Questions for fellow Christians to answer

I made mine.
Did you have a question?

 

Can you prove your point?

Quantrill

 

No, its not.

The Pauline Epistles, almost all of them are of known authorship - Paul. They form the basis of the New Testament, and most are considered substantually genuine. The gospels themselves, Q and Mark are supposed to be the basis of Matthew and Luke - but that in and of itself is speculative with some placing Matthew or Mark first.

What is clear, is that whether the collective works of scribes as dictated from the apostles or the hand of the apostles themselves, no one has ever established with any degree of authenticity that he works do NOT accurately reflect the life and teachings of Jesus.

Indeed, asking for such specifics 2,000 years after the fact is almost certainly going to cause questions, as the same can be said of Roman documents or anything else from the period. Many of them are of 'unknown' authorship, yet no one doubts the veracity of the claims made in many of the documents, nor the position they represent.

That is why the profession of history has this process called peer review, and why those who have attempted to caste doubt on the system have repeatedly been exposed as using standards of skepticism that are so rediculously high that all of antiquity would be wiped out by such a standard.

So, if that is what people use to question the veracity of Jesus, then they have essentially wiped clean the slate of history - until such point as modern academic standards and documation standards are used. Basically, from such an evaluation stand point, humanity essentially appeared is if by magic a few hundred years ago.

For the rest of us, there is archeology and history - and the belief that God uses 'magic' only when he has to.

 

The scholarship on the point is well documented, and not in any real dispute by those who are not desperately holding on. It's easy to look up. You really don't need me.
If your point is that God wrote it, that is a statement of faith with no way to document it, so I will not go down that road with you.
Take care.

 

Nor has anyone proved it's accuracy.
The difference between what is trying to be documented in the Bible and secular Roman texts is those texts are not trying to prove the supernatural, and thus don't have to try to prove what is impossible to prove, by any secular standard.
Your argument that all history is wiped out by this standard is absurd hyperbole. If you want to state that Jesus has been proven to have lived, I would argue academically with the statement, but not the heart of it. I believe he lived as well. As for having proved any supernatural claims, that would be impossible to do, and it has not been done.
Archeology and history can prove many things, but it can't prove miracles. Doubt of Jesus' divinity does not equal the elimination of all human history. That is a very poor attempt at an application of logic.

 

First of all Christian was not practiced by Adam and Eve....Christianity was started after the crucifixion....It did not exist until than...

Second, Other religions can be explained very simply....Adam and Eve were not the only people created....They were a science experiement...God wanted to see if Free Will and Perfection could coexist....They could not....Others were created outside the garden and had to evolve on their own. That is how peoples like Homo Erectus can be explained.

Even the bible hints at others being created. When Cain is banished, he begs got to let him stay because he fears being killed by people from the outside world....If Adam and Eve were the lone creations, the only people who exsisted would be them and their children.

 

"Lean not on your own understanding...." Does that partial phrase ring a bell?
So what if you want to claim that the "scholarship is well documented." It means nothing more than the fact that others have expressed their opinion on the subject. They likewise were not able to document (other than by their own fabricated documentation taken from their imaginations) the things that they wrote about the Bible. Just OPINION is all you have.

 

Yeah, they have. Its what the entire basis of ecclesiastical history is built upon. It is the entire premise of the Canon - the MOST ACCURATE depiction of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

So accurate is the depiction, that documents found in subsequent digs, such as the gospel of Judas, further confirm the process and the analysis of what was happening, why, and the veracity of the claims.

If you are looking to doubt, you can find that anywhere. If you are looking for truth? Well, the near unanimous opinion of period scholars, regardless of their ideology, is that the story is accurate and true.

But of course, you claim that is not relevant at all when you examine the teachings, which you have no problem with borther? Right.

And there is one more method of authenticity for one who believes in God: Prayer.

If you doubt, and seek re-affirmation, the way is not through doubt, but God. And you do not claim to be an atheist do you? Well? Then do not act like one.

 

Of course it is the basis of church history. What else would the church build it's belief system on?
So once again, it is a faith basis, not a fact basis. The supernatural can't be proven, and scripture itself acknowledges this. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for...." It is circular to say that ecclisiastical history proves the miraculous. It HAS to.
I don't begrudge you your faith. I just don't share it, and don't see the proof that you claim because I don't share your faith. Prayer is not verifiable proof that can be shown to another seeking that proof.
All the documents show from the time is there were some people who believed in something they could not explain. Others of the time inspired similar awe. That was also documented. So be it.
Do you know the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? I am the former. The difference is very important.

 

Proving you have not read the scholarship.
Goodnight.

 

That is interesting, because you interpretation pretty much undermines the common interpretation of what this here Creation is all about - wisdom, proof, and evaluation. Our bodies are mere vessels for our spirits. That is it. And God, desiring that his creation learn th etruth of creation gave us thi world and our bodies that we may experience life both with ... and without ... God. Free to make our choices. And the end of that process we are weighed and returned to God (for the most part), and the balance is decided by our proximity to God and service of God in eternity.

Sin was necessary to break us away from God, from 'knowing' and being a part of him. We are now free to choose, free to see the costs of ignoring God, free to see the benefits of following him.

 

Proving that what the Bible says about mans knowledge of things is true.
"Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ, "

Seemingly you not only abandoned the pastors position you held, but you also abandoned the teachings about an aspiration toward a more thorough knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.

 

Correct. You're catching on.

 

Now you admit that you no longer have an aspiration toward having a more complete knowledge of Christ Jesus. You are really putting the pieces together with your behavior and admissions. Love it. Keep up the good work. Pretty soon there will be no doubt in the minds of anyone on this forum that you are in fact an Atheist.

 

I am an agnostic.
What difference does that make? Does it change the nature of any argument I have made?
I'm glad you are excited by your detective work, though you came to an erroneous conclusion.
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies."
Goodnight.

 

No, you are a traitor to the faith.

 

That is not what you claimed when you first arrived here brother. You stated pretty clearly that you were one of the faithful, and indeed you are. You simply did not want to share your denomination, nor indeed your past denomination.

Just remember brother, YOU KNOW.

 

You make me laugh.
Post where I declared my faith. Copy and paste. No cheating. Until you do, you are just full of air.

 

Do you insist on deliberately misquoting and misunderstanding me?

Obiously you didn't share your denomination, but you repeatedly confided to Prospect that you had a denomination - repeatedly stated that which one it was should not matter.

Except now you tell Jesus Mythers that denomination DOES matter, because there are just too many to be correct, though all share the gift of the spirit do they not?

YOU KNOW. God knows you know.

Perhaps you should let xjoe3x now why someone who KNOWS would choose to step away from God anyway?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/209574-if-you-were-god-7.html

He is claiming that there is NO WAY you can be doing this brother. Why not explain to him that even the most faithful can doubt? Can face adversity? And sometimes, even knowing it is true and right, walk away?

 

The first thing I would like to say is, don't feel guilty. I am a devout Christian and one of the things I pray for each night and morning is that my faith be made stronger. Doubt is a human condition and we are all humans. The concept of an all knowing, all powerful God is mind boggling and there will always be times when the concept becomes too big to believe. Hang in there though and the belief will return.

God created more than just the Earth. If you get a chance to read the book of Genesis, you will read that God created the heavens and the earth. It is much easier for me to believe that there was/is a moving force, an architect and creator than that everything is just happenstance. God is limitless so there is no contradiction in believing that he created not only Earth but the entire universe.

Originally, people were not Christians. They were not Jews. They were not Muslims. They were not members of any organized religion. They were simply the people who God created. Much of The Bible is metaphore. The word Adam actually means 'red earth' and is a reference to God creating man from the earth. While it is nice to think of one Adam and one Eve, it is not necessary to believe this in order to be a Christian. You can believe that the Genesis story is just that, a story explaining how God created mankind. The same with the Garden of Eden. You can be a literalist and believe there was an actual garden or you can believe that the story of the Garden of Eden tells about the period when mankind was innocent. The only thing you have to believe in order to be a Christian is that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die as an atonement for our sins, so that we need not die but may have everlasting life.

Once again, the 5,000 year thing has no basis in science or Christianity. An Irish Bishop wanted to figure the age of the world so he added up all the begats of who fathered whom and how long they lived and came up with a date. There is no need to believe that that date is anywhere near accurate.

It also isn't necessary to discount the Theory of Evolution. Christians can believe in evolution. The major difference is, we believe evolution is a process controlled by God while atheists believe it is a random process.

Again, don't worry if you sometimes have doubts. I'll bet even the Pope sometimes has moments where his faith is a bit weaker than usual.

 

Yes, I once had a denomination. I repeatedly said I lost my faith in the traditional Christian God.
How am I misquoting you? Do you want me to post what you wrote AGAIN?
Don't really need you choosing my threads for me, thanks. I have a threshold for absurdity, and I have reached it for one evening.
You keep attributing that denomination thing to me, that denomination matters, or doesn't. Please post that too. I don't think that was me. I think that you have confused me with someone else. Copy and paste. It's time you started supporting all this stuff you keep saying I've said. You have been asked repeatedly and you never bring the goods, and.........
YOU KNOW! YOU KNOW!
LOL!

 

No, you said you stepped down as a Minister because the faithful were the enemies in the pew.

I said you claimed you had a denomination, which you did, repeatedly to Prospect and myself, reacting angrily to even the hint of being called an atheist.

Well, you seem to be having many short term memory problems. Read what you wrote, you know where to find it.

But YOU KNOW God is real. For weeks I have been saying you have had a spiritual crisis, that your faith is in doubt, and you deny it .... now, all of the sudden you are agnostic. But you didn't lose your faith - it was the enemies in the pew.

You KNOW brother. You KNOW you are on a bad path. You KNOW the way back to God, if not the pulpit.

 

Once again, you can't provide evidence so you spew vomit. Copy and paste my words that prove ANYTHING you are saying or get off your soapbox.

I never said God wasn't real. Not once. I said I was no longer a Christian. You want to extend that to suggesting atheism.

What I believe is that God is unknowable, if he exists at all. The more certain believers become, the more absurd they appear to me.

I once had (past tense) a denomination. I have no such affiliations now. Why is that tough for you?

If you don't KNOW how many poor conclusions you have come to in these threads, you will never KNOW, because you are unable to think clearly enough to KNOW.

YOU KNOW!

 

You know, your story changes all the time. Your points wind up being empty, in support of overt atheism, and you have clearly lost your faith - as numerous Christians have pointed out.

However, you don't want to acknowledge them, which means a debate forum is probably not the best place to be making claims that you do not wish challenged.

Just a thought.

 

When will you start supporting any of your claims with any evidence of what I said?
Debate requires evidence.
The next time you have a thought will be your first.
Your problem is you are so mired in your doctrinal position, you read everything through it and don't read what is actually stated. You add your mental flush to it, and then argue against the construction you have created.
Copy and paste and defend your arguments. If I have been so obvious, this should be easy and you could roundly defeat me without a shred of possibility of my defending myself against my own words.
But you won't, will you? And we all know why.
And so do you.
You KNOW!