be able to, it's only a few years back. Imagine 40 years back!

 

With all the media coverage about 9/11, and the sophisticated technology of today, people still are asking questions and making things up! All these conspiracy theories already. And we're talking 6-7 years. It's just human nature to do this.

 

3) Who's to say that the accounts of Christ weren't fair and honest? Just because both Believers and non believers of the time both claim he did miraculous things? Maybe that means He did. Even the jews who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah still did not deny that Christ performed miracles. They just say that he was a magician and not sent from God.

Well, if you want Jesus to be treated with higher regards than other fabulous legends and stories, than you must provide more to the table than just "I believe so". At least if you want to convince me that your faith is right. If you accept to be "saved", without even trying to save me or anyone else, then it really doesn't matter what you believe.

 

Who's to say that the accounts of all other magicians and legends are not just as true? Maybe Rael (Claude Vorilhon) really did meet with the aliens in the 70's.

 

Before we move on, I'd like you to explain or argue why I should or should not believe this Church: http://www.rael.org/

 

And explain why they would be handled or considered different than your religion.

[Taphophilia]

The god's back then proformed miracles. It was a god prerequisite. They accepted Jesus miracles because they were the same exact ones preformed by all the other ancient gods.

 

Pagan miracles

1. There were a lot of them. Tens of thousands.

2. Pagans understood miracles one way: God's magic.

3. The pagans made up miracles, added them to their stories as a way of adding meaning.

 

Christian miracles

1. There were a lot of them

2. The Christians understood their miracles one way. God's magic.

3. The Christians also believed Pagan miracles were real. They believed the Pagan miracles were done by demons.

4. The Christians made up miracles, added them to their stories as a way of adding meaning.

 

 

What's more Pagan Gods did the same miracles Jesus did—and the Pagan Gods did them first. What sort of miracles are we talking about?

Jesus healed the sick. Pagan Gods healed the sick first.

Jesus walked on water. Pagan Gods walked on water first.

Jesus turned water into wine. Pagan Gods turned water into wine first.

Jesus calmed the storm. Pagan Gods calmed storms first.

Jesus fulfilled prophecy. Pagan Gods fulfilled prophecy first.

Jesus prophesied correctly. Pagan Gods prophesied correctly first.

Jesus raised the dead. Pagan Gods raised the dead first.

Jesus rose from the dead. Pagan Gods rose from the dead first.

Jesus apostles performed miracles. Pagan Gods' apostles performed miracles first.

 

Source: POCM

[Open_Minded]

Yes, I know it's a technicality but I never said I worship a book. I said I trust the book as the inspired word of the one that I worship. Of all the "words" out there, I believe that it is the most reliable and accurate. Even if there are some contradictions (though most can be explained if one has enough information). If you think about it, the fact that the contradictions are there adds to it's reliability. Why? Because no one changed the contradictions (and I am sure they were noticed) when the books were copied. They kept it just as it was because, to change it, would be altering it from the original. At that point, it would not be trustworthy anymore.

 

Kat... this may seem like splitting hairs. But, I'm curious .... why did you use the words "inspired word" rather than "innerant word"?

 

These two phrases typically carry different meanings, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

(A short explanation will do)

 

Thanks

 

 

-------------

 

Oh one other thing - I may have missed it elsewhere ... but what Christian denomination (or non-denominational) tradition do you follow?

[Ouroboros]

As my preveous post demonstrates in part. Non-Christain Jewish accounts show that they do not deny, even from early times, that Christ performed miracles and that his tomb was empty and he was claimed to be risen from the dead.

Of course not, because they didn't make all those claims in the beginning. How can someone refute a claim that hasn't been postulated yet? You need prophetic vision to do that.

 

And they also confirm that at least five (from the accounts I have posted) apostles were killed because of their faith in Him. They, of all people, are the least likely to put myth/legend into the story of Jesus.

That's one of the bad arguments Christians use. I used it too as Christian. But I discovered stories about Atheists, Marxists, Muslims, Hindus, .... and many more... that died as martyrs for their beliefs. Does martyrdom automatically validate the faith? In such case, my faith, or lack thereof have it's own martyrs and is validated to be Universally True.

 

They would go to any length to make sure that their accounts did not show Him doing something miraculous if He didn't really do it.

Are you sure about that? There are stories and passages in your translation of the Bible that do not occur in the earlier manuscripts. There is no doubt about that redactions and additions occured. In some cases it's even clear who did it. If you study more about text criticism you'll start see that it isn't that obviously black-n-white how to interpret the Bible.

 

--edit--

 

And again, the Gnostic movement had already started during Paul's time. That's before 68 AD. They even had churches and preachers. How is it possible that a movement that so incredible far removed from the literal/physical understanding of the Gospel could have got into full power and influence so fast in the early Church?

 

That's like we would see a movement today that claimed that Martin Luther King never lived, but was just a fictious character that was supposed to be understood spiritually. How is that possible?

[Kat22]

 

Why didn't Jesus assign the task to one of the disciples to write down the journey while they were doing it, instead of waiting 40+ years? Wasn't the message that important to be untarnished and unchanged from source-to-paper? Why did Jesus even pick out 12 followers, unless they were to carry the message, but again he didn't want them to write it down?

 

Example: When I instruct someone to do something, I'm picky about that they have a notebook and write down at least something about what I'm saying, or it is 110% guaranteed that they will forget or get the details wrong. I see it with highly skilled, professional, smart, intelligent, computer-geeks that know what they're doing, and I know if they don't write down (and it counts for me too), then 1-2 weeks later, they come back and ask: "how was it again, was it click-scan-enter-save or was it supposed to be enter-click-scan-save?" etc

 

I know, as I have been testifying in court, how hard it is to remember details only a few years back. I can't remember, even in catastrophic events, exactly what was said. For instance, 9/11, can you tell me exactly who was with you and exactly what they said during those few hours? Just must be able to, it's only a few years back. Imagine 40 years back!

 

With all the media coverage about 9/11, and the sophisticated technology of today, people still are asking questions and making things up! All these conspiracy theories already. And we're talking 6-7 years. It's just human nature to do this.

 

I know you guys don't believe it is possible (from what I have heard so far anyway) but they lived in an oral society. This is not something that you can only find in the Christian faith, history shows that the time period was full of people who told their stories time and time again without writing it down. Each discpile has their own things that they found the most important. IT wasn't a case of experiencing it and then only repeating it every once and a while. It was something they dedicated their whole life to! They told these parables and gave these messages time and time again. It was engrained into their heads because it was the whole of their being to spread the word. The apostles saw that the gentiles did not have the benefit of the oral traditions that the Jews did. They were commisioned, by Christ, to spread the word to all. In order to give the gentiles a fair footing, they needed to write it down for them. So, at first they didn't need to write it down cause they were dealing with people that were used to the oral tradition. It was written down for the benefit of the Gentiles.

 

Well, if you want Jesus to be treated with higher regards than other fabulous legends and stories, than you must provide more to the table than just "I believe so". At least if you want to convince me that your faith is right. If you accept to be "saved", without even trying to save me or anyone else, then it really doesn't matter what you believe.

 

Who's to say that the accounts of all other magicians and legends are not just as true? Maybe Rael (Claude Vorilhon) really did meet with the aliens in the 70's.

 

Before we move on, I'd like you to explain or argue why I should or should not believe this Church: http://www.rael.org/

 

And explain why they would be handled or considered different than your religion.

 

When everything I have studied leans toward the claims of Christ being true and confirmed by outside sources. And the fact that it is confirmed by outside sources that disciples were martyred for their faith; then anyone who says this is not true, I will not believe. Unless I find out different, that's where I stand.

[Open_Minded]

Yoooo .... Hooooo Kat .... Can I get an answer please.

 

 

Yes, I know it's a technicality but I never said I worship a book. I said I trust the book as the inspired word of the one that I worship. Of all the "words" out there, I believe that it is the most reliable and accurate. Even if there are some contradictions (though most can be explained if one has enough information). If you think about it, the fact that the contradictions are there adds to it's reliability. Why? Because no one changed the contradictions (and I am sure they were noticed) when the books were copied. They kept it just as it was because, to change it, would be altering it from the original. At that point, it would not be trustworthy anymore.

 

Kat... this may seem like splitting hairs. But, I'm curious .... why did you use the words "inspired word" rather than "innerant word"?

 

These two phrases typically carry different meanings, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

(A short explanation will do)

 

Thanks

 

 

-------------

 

Oh one other thing - I may have missed it elsewhere ... but what Christian denomination (or non-denominational) tradition do you follow?

[Kat22]

 

 

Kat... this may seem like splitting hairs. But, I'm curious .... why did you use the words "inspired word" rather than "innerant word"?

 

These two phrases typically carry different meanings, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

(A short explanation will do)

 

Thanks

 

Honestly, I just don't know the difference. I just believe that God let people know what to write down. Whatever that means.-------------

 

Oh one other thing - I may have missed it elsewhere ... but what Christian denomination (or non-denominational) tradition do you follow?

 

No denomination. I can't stand the idea of denominations. I believe that Christ did everything that is said in the NT and that He is God incarnate. That's it

[Open_Minded]

Honestly, I just don't know the difference. I just believe that God let people know what to write down. Whatever that means.

 

Well --- typically --- those who use the phrase "innerant word of God" mean that the Bible can contain no human error because it is given by God "word-for-word" to the human who wrote it down. (This is short and sweet - but generally that's what innerant means.)

 

Typically --- those who use the phrase "inspired word of God" generally are saying that God inspired the Bible THROUGH humans - and because it is inspired THROUGH humans it is possible to have human errors.

 

Where would you place yourself on this scale of INNERANT vs. INSPIRED word of God?

 

No denomination. I can't stand the idea of denominations. I believe that Christ did everything that is said in the NT and that He is God incarnate. That's it

 

Thanks ... it helps to know the background of a person.

[Ouroboros]

I know you guys don't believe it is possible (from what I have heard so far anyway) but they lived in an oral society.

I'm sorry, but that is very hard to swallow. The Torah was written hundreds of years before. Jesus even read from it in one of the stories in the Bible. Philo from Alexandria was a famous Jew that lived during Jesus' time, and he wrote religious and philosophical books, and he lived in Jerusalem for some time too (no one knows when though), and his writings were saved from destruction by the early Christians, but what's amazing is that he didn't write anything about Jesus. Even though his thoughts about "Logos" was influencing the gospel of John. Weird things those Oral Societies writing about the wrong things. Why did the early Christians save his writings, but didn't write anything by themselves until much later? Why did Paul write his epistles if they were oral society?

 

You have to understand it really doesn't matter if the society was this or that. God was personally behind the Bible, or? God knew what kind of technology we would have today, and how text criticism would develop, or wouldn't he? Wouldn't God go through some extra hoops to make sure the Bible and the message was saved to its fully extent? Or was he just lazy?

 

What I see as the problem is that you demand higher acceptance to a lower quality, just like a scam artist would do. Pay more for the lesser valued car. And you try to get away with it by saying there are worse cars than this one and there are cars more expensive than this one. But my reply is that the more expensive is better quality, and the worse cars are cheaper. You can only get one of the things, I can't give you both.

 

So what is it. Oral Tradition and God was sleeping? Or Textual, Literal and Accurate Truth and History from a Living God?

 

In the latter case, the Bible doesn't have enough to convince me. Since we have more from Alexander the Great. His own writings.

 

The "Alexander the Great" Religion has not demanded me to accept the low quality of the textual proof.

 

If you want the text (Bible) to be proof of the God's True Book, then I demand thousand times better (or higher) quality on the proof than any other historical person from that time. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

 

Basically, give me evidence that blows my mind away. Not something that is kind of, barely, acceptable, only if I'm in a good mood and I had my daily coffee.

 

 

This is not something that you can only find in the Christian faith, history shows that the time period was full of people who told their stories time and time again without writing it down.

Did they demand people to believe in those stories to be saved, and go to message boards to argue about it? There's a huge difference in how people act on the stories. There are many fancifull stories, and some groups have taken it to the religious level, like Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, Raelians, and much much more. And some stories are just stories.

 

What you don't realize is that you are in fact trusting these anonymous authors of the Gospels and the Epistles. You never met Paul, or John, or Mark etc. They are just names in some stories, but you devout your whole soul, life, family, time, money to it. What if they were hoaxers and you've been had? How would you know? You wouldn't because you trust your life to these men you never met!

 

 

 

When everything I have studied leans toward the claims of Christ being true and confirmed by outside sources. And the fact that it is confirmed by outside sources that disciples were martyred for their faith; then anyone who says this is not true, I will not believe. Unless I find out different, that's where I stand.

I'm not saying the Christians were persectued, tortured and killed the first 2-300 years. I do believe that was happening.

 

But now comes the interesting part. In just a few hundred years later, it was the Christians that persecuted, tortured and killed pagans, christian gnostics, christian essenes, and other faiths.

 

So the prey became the predator. Which is a proof that Christianity did not in fact change anyone to the better, but just gave people a new religion as an excuse for war and terror.

 

Honestly, I just don't know the difference. I just believe that God let people know what to write down. Whatever that means.-------------

Which means that I could in fact be writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit at the moment. You wouldn't know. Maybe God is talking through me to guide you into a less literalistic and fundamentalistic faith? How would you know?

 

No denomination. I can't stand the idea of denominations. I believe that Christ did everything that is said in the NT and that He is God incarnate. That's it

Good that you don't adhere to denominations. Get your own understanding of faith. That's the best way.