Originally posted by scottishinnzYou can take that to the extreme of asking are you sure it is you
Doesn't mean your reasons are right. You might be delusional. You might be being tricked. How can you ever be sure?
that you see when you look into a mirror. If you want to take it that
far fine by me. He made a statement I wanted to know his sources.
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillThanks, they wen't really well actually (or at least I think/hope they did).
Huh?
Your reasons seem to be making less and less sense to me.
Hope your tests go Okay anyway.
The argument I'm making is firstly that the gospels are not direct transcripts of Jesuss life, but contain various aspects which arrived because the Gospels were an oral tradition at first. The example I used was the last words of Jesus which differ throughout the gospels. Each of the last words used have important meaning and so each would have been important to the evangelical thhat wrote them and the people he was speaking to. Clearly they can't all have been said by Jesus. This in itself is not an argument against Christianity being true. Jesus still could have been divine even if the gospels weren't accurate. All it means is that you can't say that the gospels are evidence that Jesus was the son of god. The basis of Chritianity still lies firmly in faith: 'Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe'. Clearly this isn't a problem, all religion requires faith. But it does mean I am never going to read the gospels and suddenly see the light. You don't have evidence.
I'm not sure how my other point didn't make sence but I'll try to clarify.
If I ask you to teach my about Christianity, I am almost certain at least part of your teaching would include stuff about a loving merciful god. I'm sure that part of it would include the fact that if I believe in Jesus and lead a good life (although some only think the first is necessary) then I will go to heaven. In my current atheist state, many Christians, but not all, believe I would be going to hell. Now explain to me why I would wish what you tell me not to be true? Sure I'd be going to hell if it was. But if I knew you were right then I'd believe in Jesus, I'd 'open up my heart to the Lord' and I'd be saved. I'm not a horrible sinner. Sure to some degree we all are sinners but I don't think I would be considered beyond saving from a Christian perspective.
So imagine you convince me that Christianity is right. I can spend the rest of my days with the illusion of a comforting God hanging over me, the knowleage of salvation and eternal reward in heaven, and as they say, ignorance is bliss.
So why would I believe in God and call myself an atheist because I wish God didn't exist? How does that make sence?
Jake,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The example I used was the last words of Jesus which differ throughout the gospels. Each of the last words used have important meaning and so each would have been important to the evangelical thhat wrote them and the people he was speaking to.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is not a good argument. Just because seven sayings were recorded as having been said by Jesus on the cross does not mean that each of them was the LAST thing uttered.
Each evangelist has the right to want to impress readers that THIS or THAT was said by Jesus in His final hour.
It is stupid for you to make this an argument that they were contradictory with each other about the exact LAST words uttered by Jesus.
Any further arguement along this line I will expect you to analysis the specific quotations to prove the confusion.
And once more - You would be benefitted by actually READING the New Testament FOR ... YOUR .... SELF, already.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clearly they can't all have been said by Jesus.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clearly they were all said by Jesus.
Eyewitness testimony that did not cooraborate exactly is often realistic testimony.
Like I said, I read court proceedings of witness testimony of the OK Coral Gunfight. There was no agreement on WHO fired the first shot.
One thing was sure. To these cowboys, the stuff hit the fan, and there was a bad gunfight at the OK Coral.
Similiarly, the witnesses to the crucifixion most likely recalled different things which deeply impressed them. I don't think you can make a huge deal out of the fact that Mark records one saying and Matthew another and John perhaps another.
You believe what you want. I've read these things hundreds and hundreds of times. I believe He said them all. And some students have even demonstrated in what order He probably spoke them.
Originally posted by jaywillI on the other hand think that a lot of people professing to be Christian (or theist) do not actually believe in God. A significant proportion of people claiming to be theist will upon further examination admit to being agnostic and a significant proportion of Christians admit to not believing in an afterlife. I have even met priests who will readily admit that they do not believe some of the major teachings of their church.
I don't believe that there are really that many true athiests.
The Bible says that 'The fool says in his heart "There is no God".'
I don't believe that there are really that many foolish people who actually believe that there is no God. Romans says that men hold down the truth in unrighteousness.
I could be wrong but I suspect more "atheists" are excercis ...[text shortened]... rts that there is no God. They WISH that there was no God. And wish it very strongly.
Just so you know, I am atheist and have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is no God. I suspect there are a lot of people in the world who have similar views. You can pretend all you want and quote the Bible too if you like but it wont make me 'secretly believe'. Maybe your own fear of being wrong is what makes you want others to have beliefs similar to yours.
Originally posted by jaywill'Jesus drank the wine and said, "It is finnished!" Then he bowed his head and died.' John 19:30
Jake,
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The example I used was the last words of Jesus which differ throughout the gospels. Each of the last words used have important meaning and so each would have been important to the evangelical thhat wrote them and the people he was speaking to.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is not a ...[text shortened]... said them all. And some students have even demonstrated in what order He probably spoke them.[/b]
'Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Father! In your hands I place my spirit!" He said this and died.' Luke 23:46
'At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud shout, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" Which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?"
Some of the people there heard him and said, "Listen, he is calling Elijah!" One of them ran up with a sponge, soaked it in cheap wine, and put it on the end of a stick. Then he held it up to Jesus' lips and said, "Wait! Let us see if Elijah is coming to bring him down from the cross!"
With a loud cry Jesus died.'
So there are three exact quotes. If you look at the first two you can see that the author seems to think Jesus died after saying them. I'm sorry but you can't say the gospels are acurate histories when here clearly they arn't. Whether or not any of those were said, the authors have cut bits and rearanged them. This is assuming that they are eyewitness testomonies when its more likly that they were oral tradition.
If you think about whats most likly, your understanding of the gospel is probably the least likly. And I don't think its standing up. Saying I'm being stupid for saying that the last words of Jesus differ from the gospels is not helping your argument. You've been telling me that the gospels are accurate histories of actual events. Now your saying they arn't. So what are they?
Jake,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If I ask you to teach my about Christianity,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would and do not teach people about Chrstianity.
I teach them about a living Person Jesus. I think there is a difference.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
I am almost certain at least part of your teaching would include stuff about a loving merciful god.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eventually, I would try to help you understand that God has many characteristics about Himself. When He is merciful He is very merciful. When He is just He is very just. When He is patient He is vey patient. And when He is angry He is very angry.
What has helped me is to get a fuller portrait of God from taking in the whole Scripture and not just assume God is one way.
For this reason I believe with have four gospels also. These are like four pictures of a man's head from four different angles. Unfortunetly some people take these four aspects as contradictions.
But Christ is all-inclusive is a King and yet also a Slave of God. He is a normal Man and yet God Himself incarnate. So I would eventually try to help you see that God is many faceted in the Scriptures. This would call for you enlarging your capacity of appreciation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sure that part of it would include the fact that if I believe in Jesus and lead a good life (although some only think the first is necessary) then I will go to heaven.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those are your assumptions.
Did you notice the thread I started on "Beyond Going to Heaven?"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In my current atheist state, many Christians, but not all, believe I would be going to hell.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would probably try to show you that before the matter of sin came into the world God already had an eternal purpose.
Dealing with the penalty of sin is remedial in God's plan. He had a purpose in eternity quite apart from forgiveness of sins.
But it is important to know that a person will share the destiny of his leader. The eternal fire was prepared for the Devil and his angels according to Mathew 25:41 - "Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels"
It was prepared for the devil and his angels. IT was not prepared for mankind. But if you follow the devil and his angels you will share the destiny of your leader.
And if you follow Christ you will partake of His glorious destiny in His eternal kingdom. You go with your leader. You share the co-destiny of the one whom you follow.
There is the destiny of Satan and the destiny of the Son of God.
If you remain in Satan you go down with your leader.
If you allow God to transfer you out of that Satanic realm into Christ, you will go with your Leader Jesus Christ.
But aside from this God's eternal purpose for man is important. That is why you were created. So I would think that to participate in the reason for your creation you would be interested to know this.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'Jesus drank the wine and said, "It is finnished!" Then he bowed his head and died.' John 19:30
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this is the last thing that the Apostle John noticed that Jesus said before He bowed His head and died, I give him that liberty to record what impressed him about the event.
When you come before God on the day of Judgment are you going to tell Him that you would have believed Christ's death for you, BUT you just couldn't figure out whether Jesus said "It is finished" and died OR He said "Father into your hands, I commit My spirit" and died?
So since you couldn't figure out which was the last sentence Jesus said you decided that Jesus didn't die to save you. Do you think that that kind of argument will draw forth God's pardon at you rejecting the death of the Son on your behalf?
I don't think so.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
'Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Father! In
your hands I place my spirit!" He said this and died.' Luke 23:46
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now if one witness was standing far off and heard Jesus shout ("in a loud voice"😉 something and another witness was closer and heard Jesus whisper something in a lower tone, could not the two witnesses say Jesus said something before He died, and they not agree on the sentence?
One possibility is that one witness was far off and another witness was closer. From each one's standpoint Jesus uttered this or that and then died.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud shout, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" Which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll come back to you on this one.
Jake,
++++++++++++++++++++++
'At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud shout, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" Which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?"
Some of the people there heard him and said, "Listen, he is calling Elijah!" One of them ran up with a sponge, soaked it in cheap wine, and put it on the end of a stick. Then he held it up to Jesus' lips and said, "Wait! Let us see if Elijah is coming to bring him down from the cross!"
With a loud cry Jesus died.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the sixth hour darkness fell over the land unto the ninth hour (Matt. 27:45)
This darkness was noticed by other people in another land. We know it was not a solar eclipse according to the astrononomical calender. And we know that it was recorded as an unusual phenomenon by extra biblical sources. But I won't go into that now.
Jesus was on the cross for six hours. The sixth hour was 12:00 noon. During the first three hours what occured to Jesus can be attributed to the persecution of man. He suffered under man's perscution.
From the sixth hour the story is different. Things of the nature beyond man's control began to happen. This is the last three hours of the six hours. He was judged by God. And the earthquake, the tearing of the temple curtian, and the unuusual darkness over the earth, were all things which man could not do.
I think we should take this as a sign that the last three hours of suffering of Christ were the sufferings based on His being forsaken by the Father.
Verses 45 through 49 record Jesus crying that God had forsaken Him. Matthew seems to want to highlight how those standing by reacted to this cry of Jesus. It is only your assumption that nothing ELSE was uttered by Jesus during these moments. It appears only that Matthew wants to emphasize this cry and this reaction of some of the hearers.
Verse 50 says that He cried in a loud voice and yielded up His spirit.
We are not told, by Matthew at least, WHAT He cried or even if it were an intelligible sentence. But the possibility remains that what He cried was heard and recorded as being "Into your hands I commit My spirit". IF this were uttered as a cry or in "a loud voice" it could well be what Matthew recorded as a loud voice before He yielded up His spirit.
But since the communion was broken between He and His Father when God forsook Him, I think that saying "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken Me" fits this interruption as He was being judged for the sins of the world.
After His blood was shed and the redemption was accomplished, the fellowship and communion was restored between He and the Father. So instead of God into your hands, He said "Father ... into your hands ..."
You may not be able to receive this. However, I think you should see that the varied expressions do not necessarily contradict one another. And at least they show that the witnesses did not commit collusion to fabricate consistency in the manner of those concocting a false account of history.
Originally posted by jaywillI don't believe in God. So no I don't 'think that kind of argument will draw forth God's pardon.'
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'Jesus drank the wine and said, "It is finnished!" Then he bowed his head and died.' John 19:30
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If this is the last thing that the Apostle John noticed that Jesus said before He bowed His head and died, I give him that liberty to record what impressed him about the event. ...[text shortened]... +++++++++++++++++++++++++[/b]
I'll come back to you on this one.[/b]
So would you say the gospels are faliable? You seem to be saying here at least that they were peoples intupretations of events that they saw or heard about and may therefore being inaccurate in purely historical terms. Thats the point I'm trying to make. The evidence basis for Christianity is the same for any other religion.
Originally posted by Jake Ellison++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't believe in God. So no I don't 'think that kind of argument will draw forth God's pardon.'
So would you say the gospels are faliable? You seem to be saying here at least that they were peoples intupretations of events that they saw or heard about and may therefore being inaccurate in purely historical terms. Thats the point I'm trying to make. The evidence basis for Christianity is the same for any other religion.
So would you say the gospels are faliable? You seem to be saying here at least that they were peoples intupretations of events that they saw or heard about and may therefore being inaccurate in purely historical terms. Thats the point I'm trying to make. The evidence basis for Christianity is the same for any other religion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If one witness stood off at a distance and heard Jesus say in a loud voice one thing and bow His head and die, and another witness perhaps at the foot of the cross heard something else before He died, I don't think this furnishes the skeptic with an argument about the faliability of the Scripture.
I think such descrepency is more of a test of the heart of the reader rather than a test to the accuracy of Scripture.
I think it is not the Bible which is on the test, it is you and I which are on the test.
Maybe God will ask people why far greater descrepencies didn't seem to prevent them from commiting their worst sins.
Originally posted by jaywillOh come off it.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So would you say the gospels are faliable? You seem to be saying here at least that they were peoples intupretations of events that they saw or heard about and may therefore being inaccurate in purely historical terms. Thats the point I'm trying to make. The evidence basis for Christianity is the same for any other religi ...[text shortened]... le why far greater descrepencies didn't seem to prevent them from commiting their worst sins.
There were 17 different versions translated during the 17th century alone. Most grammar wasn't invented until the 15thC. The bible we have now isn't the one that was written down, and probably isn't even close in places.
Originally posted by jaywillIf its a test of the heart then it would be fair to say religion is founded in faith and not evidence. I see no reason for faith. Plus I don't believe you can't lead a good life and be an atheist.
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So would you say the gospels are faliable? You seem to be saying here at least that they were peoples intupretations of events that they saw or heard about and may therefore being inaccurate in purely historical terms. Thats the point I'm trying to make. The evidence basis for Christianity is the same for any other religi ...[text shortened]... le why far greater descrepencies didn't seem to prevent them from commiting their worst sins.