Why believe the bible is inerrant?

[RaddSpencer]

(Lunar;48820)
We've been through it before and I've seen that hypothesis, but it makes no sense. It requires you to move around commas and parentheses arbitrarily in order for it to fit your description. What it basically says is "If Luke had been written differently, it would suggest that this was a genealogy for Mary." But it wasn't written that way. You just can't do that with language.The problem is, how do you know he's an infallible God in the first place? People say "Through the bible!" but that's a circular argument. God is infallible because of the infallible bible, and you have to trust that the bible's infallible because God is infallible. Why isn't this logic applied to the Qu'ran? People will say "Because the Qu'ran isn't infallible" - which is absolutely true, but it shows they're not applying the same logic to different religions. There's no exclusive justification for the Christian God that couldn't be applied to any other God.Let's look at it this way. Supposing you were an atheist, and you had a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu all came up to you. The Christian says "You must open your heart to God and have faith in him; then the way will be made clear to you." The Muslim says "You must open your heart to Allah and have faith in him; then the way will be made clear to you." The Hindu says "You must open your heart to Krishna and have faith in him; then the way will be made clear to you."Not presupposing the inerrancy of any of them beforehand, what are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to open your heart to all three and have steadfast faith in all of those religions? And then when the scientologist comes and says you need to be audited, you're supposed to open your heart to him too? Naturally, you aren't going to believe just anyone who tells you that you'll see it their way once you have faith, because almost every religion in the world says this. You're going to want to assess it on some objective terms, right? One would be the historical and factual accuracy of their primary religious documents.So you look at the Bible and see hey, this is full of apparent contradictions. You look at the Qu'ran and see hey, this is full of apparent contradictions. You look at the Vedas and Upanishads and see hey, these are full of apparent contradictions. At this point, you haven't established the belief in any infallible God, because you don't just believe every person who peddles his religious belief to you. So you don't pick one and say "This is the one with the infallible God that his mysterious logic that I can't understand which would explain these contradictions, and the rest of them have actual contradictions." You just wouldn't do that!Anyone should think twice about advocating fideism after looking at it that way.
As for the dual lineages --- well thats the answer -- its not like I can re-solve the problem for you. Do you really think that a tax collecting Jew (Matthew) and a Gentile Doctor (Luke) are going to write gospels the exact same way? Do you really believe that their witness accounts will focus on the exact same information? I think they complement each other, but it is obvious that you think they contradict.As for seeing all religions as the same --- The problem is that you don't seem willing to open any of the doors. I had a Christian friend in Hawaii that saw religions in the same way. She was saved at the age of 17, and she knew Jesus Christ for only one year when I met her. She said that all religions look alike until you know Jesus Christ. I was saved when I was a young child, so to be honest, I don't understand your challenges with God.However, I don't care if you investigate Islam, Buddhism, then Christianity in succession (I have met Christians who have done this). At least go out there and give each of them a shot (if you really don't know which one to go with)!If you seek God's face, you WILL find Him.9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. Romans 10:9-10Is this so hard? Its not like you have to pay $10,000 dollars to a priest and then sign up for a 3 year salvation plan (or something ridiculous like that). The steps you need to take for salvation are very small.Its like you are standing by the pool, analyzing the water content, measuring the depth of the deep end, determining the water temp, etc... but you are simply unwilling to jump in. I mean, there are many reasons not to jump in a pool:1. The water contains crine, and it can be poisonous.2. You could drown.3. You could get some sort of bacteria in your eyes, mouth, ears etc which could cause infection.4. You could break your neck while horsing around in the pool.and ON AND ON.ORYou could jump in.

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;48830)
Do you really believe that their witness accounts will focus on the exact same information?
You mean like so many of the other passages in the synoptic gospels that are virtually identical to each other did? Yes.(RaddSpencer)
She was saved at the age of 17, and she knew Jesus Christ for only one year when I met her. She said that all religions look alike until you know Jesus Christ.
And I knew a Muslim that said all religions looked alike until you know Allah; what's your point? Of course every religious person thinks their religion is special; I don't know why I'd find your testimony any more credible than the testimony of non-Christians.(RaddSpencer)
I was saved when I was a young child, so to be honest, I don't understand your challenges with God.
Doesn't that ever weird you out? That of all the religions in the world, you just happened to be born into the right one? Everyone else is convinced they were born into the right religion too, but statistically it's very improbable.(RaddSpencer)
However, I don't care if you investigate Islam, Buddhism, then Christianity in succession (I have met Christians who have done this).
I've read the core theological documents from most major religions, if that's what you mean.(RaddSpencer)
If you seek God's face, you WILL find Him.
Maybe you are forgetting - I did seek God, the Christian God. I even considered myself a Christian. I studied the Bible closely, and I opened up my heart. But I didn't find anything except for a lot of lies and inconsistencies and an ethical standard that I considered flagrantly immoral.(RaddSpencer)
Its like you are standing by the pool, analyzing the water content, measuring the depth of the deep end, determining the water temp, etc... but you are simply unwilling to jump in. I mean, there are many reasons not to jump in a pool:
Well for one, I've already "jumped into the pool."But also, you just countered your own argument. You just gave all sorts of reasons why I might not want to jump into the pool. Likewise, there are a lot of reasons one might not want to become involved with a particular religion. Maybe it leads to a system of ethics that is unacceptable. Maybe apostasy is a crime. Maybe friends and family will reject them.And on top of that, you assume that everyone who jumps into the Christian pool will find Christ and stay in. But this just isn't the case. You can't deny that there are people who have earnestly sought Christ and failed to find him. Why is this?

 

[Abdul Dawood]

Hallo Lunar,Sorry to leave with the impression that I was done explaining. This is not so. The reason that Matthew's genealogy is different from Luke's is simple. The genealogy which Matthew wrote was that of Jesus' traced through the line of Joseph, giving him legal right to the throne of David. The genealogy which luke wrote of Jesus was traced through Mary, his biological mother. The reason that it does not say that it is explicitly a genealogy traced through Mary is that traditionally, Jews would not write a genealogy with the wife's name, so they would use the name of the husband. Anyways, I again don't have time right at this moment to explain fully the genealogy which Luke wrote, but I will return possibly tomorrow (Sunday) or more likely Monday when I have more time to explain. Don't worry Lunar, I intend on answering every question that you posted, but I lack much time, so I must answer a couple at a time. I am only here because I had a couple of minutes to log in while visiting my in-laws.The reason I go so in-depth into each part of the explanation is because we must understand why everything was written in the bible. Remember, the gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew for the Jew while the Gospel of Luke was written by a gentile. Anyways, I will return.Toodles,the Abdul

 

[Lunar]

(Abdul Dawood)
The reason that Matthew's genealogy is different from Luke's is simple. The genealogy which Matthew wrote was that of Jesus' traced through the line of Joseph, giving him legal right to the throne of David. The genealogy which luke wrote of Jesus was traced through Mary, his biological mother.
I already addressed this above: there's nothing in the original text that suggests it's Mary's lineage. If it had been Mary, he would have mentioned Mary's name.I think that this passage from the beginning of Luke suggests that the author of Luke may have thought that Matthew's lineage was inaccurate:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
- Luke 1:1-4The implication here is that there are many who have attempted to tell the story of the gospel, but not all of them have investigated everything carefully from the beginning the way Luke has, and therefore some of the gospels in circulation at the time were not "orderly." That is why we will see certain discrepancies between Luke and the other gospels.(Abdul Dawood)
Remember, the gospel of Matthew was written by a Jew for the Jew while the Gospel of Luke was written by a gentile. Anyways, I will return.
Well, this is one point we can agree upon.

 

[RaddSpencer]

(Lunar;48839)
I did seek God, the Christian God. I even considered myself a Christian. I studied the Bible closely, and I opened up my heart. But I didn't find anything except for a lot of lies and inconsistencies and an ethical standard that I considered flagrantly immoral.Well for one, I've already "jumped into the pool."
I have no idea. I have to admit, I am now very curious about you.Did you every know the Holy Spirit? Did He turn you into a new creation, or did Christianity have no affect on you whatsoever.As for being weirded out --- nah. I just feel fortunate.I mean, geez, I know who the Holy Spirit is, and I commune with Him daily. Either the Holy Spirit exists within me, or I am flat out crazy (which may not be so bad, HEHEHE).

 

[Lunar]

(RaddSpencer;48848)
I have no idea. I have to admit, I am now very curious about you.Did you every know the Holy Spirit? Did He turn you into a new creation, or did Christianity have no affect on you whatsoever.
I'll describe my religious experience as best I can.I felt a deep conviction of my own sin, a tremendous consciousness and guilt over the fact that I have done bad things, and desired some way to be free of it. The notion of salvation through Jesus Christ was something that appealed to me immensely to aid in this personal struggle.I went to church and prayed frequently. I studied the bible closely. I was always of a liberal mind with respect to traditional Christian views, but salvation and forgiveness of sin, as well as Jesus' message of compassion, social equity and concern for the unfortunate, were at the center of my religious experience.My faith felt most directly validated by moments of intense emotion of a sort that I could not remember ever having experienced before. At the time, I interpreted this as some sort of personal experience with God. In retrospect, since my period of faith coincided with a death in the family, I think that it's more likely that what I was experiencing was depression.That's it as best I can describe, anyway.(RaddSpencer)
I mean, geez, I know who the Holy Spirit is, and I commune with Him daily.Either the Holy Spirit exists within me, or I am flat out crazy (which may not be so bad, HEHEHE).
The way I'd put it is that either the Holy Spirit exists within you and Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are all crazy for believing in their religious experiences, or the Muslim religious experience is genuine and Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are all crazy for believing in their religious experiences, or the Buddhist religious experience is genuine and Christians, Muslims and Hindus are all crazy for believing in their religious experiences...Or maybe none of their religious experiences are genuine and it can be attributed to human psychology and sociology. I don't think religious people are crazy, but they do all claim to have personal religious experiences, regardless of which religion, and they can't all be right. Either way, it makes me tend to not give much credibility to personal accounts of religious experience. You see?

 

[RaddSpencer]

Well good luck to you man, I have given you everything that I have.1. Personal Experience2. Apologetics3. Encouragement to find God yourselfHowever, I have to admit, I don't have anything else that I can give you. I wish you luck on your search for God.

 

[RobinD69]

Well I have only skimmed thru the thread but I believe I can give a little insight. Even though not within the pages of the Bible, except within the 2 gospels in question. It was commonly known in the first century who was the father of Mary and the father of Joseph. A study of extra Biblical sorces also shine light upon these geneologies. It was also custom at the time to name the husband rather than the wife in the geneologies. This would explain some of the supposed contradictions in the geneologies, if one is truly seeking to search.Now to the generation topic. One must take in regaurd the many details of the prophecies within the first portion of Mark 13;1. Many will come in His name. Yes this happened in the first century, but it is much more prevelent today.2. Wars and rumors of wars. This is very prevelent today, but not so much in the first century. Sure the Romans destroyed Israel in 70AD, but this was localized and not world wide.3. Nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom, supports the world wide idea which is now and not the first century.4. Earthquakes and famines are steadly getting worse today world wide and will only get even worse with the rising prices of everything but saleries and the steadly more frequent occurance of earthquakes in places that dont normally get them, like Chicago, and central Virginia just to name 2.5. Turned over to courts, flogged and all for declaring the name of Christ. This happened in the first 3 centuries and it will happen again soon. The signs are already there, Christianity is already under attack, but not quit to the extreme of the first 3 centuries.6. The gospel must first be preached to all nations. We aint even close yet and the first century was even further from the fulfillment of this one.This was just a small portion of the prophecies yet to be completely forfilled, so remember read the Bible in the Spirit and not in the flesh. Further more you may want to test the spirits who may be guiding you.I pray you will see the truth in the scriptures Lunar, you are amongst those who have had similar experiences and also come from disbelief to belief.

 

[Lunar]

(RobinD69)
It was commonly known in the first century who was the father of Mary and the father of Joseph. A study of extra Biblical sorces also shine light upon these geneologies.
Commonly known? Jesus himself wasn't even commonly known outside of the Jewish community until well past the second century, much less his unremarkable parents. There is scarcely any mention of Jesus at all in first and second century writings in the Roman Empire aside from those we find in the bible. What makes you think the ancestry of his parents would be common knowledge?(RobinD69)
It was also custom at the time to name the husband rather than the wife in the geneologies.
Can you provide an example of this? How would one even know whether the genealogy was referring to the husband or the wife, if they just always named the husband?It seems to me the most natural reading of the "as was supposed" line was that it was supposed by most people that Jesus was born of Joseph when he was in fact born of God. It was not just supposed that he was born of Mary, however; he was quite literally born of Mary.(RobinD69)
Now to the generation topic. One must take in regaurd the many details of the prophecies within the first portion of Mark 13;
The thing is these prophecies are so broad that they're completely meaningless. "Wars will occur at some point in the future?" "Nations will oppose each other?" "Natural disasters will happen?" I could have predicted that and so could you. You don't need God to predict that. These things have happened every single century since Jesus preached.If someone came today and started "prophesying" that "a war will break out in the future," he'd be laughed at and told "Well no kidding, buddy." Of course wars and conflict and famine and earthquakes will happen; they've been happening since the beginning of human civilization.Anyways, all that quoting unfulfilled prophecies does is undermine the credibility of the bible further, since Jesus saw all of these as prerequisites to the second coming, and also thought (as demonstrated in many passages both here and in other books) that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of his followers, so not only did the second coming prophecy fail to pan out, but so did all the prerequisite prophecies.

 

[tim_from_pa]

I'm not going to answer any point specifically at this point, but I'm going to put in my thoughts about the bible and so-called contradictions. Oftentimes, such perceived (and notice I said perceived) contradictions comes from a limited set of starting assumptions and dimensional viewpoint in the so-called realm of reason. In other words, sometimes reason is elevated to be the answer of all things and if something like the bible does not fit in the boundaries of such, it is seen as contradiction, but the reason that men may use does not encompass all of reality. Sometimes truth is counterintuitive and what one sees is not the truth. If the bible and God are put to the test of a finite being's limited dimensional view, then seeming contradictions will arise, but they are not. It's just that what is viewed and compared to reason and so-called reality is not in the entire scope of what the bible covers.Take Einstein for example. I love his counterintuitive thinking. He claimed that nothing can break the speed of light. Yet, if one travels in a spacecraft 90% the speed of light, and shoots a beam of light forward, it will still travel away from them at the speed of light. "Commonsense" says that light traveling away at that speed will now be going 1.9 times the speed of light, but it is not. If there were scientific texts taken back in time before that theory was discovered, it would be an "obvious contradiction". The bible deals with the spiritual world, and spiritual beings are advanced multidimensional beings that can appear in this world or not, and seemingly defy the laws of known science. But then again, notice I said "known". To put the bible and God on trial based on a limited knowledge of this universe is the epitome of close-mindedness and "boxing Him in". As a matter of fact, it's because of my scientific and mathematical interest that I believe and indeed exclaim, "Ye must be born again!" Then and only then, will things start coming into place when the limiting chains of subjective thinking are discarded.PS>>> I'll save the specific point of genealogies for later, but I can come up with a similar manner of family genealogy and NOT be a contradiction. The bible prophecies of the two genealogies of Christ.

 

[Lunar]

tim_from_pa:The problem with your argument from fideism, as I addressed earlier, is this: How do we know which God is the infallible one? Whenever I hear theists argue over the legitimacy of religion they always try to use some sort of objective standard that is comprehensible to us: They mention supposedly fulfilled prophecies, or consistency with archaeological evidence, etc. But as soon as contradiction arises, they start arguing that all of that is irrelevant; it's true whether or not we can comprehend it because God's logic supercedes our logic.What do you have to say to a Muslim who makes the exact same claim about the Qu'ran? The Christian and the Muslim would sit there arguing that each of their own respective texts are more historically accurate and have more fulfilled prophecies, but then as soon as the Christian points out to the Muslim that there's a contradiction in Qu'ran, the Muslim says God's logic supercedes the mortals. And as soon as the Muslim points out to the Christian that there's a contradiction in the Bible, the Christian says the exact same thing.You either have to account for these numerous contradictions or abandon objective assessment of religion entirely. And if you do the latter, which seems to be what you're suggesting, you've got nothing to tell you which religion is right, except blind faith.To put it another way: How come with your religion contradictions are simply spiritual matters that the scientific brain can't comprehend, but with other religions contradictions are evidence that the religion is false? And speaking of it being too spiritual to be assessed logically, I'm not sure what's supposed to be transcendental and spiritual about discrepancies like there being different people present at Jesus' death depending on which gospel you read, or Jesus' anointing taking place in a different house depending on whether you read the synoptics or John. There's nothing mysterious about that; it's just plain inconsistent.

 

[tim_from_pa]

My answer is that the other religions are not false, but do not have all the truth, but rather a convoluted form of the truth, the same stories and premises found in the bible.Take astrology for example. There is some truth to that as the bible declares, but not in the manner that astrology predicts individual fates, but rather God's Word in the stars. And the bible says that as well.My criteria for "picking" any one faith over another is based on one fact regarding God's manifestation in history: that of Jesus Christ. If one settles his being and purpose (and ultimately the resurrection), then one can put their faith safely in the bible since He endorsed it and said it spoke of Him.On the other hand, look at other religions and philosophies. No matter where one turns, its a religion of works, self-righteousness, self-salvation or self-empowerment. Yet, all people die no matter what religion they are from (so much for self-power). The bible clearly says why this is, and is the only faith that offers salvation by God and God alone. Actually, when one thinks about it, that makes far more logical sense than any other way.

 

[RobinD69]

(Lunar;48911)
Commonly known? Jesus himself wasn't even commonly known outside of the Jewish community until well past the second century, much less his unremarkable parents. There is scarcely any mention of Jesus at all in first and second century writings in the Roman Empire aside from those we find in the bible. What makes you think the ancestry of his parents would be common knowledge?You need to understand that at the time Jesus walk amongst us and even today in some cultures, when you say someones name you also add the name of their father. Therefor it was common knowledge in the Jewish area as well as Roman who Josephs father was and who Marys father was. If these geneologies were incorrect then there were plenty of witnesses at the time to have proven this.Can you provide an example of this?Jesus bar Joseph, Jesus ben Joseph, Osama bin Laden, its a middle east thing but other culture did the same like Leaf Ericson. How would one even know whether the genealogy was referring to the husband or the wife, if they just always named the husband?Geneologies were a big deal at the time and they had a system of identifying which was the father and which was the father inlaw.It seems to me the most natural reading of the "as was supposed" line was that it was supposed by most people that Jesus was born of Joseph when he was in fact born of God. It was not just supposed that he was born of Mary, however; he was quite literally born of Mary.The thing is these prophecies are so broad that they're completely meaningless. "Wars will occur at some point in the future?" "Nations will oppose each other?" "Natural disasters will happen?" I could have predicted that and so could you. You don't need God to predict that. These things have happened every single century since Jesus preached.If you take into context other referance to the same or similar prophecies you will understand that it is refering to things far worse than the time of Noah, keep searching scripture and stop watering it down, these things will be world wide and not just local. Naturaly the world would want to name Joseph as the father of Christ because they did not want to believe.If someone came today and started "prophesying" that "a war will break out in the future," he'd be laughed at and told "Well no kidding, buddy." Of course wars and conflict and famine and earthquakes will happen; they've been happening since the beginning of human civilization.But the ones being refered to will be far worse than any of any generation. Natural disaster are becoming more common and more devistating. Wars and rumors of wars are become more numerous. Famine and disease is becoming more prevelant. Do the research and find a period of time in history that all these things are happening on such a scale as they are now.Anyways, all that quoting unfulfilled prophecies does is undermine the credibility of the bible further, since Jesus saw all of these as prerequisites to the second coming, and also thought (as demonstrated in many passages both here and in other books) that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of his followers, so not only did the second coming prophecy fail to pan out, but so did all the prerequisite prophecies.
Israel was already a nation when Christ walked the earth and it ceased to be one in 70AD. Israel became a nation once again in 1948. The Roman empire is being reformed in the form of the EU, The second coming isnt going to occur until all the prophecies are fulfilled. The gospel hasnt been taught to every nation and people group, close but not quite. Wars are not occuring in every nation yet, but the terrorist are sure trying. Please I ask you as a former skeptic turned believer, search better and open your heart, you are only seeing the surface text and not its true content. Those who choose not to believe will be blind to the truth.

 

[Lunar]

(tim_from_pa;48946)
Take astrology for example. There is some truth to that as the bible declares, but not in the manner that astrology predicts individual fates, but rather God's Word in the stars. And the bible says that as well.
I actually have no idea what you're talking about here.(tim_from_pa)
My criteria for "picking" any one faith over another is based on one fact regarding God's manifestation in history: that of Jesus Christ. If one settles his being and purpose (and ultimately the resurrection), then one can put their faith safely in the bible since He endorsed it and said it spoke of Him.
But Jesus' resurrection is only witnessed by the bible itself, which is precisely what is in question here. From the perspective of the historian, Jesus' resurrection is not historical fact. Obviously other religions don't believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he was resurrected from the dead; why do you believe it when they don't?Well the answer of course is because you're a Christian. But then you realize that this is circular reasoning again: You are Christian because you believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead, you believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead because the Bible says it and you believe the Bible is infallible, you believe the Bible is infallible because you are a Christian. That's highly problematic for the Christian argument.(tim_from_pa)
On the other hand, look at other religions and philosophies. No matter where one turns, its a religion of works, self-righteousness, self-salvation or self-empowerment.
I hope you're aware that this statement demonstrates a very poor understanding of other religions.(tim_from_pa)
Yet, all people die no matter what religion they are from (so much for self-power). The bible clearly says why this is, and is the only faith that offers salvation by God and God alone. Actually, when one thinks about it, that makes far more logical sense than any other way.
Actually, there's an even more clear and obvious solution for why everyone dies regardless of what their religion is.Atheism.(RobinD69)
You need to understand that at the time Jesus walk amongst us and even today in some cultures, when you say someones name you also add the name of their father. Therefor it was common knowledge in the Jewish area as well as Roman who Josephs father was and who Marys father was. If these geneologies were incorrect then there were plenty of witnesses at the time to have proven this.
Robin, please think about what you're saying. There were over fifty million people in the Roman Empire. This is like saying everyone in the United Kingdom knows everyone else in the country and their parents. Do you even know the names, let alone the parents, of everyone in your neighborhood?Moreover, the vast majority of Christians in the Roman Empire weren't even literate, so they wouldn't be able to know if there was an inaccuracy in a gospel that they had never read.(RobinD69)
But the ones being refered to will be far worse than any of any generation. Natural disaster are becoming more common and more devistating. Wars and rumors of wars are become more numerous. Famine and disease is becoming more prevelant. Do the research and find a period of time in history that all these things are happening on such a scale as they are now.
Are you joking? Please, read a history book. The standard of living is higher today than in any other time period. Modern science and medicine has drastically reduced rates of disease, more effective and streamlined agricultural techniques have reduced world hunger, and nuclear deterrence has diminished the prevalence of wars. Modern society is characterized by the exact opposite of what is described in those prophecies. Not saying that we're living in a utopian paradise, but are you honestly contending that modern society is worse off than we were in first century? That is patently absurd.(RobinD69;48948)
Israel was already a nation when Christ walked the earth and it ceased to be one in 70AD. Israel became a nation once again in 1948. The Roman empire is being reformed in the form of the EU, The second coming isnt going to occur until all the prophecies are fulfilled. The gospel hasnt been taught to every nation and people group, close but not quite. Wars are not occuring in every nation yet, but the terrorist are sure trying. Please I ask you as a former skeptic turned believer, search better and open your heart, you are only seeing the surface text and not its true content. Those who choose not to believe will be blind to the truth.
The point is that Jesus was wrong because he thought those prophecies would be fulfilled, and hence the thought the second coming would have occurred, within the lifetime of his disciples. You don't even need to get hooked up on the phrase "generation" - just look at all the other passages where he says "There are some standing here which will not taste death before the second coming."

 

[Lunar]

(RobinD69;48948)
Israel was already a nation when Christ walked the earth and it ceased to be one in 70AD. Israel became a nation once again in 1948. The Roman empire is being reformed in the form of the EU, The second coming isnt going to occur until all the prophecies are fulfilled. The gospel hasnt been taught to every nation and people group, close but not quite. Wars are not occuring in every nation yet, but the terrorist are sure trying. Please I ask you as a former skeptic turned believer, search better and open your heart, you are only seeing the surface text and not its true content. Those who choose not to believe will be blind to the truth.
The point is that Jesus was wrong because he thought those prophecies would be fulfilled, and hence the thought the second coming would have occurred, within the lifetime of his disciples. You don't even need to get hooked up on the phrase "generation" - just look at all the other passages where he says "There are some standing here which will not taste death until the second coming."

 

[tim_from_pa]

But Jesus' resurrection is only witnessed by the bible itself, which is precisely what is in question here. From the perspective of the historian, Jesus' resurrection is not historical fact. Obviously other religions don't believe that Jesus was the son of God or that he was resurrected from the dead; why do you believe it when they don't?
I disagree here. The bible is not the only mention of it. Historians may not believe the resurrection, but the issue here is regarding the reporting and recording its claims outside the bible. In addition, the New Testament, esp the writings of Paul are historical documents in their own right. The bottom line---- where's the body and where's the grave? Nobody can produce one. And again, if He said He was the Son of God and could do this, then I'd take his claims seriously about what the bible said.
I hope you're aware that this statement demonstrates a very poor understanding of other religions.
OK. Name me one---- just one being saved by grace.
Actually, there's an even more clear and obvious solution for why everyone dies regardless of what their religion is.Atheism.
Now there's a clear open-minded answer for you! When will atheists ever realize that this is just as dogmatic as they are accusing theists of being, but in the negative? That's an emotional conclusion without a stitch of evidence and you know it. Drop the angry blinders because of inability to accept something and do some research.Regarding astrology:
I actually have no idea what you're talking about here.
That about sums it up. And you are going to judge the whole of this matter with partial knowledge? Might as well arm a kid with only arithmetic before taking a calculus test.

 

[Jackie D]

Lunar, your line of questioning truly appears to be one of attempting to enlighten Christians and discredit our beliefs...please see the attached linkhttp://www.christianityboard.com/notice-al...ians-t2556.htmlblessings

 

[tim_from_pa]

Yes, I agree, but let me take the blame as well. As a Christian, I know these rules and yet baited Lunar on. It is a good spiritual exercise and flexing of the muscles, because of I Peter 3:15 (But I'll work on the meekness part

)No need to answer my replies from hence forth. Just reflect.

 

[Lunar]

(tim_from_pa)
I disagree here. The bible is not the only mention of it. Historians may not believe the resurrection, but the issue here is regarding the reporting and recording its claims outside the bible. In addition, the New Testament, esp the writings of Paul are historical documents in their own right. The bottom line---- where's the body and where's the grave? Nobody can produce one. And again, if He said He was the Son of God and could do this, then I'd take his claims seriously about what the bible said.
This is an excellent read on precisely that subject. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jef...wder/empty.htmlIt makes a lot of interesting points. I'm not in complete agreement with all of them, and in particular I think it's more likely that Jesus - just like pretty much every other person who was branded as a criminal by the Roman Empire - was simply never buried in a tomb. But it's a persuasive case against the standard arguments nonetheless.(tim_from_pa)
OK. Name me one---- just one being saved by grace.
Pure Land Buddhism.(tim_from_pa)
Now there's a clear open-minded answer for you! When will atheists ever realize that this is just as dogmatic as they are accusing theists of being, but in the negative? That's an emotional conclusion without a stitch of evidence and you know it. Drop the angry blinders because of inability to accept something and do some research.
There are two problems with this argument. One: The burden of proof is on the positive belief, not the negative belief. It is not a "faith claim" to say that there is no Santa Claus.Secondly, and more importantly, your argument was that of an inference to the best explanation. What best explains the reason why all die regardless of what religion they were? You produced the explanation of Christianity. But as it turns out, atheism accounts for this even better. An inference to the best explanation - the argument you made, not me - is not an argument based on the direct evidence for the thing in question, but whether the thing in question explains other things which we observe. Atheism accounts for why everyone dies regardless of their religion perfectly, because it claims that all their religions are false and there is no eternal life.(tim_from_pa)
That about sums it up. And you are going to judge the whole of this matter with partial knowledge? Might as well arm a kid with only arithmetic before taking a calculus test.
I could say the same of your ridiculous claim that all other religions were about self-righteousness and self-empowerment. You've got an obvious double standard going - you need full knowledge of Christianity to say anything about it, but you don't need to even know these other religions exist before categorically ruling them out. At least one of us is being honest about it. Maybe it would be more productive if you enlightened me instead of just verbally berating me, as I did when you demonstrated your ignorance of non-Christian religions.Jackie D: If the thread needs to be closed then it will be. My own opinion is that this is a forum dedicated to discussion between Christians and non-Christians, so it's only natural that they will have different views and attempt to argue their cases. I'm not sure what other sort of conversation one could expect. If I receive an answer that looks insufficient - as the answers here have been, by and large - then it is more enlightening for everyone involved if I respond accordingly.

 

[Siskim]

Right Lunar, you don't know it's infallible before you know God; which would indicate that any proof also doesn't come before you know God, while many spend time looking for proof or inquiring if there really is any, in order to decide with the mortal reasoning which is available to them whether the words and messages of an immortal being who claims to be the creator can be substantiated by the mindset of the mortal man he claimed to create. And one of the messages is that we will not figure out His messages with mortal reasoning or even have access to him or the knowledge of him this way. Yet we keep on figuring, while atleast one thing he said (if he is real) is proven, which is that we cannot and have not gained access to him or his knowledge by our human reasoning. So because we havn't we say we have proof that he has proven nothing to us....he already said he wouldn't prove anything to us this way. God wins, on this point anyway. Unless you are saying that you know him by the human reasoning you've acquired?Whether God is true and every man a liar, or the Quaran or budhah, etc....let the real God's words and messages prove themself, as any truth ought to obviously by the name and definition of truth be infallible and perfect. And such truth will not be proven by the perceptions man's reasoning determines but ofcourse by the standards of the truth itself, which standards are Not and are said to be Not...that it makes sense to mortal mans reasoning.So then, where does this leave us? The other gods can prove themselves by whatever tests they have provided man to observe the truths they claim...but I will speak only of the God I know...who says that you can know him and have proof of him...but not by your own intellect but by his Spirit..,but man resists that, because he doesn't believe it ought to be that way, Why? Because he is man and believes he is the highest power or intellect...which indicates pride, which this God says is against him and his truth and leaves a man with no access to him or understanding of him.Proof to a humble man is the love and grace of God but to the proud man the Law of God is proof...the commandments which reveal to man his sin and error...which we all are aware of because they have been written in every man's heart...and you can debate that, but evidence in this world supports this claim...which evidence is that people in general do know in their hearts or conscience the Laws....thou shall not steal, or murder, or commit adultery, etc...There may be disputes about whether people accept these laws as right or true or agree to them or abide by them, but in general there is evidence that people in this world know these as supreme moral laws, and who provided them? Debate it all day; the laws say they came from the law giver and they are widely accepted as such. God also says there are consequences for going against his laws or for sin, and there is great evidence that breaking these laws cause trouble and pain, as the law giver has said that sin causes pain and destruction. But we say there is no evidence of God because we are judging not by his standards as a God and an immortal one but judging him by mortal intellectual standards. Millions of people have had unexplainable miracles occur and do we dismiss all them as what? If there is no God, why is there so much supernatural evidence? Oh yes, we find ways to explain away the word of God and make it of no effect....but though we convince ourselves that a man who is suddenly well after claiming to see Jesus never was sick to begin with, our denial of the miraculous is not evidence but just denial....because many of these cases have been documented by doctors who have witnessed the sick man and then the healed man, and doctors themselves have scratched their heads and said it had to be something beyond human.But yet we still deny...because there is no evidence. We deny the prophetic words of God even though they have not failed at any point, by finding a way to connect a supernatural event to a natural source. That proves it! It happened by some strange occureence of nature. But God said by parables the unbelieving will still not believe but the seeing will see. The bottom line....God is not concerned to prove himself to you so you will believe, although he loves you and does want you to believe, Why? Why would he allow there to be natural explanations for his supernatural interventions instead of letting his work point singularly only to him....so that man would believe? There is an answer, which is free will. Free will and perfect love are one....if I prove to you that I am real, and gain your belief in me, does it mean I have gained your love for me? Perfect love does not and cannot desire to win you by any other means than love. It cannot and does not want to coerce you to it's favor except by your absolute free will to choose to reciprocate the love it has for you. Without love there is not and cannot be a union because the union we are talking about is with a God who is himself love itself. We are not talking about a man here...or the wisdom of a man...or his accumulated knowledge or reasoning powers....we are talking about man facing Love itself...love in it's purest form which God is he says. Perfect pure love not only allows a free will but it must be. To give you a free will, choices must be present....primarly a choice to believe the love that loves you or deny it. To accept it or judge it and refute it, etc...Why does God allow pain and suffering and dying? It was not his desire or choice...it was the desire and choice of the free will of his man. And still today we choose knowledge over surrender and sin over the peace and absence of pain that is present where sin is not. We steal we suffer and pay, we kill and the same, we lie and the same, we hurt people and we hurt in return in some way.....we deny God and wonder why we are a fallen race, then we deny that we are a fallen race, even though we die. No evidence of God? Brother...it's true that man has been given access to great knowledge so that we can walk in the deep of knowledge and mesmerize others with our intricate knowledge....and lose many way back in our discussion....but man's great wisdom God says is foolishness to Him, and why I wonder? Is it because man really doesn't know anything? It does appear that he has accumulated some knowledge. Most likley because of what God says again as proof of his Word...not proof of man's fuguring....because in all man's knowledge he still can't come to the knowledge of the truth which is God. He knows everything except where he came from, who his maker is, why he's here, why he dies, where he's going, and if there is eternal life and how to find it. Yet a child can see. Kimberly