Fellow Christians, I have questions

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, a part from, according to wikipedia, part of the source being agreed upon scholars to be from Mark and believed to be around 70 AD, the "eyewitness testimony" that AngelRho claims seems like word of mouth that has been passed through one generation at least, which in this case, is regarded as oral history, and it is very well known that oral history is unreliable about the accuracy of the information, considering that the information also has oral and cultural traditions, as well as the problem with eywitness accounts and practically, are rumors, so that is a great problem to consider that as actual evidence, thus AngelRho's eyewitness argument doesn't work.


That is the problem, lay people give lay opinions, that if they witness something, not to mention being passed down to others over time, and first century people oral accounts.

Yet another false assumption. Why is it implausible that Jesus' contemporaries couldn't have been alive long enough?

Further, Wiki doesn't know everything. Who says it had to be written in 85?

We're fairly certain it wasn't written BEFORE the late 50s AD because Luke had to be written BEFORE Acts. The last event recorded in Acts was in 62 AD. Luke provided a lot of details about the early church in Jerusalem. Because of his concern for events surrounding Jerusalem, he would have had to have included either his own or eyewitness accounts of the destruction of the Temple. If Luke and Acts were written so long after the fact, the gospel account (as well as Acts) should have given more detail. Jesus' prediction was not very specific, so a report on the destruction of the Temple and the siege of Jerusalem made by those who actually experienced those events firsthand would have included much more information.

Therefore Acts could not have been written AFTER 70 AD. And since we know the gospel had to have been written before Acts, a date prior to 62 AD is best.



Regarding miracles, I have a question for you. Physical science generally tells us things can't just appear out of thin air. I'm not talking about QM, because according to QM it is conceivable that entire objects, if they are made out of certain types of particles that exhibit specific kinds of behavior (as waves and as particles), CAN just randomly vanish without any warning or for reasons we do not yet know. Because do not know material objects to actually DO this, we can assume that we are relatively safe from the perils of quantum particles that move sympathetically or disappear/reappear between that and another dimension or among more quantum dimensions (or whatever the term of art is, I'm not an expert in QM). So we can establish that enough bread and fish to feed at least 4,000 on two separate occasions CANNOT happen by merely appearing "out of thin air" UNLESS something out of the ordinary happens. Given reports to the contrary, the Biblical account, how do you scientifically explain that it did happen? I want an empirical explanation. Let's have it.

What I personally find remarkable of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life is the reasons people DIDN'T follow Him. It wasn't so much that they disbelieved the miracles. They had no doubts that Jesus could do amazing things. More often it was they felt, for different reasons, that they couldn't follow His teachings or they just simply didn't like what He had to say.

The problem with the argument about "modern science" is that people have ALWAYS been observant and have tried to explain and understand the physical world. Jesus actually once used meteorology as a metaphor, the example in question having a kind of "if/then" format indicating that certain weather signs indicated what was to come and were reliable predictors. They didn't need radar and satellites to know if the day would be dry and hot or wet and stormy. People also knew the difference between demon possession and dementia arising from old age or other physical causes, even if they couldn't observe electro-chemical activity within neurons. They didn't have the means of observation that we do now, but that doesn't mean they were stupid. What some people DID believe was that God was responsible for everything that had been created, even their diseases in that God did not prevent diseases from happening. So describing a chronic ailment as an "evil spirit" does not necessarily mean that one is ascribing physical pain to demonic forces. The Bible is clear about the difference between physical conditions and spiritual conditions. I mean, if "modern science" is so much more advanced that it can fix anything those people experienced, then why is it we have yet to cure "the thirst" (diabetes) and autoimmune disorders like lupus? And take lupus: The drugs used to treat flare-ups actually increase the risk of heart-attacks and decrease the body's ability to fight of infection. One minute you're perfectly fine, the next minute your unconscious and turning blue. Next thing you know, you wake up in terrible pain, you have no legs, most of your fingers and half your nose are all gone. People back then knew what diseases were, even if they didn't have an explanation as to the underlying microbial causes or genetic defects. And you can't explain why it is doctors NOW train for years to fix health problems while Jesus and His disciples only needed to "lay hands" on people. Jesus Himself didn't even have to be in the same town as the afflicted person--He could bring someone from the brink of death with just a word. If the gospels are compiled from witness testimony, much in the same way as testimony is gathered for court proceedings, you can't deny that those people saw what they saw. You may not believe it, but it is recorded evidence.

And that's another thing. Science is limited in that the aided senses are dependent upon a slow progression of technology, not to ignore the technological explosions of the 19th and 20th centuries (industrial revolution, the atomic age, the computer age and further innovations). We can't cure lupus, diabetes (save for a transplant resulting from someone else's death, and islet cell research has come a long way), or cancer (but we can keep it in remission and greatly extend the patient's life). Why hasn't our technology given us what we need to wipe out these things completely? Surely retroviral therapies can counteract autoimmune disorders, right? So why hasn't it happened already? The reason is simple: We have yet to develop technology to make those kinds of discoveries. At the present time, nothing short of a miracle can simply make those things just go away. Things might change next year or next millennium, but for the time being all we have is all we have. Modern science and medicine will always be insufficient in the long run because so many things remain in states of change. Personally, I'd enjoy seeing rhinovirus eliminated completely. But it is a tricky little bug and it makes my sinuses a perfect meeting place for bacteria, which in turn causes headaches which causes insomnia which makes for a very bad week. Maybe we'll get there one day, but we'll have to just keep waiting until the right person at the right time in the right place makes a discovery significant enough to provide the answers.

But science cannot change one thing: What a person experiences firsthand. Legal proceeding depend on this kind of evidence. To use your fire-breathing dragon analogy, one person alone very likely won't be believed on his testimony alone that he is innocent of arson because a dragon did it. Two or three people in a modern-day court of law probably won't be believed if there is too much conclusive evidence to the contrary. Perhaps two or three people are acting in conspiracy. A prosecutorial cross-examination would likely bring those facts to light as well as other reasons--reputation, a history of criminal activity, inconsistencies in their stories, and so on. But 10 witnesses who saw one or more dragons, particularly in the area of the house that burned down? 100 witnesses who have seen dragons? 1,000 witnesses? What if dragons were common knowledge? And what if there is no evidence to convict the person of arson AND dragons aren't unheard of to do such things? NOW the prosecutor would struggle to support his case against someone for whom there is no evidence that he did such a thing and dragons are known to exist or at least have been reported by others. And if dragon-perpetrated house-burning turns out to be anything other than an isolated incident, then the local authorities are no longer the proper people to call to handle the situation. It then becomes the responsibility of local volunteer fire departments, pest exterminators, and wildlife management.

You mentioned that the "son of God" would have been likewise an extraordinary event, not unlike how we'd perceive fire-breathing dragons. What you're failing to recognize is that Jesus did not APPEAR as someone extraordinary, just a regular guy. It was what He DID and what He TAUGHT that was extraordinary. God never FORCED anyone to believe in Him, and it is no different in our day as it was then.

Now, as far as the Book of Mormon and the Koran go: Jesus taught us what is necessary for salvation, which simply means accepting that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the purpose of the remission of sins, and rose from the dead on the third day. The Bible plainly teaches that any other "gospel" that teaches otherwise is false. The Koran teaches something else. The Book of Mormon teaches something else. Paul even said that an ANGEL who teaches something else is not to be believed. So if we assume that there really was an angel named Moroni who appeared to Joseph Smith, an examination of what Moroni revealed shows it to be false!

Even if you want to make a case for the Koran to be a valid scripture on the same level as the Bible, why would you want to? I mean, the Bible CAN be used to make a strong case for fighting a "just" war. But the gospels (and even the letters) show that peace is to be preferred. Paul, for instance, wrote about how slaves and masters should relate to each other in a Christian brotherhood, which does abolish slavery in effect. But Paul did NOT call for the universal abolition of slavery. Pagans believed that Christians sought to tear apart the fabric of society, which was untrue. To seek to abolish the institution of slavery would have been to confirm in the minds of pagans what they thought they knew all along. Over time, slavery HAS been eliminated as an accepted institution in predominantly Christian societies, and very few people (perhaps none?) see this as a problem. Moreover, Christianity does NOT call for forced conversion or submission of its neighboring, unbelieving people. According to Surah al Tawbah 9:29--"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission." So the point of jihad ("fight") is to either convert those who believe differently or to bring them under Islamic control (the Jizyah tax). Despite the failings of certain Christians at various times, no such directive exists in the Bible for Christians!

Thus the Bible is to be favored over the Book of Mormon for internal doctrinal consistency and over the Koran for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers, not to mention the Koran is not concerned with the need for salvation, but rather those things a person might do to earn his way into heaven, something the doctrine of jihad guarantees to those who die for the cause of holy war.

Greenblue: Is this itself a lay opinion on your part? If so, why should I believe it? What qualifies you to make this assertion?

Actually, yes, it is a lay opinion, thus, it has no weight to reach a conclusion based solely on that, even if it is an expert opinion, but it gets stronger consideration, I mean, it must be supported by empirical evidence, the best way to get to the facts about reality is trough the scientific method. Few courts may give too much importance to witnesses accounts and that is a problem, and it is considered a scientific fact that witnesses testimonies are unreliable and there have been, apparantely, a great number of, wrongful convictions because of that.

Why should you believe it or should you believe it? well, it has to make sense to consider it, for starters, to consider it a possibility, then verification, in this case there are publications about the issue as well as cases in which DNA evidence contradicts witness testimony, as well as anecdotal accounts have little to no value within the scientific method. Now you will likely choose not to, because you may feel it contradicts your bias. Do I qualify? Probably not, I'm just a lay man after all, in any case, the only thing I have here, is wether what I say makes some sense or not to in an informal discussion. And BTW, I'm rather a lay man who has no other than to acknowledge that the experts know better.


It's more realiable than your eyewitnesses though.


Scholars?

Last edited by greenblue on 21 Oct 2010, 11:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

False assumption. If Luke is intended as an account of the life of Jesus, then how is event happening decades after his death relevant?

Still, you have to prove that the gospels are eye witness accounts. ATM, it is just your guess that some eye witness might be alive. There is still a long way to the authors actually meeting them.



I already gave my explanation of the 'miracle'. You just ignore it and continue to FANTASIZE the bread and fish having to come out of thin air. Do you want me to explain your behavior?



Advanced or not is a relative term. Saying modern medicine is no more advanced than 2000 years ago because modern medicine cannot treat all conditions is nonsense.



What you refuse to understand is the fact that the court standard is NOT a very high standard. Otherwise why do we need a court of appeal?



If fire breathing dragon are that common, then they can be verified scientifically, preferably with more reliable methods (cameras at different wavelengths, chemical analysis of touched objects etc.).


The Koran also says Jesus was not son of god. Why don't you reject the NT instead?



If Mohammad is the last prophet, what he say is not going to change the FACT.

At the end of the day, you believe Jesus is son of god rather than Mohammad being the last prophet BECAUSE you like the bible, rather than considering any evidence.

The most that can be claimed is that Mohammed (pus and blisters upon him) is the LATEST prophet. Maybe later on God will send another messenger or prophet.

ruveyn

Probably worth mentioning that Tolkein's Eru Ilúvatar is the Christian God; the Prof's legendarium - like Narnia and Potter - is a Christian religious text.

Not false at all. The destruction of the temple was a THE most significant happening of the time. It changed everything pertaining to Jewish religious observance. That's why no one offers sacrifices anymore. Those sacrifices can ONLY be offered at the temple in Jerusalem by Levite priests. Any semblance of Jewish tradition was destroyed with the temple, and Pharisaic Judaism was completely reshaped to account for that. Any historical or literary treatment of the temple would not have been lightly brushed over. It would have been impossible to ignore.

Now, Luke's gospel details the life of Jesus and is not concerned with the ascension. The ascension is mentioned in Mark, but not Luke. It's NOT mentioned in John, but if other gospels were circulated prior to John's writing, then John probably saw no real need to include it. Instead, John closes with "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were written one by one, I suppose not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written." So John leaves all the details up to other writers, and that would include the ascension.

The ending of Mark, which does not consistently appear in the oldest manuscripts, includes the ascension. So either the ending was lost in those manuscripts but not in others, or it survived through oral tradition and came to be included later.

But EVEN IF the ascension is sketchy in the book of Mark, it IS detailed in Acts: "After He had said this, He was taken up as they were watching, and a cloud received Him out of their sight."

So apparently the Gospels are concerned with the earthly ministry of Jesus. There wouldn't be a need for an account of the destruction of the temple.

The book of Acts, however, is not concerned with the life of Jesus, but rather the spreading of the gospel among the Jews and then to the Gentiles. So Acts DOES deal with events that happened decades after the ascension. And there is textual evidence that the author of Luke and Acts are the same person. The best clues are these: Luke 1--"Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed." And then Acts 1--"I wrote the first narrative, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up, after He had given orders through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen. After He had suffered, He also presented Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during the 40 days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

So we can establish that Luke and Acts were written by the same person. Acts also includes the "we" statements, indicating the writer (Luke) personally attended to some of the things he witnessed. We don't really hear anything from Paul AFTER 62 AD, but in 2 Timothy 4:6 we read "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time for my departure is close." So we can be certain that this writing was among his last. Later on, he mentions in vs. 11 "Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark with you, for he is useful to me in the ministry."

Acts leaves Paul in Rome. Paul was most likely martyred at the authority of Emperor Nero (Paul was never guilty of a crime when he appealed to Caesar, so it's hardly likely these events happened quite so early). If these texts had been written so much later, then you have to account for any lack of mention (except Jesus' prophecy) of the destruction of the temple. Jesus even mentioned that "this generation" would see the temple's destruction--in context He WAS referring to the Temple, rather than other passages in which He referred to Himself and His resurrection. I've already mentioned how catastrophic the destruction of the Temple was perceived, so it doesn't make sense that Acts makes no mention of it whatsoever, nor the writings of Paul mention it. It wouldn't be unlike 9/11. You couldn't be a part of Christian or Jewish society and simply ignore it. So even if Acts had been written collaboratively with Paul and Mark in 62 AD, it stands to reason Luke had to have researched the life and times of Jesus through eyewitness reports, existing writings that are no longer available to us, and even the gospel of Mark which we DO know to be reliable and already established by that time.

So we must conclude Luke was written at an earlier date than 62 AD, probably in the late 50s.




You didn't give any empirical explanation. All you did was say "My teacher said..." That's not empirical. That's conjecture. Your teacher, though I'm sure she was a really smart lady, has no clue. Evidence please.



Appellate courts are MOST OFTEN only necessary because of procedural hiccups. If you don't follow proper legal procedure, then you can't have a fair trial. Because of the seriousness of capital sentences, they are automatically sent to appellate judges even if they enter a guilty plea. This is the system actually doing its job thoroughly and getting it RIGHT. Thus appellate courts attest, in every case (not just capital offenses), to the highest attainable standards. If you ever are tried for a crime and you tell the court they have to dismiss all evidence against you because court standards aren't as high as scientific standards, you might as well put the chains on yourself and march straight to prison. That simply won't fly in a court of law. Also, forensic (scientific) evidence IS admissible in court, BUT you have to contend with a jury of lay people! The question is, scientific or not, will they believe it? Not every juror is a scientist. So prosecutors have to rely on "expert testimony" to help interpret the meaning of forensic evidence. Then it's up to the lay jury as to whether they believe it or not.

Biblical evidence, then, is a documented result of lay interpretation of physical evidence. It even survived "expert" cross-examination. Paul HATED Christians, and even HE was confronted with something incontrovertible. The evidence was later "tried" and "appealed" time and time again through different church congregations. 1 Timothy 6:20--"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding irreverent, empty speech and contradictions from the 'knowledge' that falsely bears that name." Timothy was Paul's protégé and taught at Ephesus. John also taught at Ephesus. After John was exiled, Jesus (in a vision) instructed him to write this to the church in Ephesus: Revelation 2:2--I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate evil. You have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and you have found them to be liars."

Looks like the gospels even win on appeals.



Aside from what I've already quoted regarding false teachings, the message of the Koran is just not as appealing. Islam teaches that Allah is impersonal--He's "up there," always watching over us and may, if He feels like it, intercede on our behalf. He MIGHT hear our prayers. Contrast that with Jesus as a personal Savior who is concerned for the plight of the individual and, by extension, the entire world.

With Islam, something that is common to a lot of religions, not just the middle and near eastern ones, you only make it to heaven if you are "good enough." This requires doing the will of Allah PERFECTLY. I suppose no honest Moslem will actually claim to do this. But they will try. ONLY those who are the highest-ranking in doing Allah's will as close to perfect as ANYONE can even make it into heaven. So what does that mean to the "average" Moslem? It means "average" can't cut it. It means that those who seek peaceful coexistence with "people of the Book" but are eligible for jihad and do not fight are hypocrites and deserve death. It means deception is acceptable to further the cause.

And I have a hard time finding that acceptable. If Allah/God doesn't lie, why would He encourage us to be liars? Even the Bible shows that human beings are weak and will lie to save their own skin if it means taking the lesser of two evils. Jesus NEVER had to lie, and by telling the truth He accepted that He'd be put to death for it. I find that noble and admirable--to either tell the truth or stand mute, even if it's inconvenient. Even if it's deadly. Jesus doesn't require me to strap on explosives to die for Him. If I become a martyr, it's because I've tried to reach the world for Christ and the world rejected me. And if I'm rejected in the same manner as Christ, then I may consider it an honor to be treated the same way Christ was. But I may do that through simply revealing what it is Jesus revealed to me and what is evident in reading scripture. A jihadist, rather than reaching the world through effective teaching and winning them over to his cause, has no problem crashing a plane into a building and sending thousands of people to hell. The Bible lends no support at all for such tactics.

About the closest you can get to that has to do with church discipline, the activities of those claiming to be Christian whose behavior is destructive within the congregation. But even with church "disfellowshipping," the idea is to "give them over to Satan" in order to show them that they are BETTER for staying close to their church family and rejecting worthless behavior. So the doors are always open. My personal thoughts on the matter is that the church doesn't discipline ENOUGH and that discipline ought to be more public than it generally is.

Example: Our church has a beautiful pipe organ. The problem is we can't ever find anyone to play it. We actually DID have a wonderfully talented keyboard player who would have been great playing organ. So when I asked why we didn't hire her to play every Sunday, I got an earful about certain things that happened in the years before I moved to this church. What happened was that she'd been married to this guy for a long time but started an affair with another guy who had recently moved here. It was bad enough that the affair wasn't exactly a well-kept secret. Things exploded when she divorced her husband and remarried this other guy. That made it an issue of morality and scandalized the congregation. Now, while that might as well be water under the bridge, it leaves a bad-enough taste in peoples' mouths that they'd be further scandalized if she were offered a position on the church staff. So when people would come up to me and ask why we ran off all our organ players, I wanted to explain why--but then that would make me a gossip AND I'd have broken confidence with the person who told ME what happened. The other guy we hired went through an ugly divorce (unrelated) and was also struggling to finish college. The guy who plays for us now is probably one of the best organists in the region. But the real point is that while we are subject to discipline, we are not abandoned. The lady in the middle of the scandal either sang in the choir or at least attended church for several years before she and her husband both got better (secular) jobs elsewhere, and they never indicated that they ever felt unwelcome. They were both good, personal friends of mine. But I HAVE been warned to keep my nose clean at all times and if ANYTHING is going on with me or my wife, I am to tell my superiors IMMEDIATELY. If I screw up, my own job is on the line! Should we expect any less with secular jobs? The only difference is church jobs require an adherence to a moral code, even if others in the congregation don't do so. Living in a glass house isn't always fun, but it is what it is.

And of course, there's what happened to my family last year. I've described what happened in other threads, but the short story is we were instructed to keep silent about it ("I can't tell you what to do, but I'm asking you to..."). I personally think our pastor figured out what was going on and could easily predict what might happen with other staff members if we went public with it. It was a very confusing time. But it takes a wise person to listen to you and understand what you're saying-without-saying. In the end, what is most important is how we live out Christ-like lives, even if it supersedes human justice. I bet Jesus Himself would have a lot to say about that.

Islam? They'll just kill you. And I realize not every Moslem favors "honor killings." At least in this country, most don't. At issue, however, is that "honor killings" are not unscriptural. The opposite is true in the Bible. I don't want kill anyone who disagrees with me. As long as that person is alive, there's a chance we can win them over. With Islam, you have 4 months after you get the fatwa. Hmmm... Which is more appealing? Which is more kind? Which is more just? You have to make your own decisions in regards to faith and religion, but a teaching that prefers faith in God's redemption as sufficient and the compulsion to be kind to others resulting from said faith makes much more sense than a religion that teaches that you "MIGHT" get in if you're good enough. The Bible teaches a willing acceptance. The Koran teaches force. Even the Bible described God's rejection of sacrifices based on the insincerity of the human heart. Such a sacrifice is not a sacrifice. Likewise, such a faith is not a faith. So the Bible is still to be preferred.




Except that according to the Bible, Jesus is the last word in prophecy. There cannot be further revelation of God's ultimate truth. I mean, sure, I believe it's POSSIBLE that God can still reveal things to prophets in our day and age, but that's not what I mean. A prophecy or teaching inconsistent with inspired scripture is not to be trusted. The Koran was written, what, 300, 400 years after the Bible? I can't remember. The point is that Mohammed did not live so far away from Jerusalem that he would have been unaware of the Bible 300 years after the canonization of the New Testament. He obviously knew about the Bible. He just rejected it. Thus any revelation he might have actually had would be false, same as if Joseph Smith had actually been visited by Moroni and assuming there really is an angel named Moroni. I don't know. Could be. I have no way to know otherwise. Either way, the teachings are not consistent, and Paul wrote that even if an angel teaches something inconsistent, it is not to be believed. That IS fact, and you can read the Bible yourself if you feel the need to verify what I've said.

Do I like the Bible? Well, of course. There's no good reason not to like it. But keep in mind I went most of my life not requiring evidence at all for my faith. I found believing to be easy, and it's no different at 32 years. My faith was confirmed to me repeatedly in my experience. And the last year has been MOST revealing because I decided I actually WOULD read and test the Bible.

There are a couple of stupid reasons why I didn't always read the Bible, one being I didn't always "like" it. When I was little, I had a paraphrased Bible that I always read. The problem, though, was when I got older my parents took it away and gave me my first King Jimmy. So I didn't read it mainly because I didn't understand it. I got another, really nice King Jimmy when I graduated from high school. I never really opened it unless I went to church, which was rare back then. The other reason is I never felt a pressing need to. So starting last year, I started looking through several different translations and found two that I really liked. I started out with "The Message," which is OK, but I find the language a little TOO condescending. It also reads like a Sunday sermon. That's not a bad thing necessarily, it just means that it in some ways was over my head and in other ways to immature for me to "get it." Young people do tend to favor "The Message," but even the writers and editors of "The Message" will say that it's not substitute for a "real" Bible. The study Bible I actually read, though, is a Holman. So if I quote anything that doesn't read exactly the way you might be familiar with it, that's why. That one stays either on/near my bed or in the bathroom, but I almost never remember to keep it with me unless I know I'm going out of town for a few days. I've given serious thought to getting a smaller NIV or NASV to keep in my car or in my bag so I'll actually remember it for church services--it's actually rare, ironically enough, for me to take a Bible to church. I've also read a little of the New King Jimmy (NKJV), and what little I've seen of it I can actually understand. I just had the misfortune of growing up in a time and place in a small church where the King Jimmy was still de rigueur, and even today small-town Mississippi hasn't really made it out of the 1950's yet. It's like "Back to the Future" with internet and cable TV. And cell phones. But that's about it. The main thing, though, was getting good Bibles that I COULD read and understand, and that really helped me dig into what this whole Christianity thing is all about, rather than just nodding my head and saying a few "amens" every Sunday.

So yeah, I've had a chance to examine what "scholars" and "critics" have had to say about the Bible. I know about a lot of the "problems" some people claim they've found--we've even been talking about the dating of certain texts in this thread, and I've even shown why Luke has an earlier date than what some scholars believe is actually the case. I've had plenty of opportunities to doubt what I've been taught along the way. Some things I've had to change my mind about, and I'm ok with that because I want to believe what is true, not just what some well-meaning Sunday School teacher told me. There are even things in the Bible which are inconsistent with how I live. But because I dislike something doesn't make it UNtrue. That is rather cause for self-examination and realigning my thoughts and actions to a Biblical worldview. And I think that any Christian seeking solidity in his faith will not just read the Bible, but test it. Question it. Those kinds of things won't lead to a lack of faith unless you're already disinclined to believe it. I wouldn't dare, for instance, encourage a new convert to come into PPR to make Biblical defenses. In such a case, the change of life alone is evidence enough for the truth of the Bible. Just like it takes a doctor a long time to learn medicine or a lawyer a long time to learn rigorous courtroom procedure, it takes believers a long time to practice and "know" their faith. And I mean KNOW it, not just "believe" it. I find extensive references from wikipedia and cut-and-pastes from religious websites to be distasteful. The Bible, if it is inspired scripture, ought to stand on its own when it comes to discussing God's truth. Whether I "like" it or not is irrelevant. You can't make something true by wishing it so. You likewise can't wish something out of existence because you don't like it. And given what Jesus teaches, what's not to like? I'm just guessing here, but I suspect your own personal moral code is not unlike what the Bible teaches about morality. So there's not much reason that I can think of NOT to like it, nor is Biblical morality largely incompatible with how must people think, feel, and act anyway. If you are prone to certain vices contrary to Biblical teaching, I suppose you wouldn't like that. But on the other hand, every nation on the planet has laws which, like it or not, you have to obey for as long as you are a resident citizens of that country or even a visitor. So a consequence of faith is exposure things you may not previously have liked or even some painful choices. What is sad is how many people claim to believe and yet refuse to apply Biblical precepts to their lives. Someone whose lifestyle depends on heavy drinking and wild orgies every weekend is not being consistent with the Bible. In fact, actual churches have been started to take that kind of thing into consideration: No actual change on the part of the believer. So when a church's doctrine or philosophy essentially "rewrites" the Bible because the church doesn't like what the Bible has to say about "keeping a clear mind," that church represents a false teaching for the sake of promoting, for example, heavy drug use. You can't "rewrite" the Bible because you don't like it because a diluted message is inconsistent.

Therefore, I wouldn't quote from the Bible if I didn't find it to be a good source of truth. I think the Bible IS evidence. It is the courtroom record of Jesus' time on earth, the miracles, the teachings, the fulfillment of God's plan of salvation for the world, and practical application of truth by 1st and 2nd generation Christians (as is the letter to the Hebrews, about which we actually know very little other than it was an early writing prior to the destruction of the Temple). Even in modern-day courtrooms, even EMAILS are sometimes admissible. Just ask Martha Stewart about how much trouble you can get into for deleting emails! Not only that, but internet "burn" books as well as myspace and facebook accounts are admissible as evidence for bullying. Parents have a legit court case, at the very least wrongful death, against those who do these things resulting in the suicide of the bullying victim. As far as I know, nothing substantial has come out of those situations, but it looks like it's only a matter of time. So if even internet textual sources are believable, there's no reason to believe that ancient textual sources aren't likewise believable.

I've addressed some of these issues in my other post, but I'll mention it here also, as I do think you deserve a response.

You guessed it, by the way. So that tells me you understand that, by your admission of being a lay person, I have no "real" reason to choose to. If I believe you, it has to be because you said/did something to establish your credibility. Think about it: Does it take a physics expert to teach a kid to ride a bike? No. In fact, it could be the physics expert has never himself ridden a bike before. Despite what he empirically "knows," it does him no good. But that little kid, who does know without empirical knowledge CAN show a physics expert how to do it. The physics expert can learn to ride a bike from a little kid, but he can do something a little kid can't: He can explain the physical forces at work behind the bike-riding process. In one very specific way, the "lay" opinions of the kid are actually more important than the "head" knowledge of the physics prof.

Understanding, of course, that music theory is empirical but of a different nature than conventional scientific theory, I can use my understanding of music theory to learn just about any musical instrument there is or even invent my own and get the desired musical effect. And I have to admit, as easy as it looks, solo handbell ringing is the most difficult thing I've ever attempted. But so far I've been successfully writing handbell duets, and I'm just now finishing up a work for bells and orchestra, the largest kind of work I've ever attempted since my master's thesis (which was too difficult for anyone to perform--it remains collecting dust in a library. *sigh*). Am I a brass or percussion player? No. I'm a clarinetist and pianist. So I ought to have no business writing for brass and percussion, let alone handbells at which I'm a mere amateur with no available teacher to guide me in my practice. However, I know what I like to hear, and I have sufficient knowledge of what various instruments can and cannot do in the context of common practice. Therefore I'm able to put my theoretical knowledge into actual practice. And since I've gone through the process of learning clarinet and piano, I know what it takes to learn other instruments--what is the method of sound production, and what is the best way to achieve it? Start with the basics, have a little "faith," and suddenly NOTHING is impossible.

So in terms of composing for instruments I can't play well, such as strings, percussion, brass, and in terms of my ability to ring bells, I'm very much a "lay person" despite having a master's degree in composition and a bachelor's degree in music education. Yet every time you watch a feature-length film, you are listening to music and sound created by "lay persons," not polymaths. So why do film producers even hire these guys? And they aren't cheap. There's money to be made in this industry if you're lucky enough and patient enough to pursue it.

The answer, quite simply, is being a "lay person" does not disqualify you from things like, say, intuition and "common sense." It's POSSIBLE to know what you aren't supposed to know, and there's nothing at all wrong with that.

Court decisions have to rely on factual evidence. But the problem is not that courts are unreliable. The problem with any empirical evidence in a court of law is that is must be subjected to the scrutiny of examination and cross-examination. A defender has no obligation to call witnesses or provide evidence. A prosecutor, on the other hand DOES have a legal obligation to present evidence to the defender BEFORE it may be admitted to the court. This gives the defender an opportunity to refute the evidence as an attempt on the part of prosecution to make his case. In so doing, the defender may call independent, third-party experts who can expose the evidence in question to doubt. The judge doesn't make the decision. Neither the prosecution nor the defense can make that decision. It is in the minds of the people as to whether the evidence says what the prosecutor means for it to say. CLASSIC example is the OJ Simpson trial. Now, I'm not saying whether I think the court was right or wrong, but the Simpson trial has probably been the only trial in recent to history to be THAT open to the media and to the public. We gave our verdict long before the jury did, and in post-trial interviews, even jurors expressed doubts as to whether they made the right decision or not. So agree with it or not, the prosecution simply did not have the power to win a conviction, and it all came down to how the jury perceived the evidence. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." And because of the public nature of that case, we know there was no shortage of empirical, forensic evidence.

So, sure, the "experts" know better. I won't dispute that. But who are the major characters in the writing and transmission of the Bible? And who were the "experts"? What we're talking about here is an extension of theology and philosophy, not forensics. Was Jesus who He said He is? Yes. How do we know? Miracles. So what, it could have been faked? His teachings. And? He died and came back to life. What if is body was stolen? OK, but He appeared to His disciples. Not only that, but He appeared to the women, as well. Someone who is trying to set up Christianity as some kind of opportunistic cult isn't going to rely on women who are regarded with lower value and social status. That doesn't make Christianity look very good. So either the writers did a shoddy job, or it actually happened. Now, there might be some problems with eyewitness testimony. You can even read various accounts of the passion and get distinctively different stories--and those are perhaps the most vivid accounts in the gospels. So why so different? Because of the various perspectives of the witnesses. But they don't contradict each other. They overlap. The same thing happens with eyewitness testimony in court. "Did he have a gun?" "Yes." "Was it a 9 mm revolver with a pearl handle?" "I don't know, I just saw a gun. I couldn't see anything else from where I was standing." Next witness. "Did he have a gun?" "Yes." "Was it a 9 mm revolver with a pearl handle?" "Yes." "And how do you know?" "I could see it in the light." The witnesses aren't seeing two completely different things. They're seeing the same thing from a different perspective. And because of that, they add much more depth to the actual understanding of the events that happened. There's no need to ascribe the testimony of one as automatically being untrue. A defender could, on cross-examination, cast doubt on the fact that one eyewitness claimed to even have seen a gun. But a second witness corroborates not only that first witness most likely did see the perpetrator pointing a gun but that the gun entered as evidence really was the gun used and belonged to the perpetrator. A cross-examiner will have a very difficult task casting any more doubt on that kind of witness testimony.

DNA evidence does help when other evidence is lacking, such as eyewitnesses or if there is any reason to doubt their testimony. But there is a problem with DNA evidence: It is possible that DNA evidence can be purely circumstantial. Let's suppose someone was found murdered in my house. A prosecutor can easily go around my house and find hair that belongs to me. Why? It's my freaking house!! ! Of course I lose hair in it! And it would explain how it could be that my hair might be found on or near the body. I might have been out at work when the crime actually happened. A person might even have broken in and killed the victim with a knife that belongs to me. Why? It's my house! Of course there are knives here with my fingerprints on them. But it does NOT mean that I'm the perpetrator of any crime. Either I'm being set up, or my house just randomly happened to be the convenient place to commit a crime at that point in time.

So while DNA DOES solve a lot of murky problems, it is not reliable purely on its own merit. Circumstantial evidence, even with DNA, is not generally enough for a conviction.

Anecdotal evidence on its own is not enough. On this we agree. However, the problem with dismissing anecdotal evidence is when you have a large body of witnesses. We were talking about dragons, earlier. If you have a large number of people who see a dragon, then you probably actually do have a dragon. It's hardly likely that someone accused of arson is going to get off if: There exists evidence he did it, dragons are not known to exist, and even if dragons ARE known to exist, the suspected case of arson is an isolated incident. In what way, exactly, did this guy upset a dragon enough that it singled HIS house out for destruction? And how does that show the evidence against him is false?

But therein lies the problem. In the case for Christ, you DO have a large number of witnesses on multiple occasions. You DO have the testimony of His closest disciples. You even have some of the top-ranking Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin who had a difficult time siding with the religious zealots accusing Jesus of being a fake. And they knew it was more of a power-struggle (even though Jesus never posed any significant threat, if any) than anything else. Same thing happened to Paul later on. The political leaders were about to let Paul go since he'd done nothing wrong when he "appealed to Caeser." They had no other legal choice than to send to him to Rome. What did he do when he got there? He preached about Jesus!! ! So dismissing anecdotal evidence is difficult when you have so many different reports confirming the same thing. And when even the toughest opponents have to concede that they find the evidence convincing, then you have SOMETHING. Therefore, if the evidence was compelling enough then for so many to believe it, it doesn't make sense to deny it now. Thus you cannot empirically know or say that Christianity nor the Bible lacks evidentiary basis. On the contrary, the written record of those who knew Jesus as a person who lived, breathed, walked, and taught among them IS strong evidence for a faith in Christ's teachings.

the running joke is that it's a depiction of Mo's body double but i accept the title anyways.

also: you should consider what it is about those strips that makes you laugh.

please watch a magic show, sometime. they're pretty great. you could probably look up some performances of one of my favorites, "the amazing randi" on the internet.

Even God has a sense of humor!

That, and there IS such a thing as taking things too seriously. Sure, I'm adamant about my beliefs. But your cartoon is lampooning "stock" responses of Christians, to say nothing about Islam (though I'll just stick with what I know). So yes, I know a silly argument when I see one. But there is no Biblical law that says we can't laugh, even at ourselves, and nowhere is there a law against thinking.

Well, sure...

But read what Jesus has to say about miracles on demand.

you mean the part where he said something like "you want proof that i'm god? only evil as*holes ask for proof. instead, i'll tell you about some other miracles that have happened and you should just believe them because i'm god." or something like that?

which gospel did he say it in? does he say it in more than one? are we only talking about mathew, mark, luke, and john or should i have fun and play with thomas? much about magic in thomas, if i remember correctly.

the point about a magic show is that there are people that believe in magic even when the performer explains how it's done. penn jillete famously complains about people not believing that the bullet catch he and teller do isn't magic even after he explains it and even tells them how they can find out exactly how it works by looking up the patent (which is true of most magic tricks).

FFS palm readers, mediums, tarot card readers, PAYPERMINUTE PHONE PSYCHICS!

people believe this crap. they believe it just as hard as you believe what you believe and they also think they've seen enough "evidence" to justify that belief. james randi offered A MILLION DOLLARS to anyone who could prove them self to be legit. http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html


the god of the gaps is the juggalo's friend. reason may hazard a guess as to the contents of an unopened box, but the fact that reason can't see into the box doesn't mean it's full of candy no matter how many of your friends also guess candy.

"miracles" indeed.

Yeah, I thought about that right after I posted my response. I thought about deleting it, but every now and then such things lead to someone actually making sensible remarks.

But you're right, people do believe a lot of garbage.

In this case, you have to distinguish between "magic" and "illusion." Those guys call themselves magicians because it's really, in today's context, a commonplace term that encompasses the supernatural as well as illusion.

We musicians are a little bit like that. And I've come to realize that my time with my students here is gradually drawing to a close. So if I have anything of value to teach, I better hurry up and do it. For example, I can play some pretty rapid stuff on the piano, and their faces just light up when I take just a moment to show off. But the point is not "hey, look at me and be impressed by what you'll never do." The point is to show why we take so much time learning certain kinds of performance techniques. I read the Hanon "Virtuoso Pianist," and it really made a difference in my playing. So my "secrets" are not really about how to play all those notes, but how to train the fingers to play in such a way that you don't waste too much time THINKING your way through difficult music. It should look perfectly natural, easy, like anyone can do it. Playing five notes rapidly is no different than drumming your fingers on a table or desk, it just requires a little bit more physical effort but is no different in principle.

Smoke and mirrors. I'm not a genius. I'm not even that good. I just learned a few things that look and sound really cool when you pull them off.

And that is what illusionists do. I couldn't do what those guys do because I'm just not slick enough. It would be obvious what the "trick" is. Good illusionists are gifted with the ability of distraction--your eyes go where he wants them to go while he sets up the next trick.

"True" magic is different. Magic relies on the practitioner's ability to call on supernatural powers as a means to manipulate the physical world, like doing a rain dance right after you plant grain, or something. A magician or sorcerer is about the business of conjuring up and concentrating such supernatural power within himself. Whether a person can actually do this is up for debate, but I'm just saying that "true" magic, if it exists, lies within a human being's manipulation of supernatural and natural powers.

The Bible condemns magic and sorcery. The believer is to put all his faith in God and rely solely on God's power to act, not his own power or the power of other gods. I don't view worship of other gods as magic per se, but the end result is the same. One key difference between Yahweh worship and pagan worship was that a pagan (for instance, Baal) worshipper would undergo certain rituals, dances, and so forth as a means of incurring the god's favor and bringing forth some kind of result. The fundamental problem is that God is not subject to the whims and desires of human beings and cannot be thus manipulated. The proper context of worship in the Yahweh tradition is that humans are subject to the will of God. We must present our requests to God and trust that He will do what is best. The only conditions are, really, that requests be made in the spirit of humility AND within the context of what God wills to grant. The Model Prayer is just a simple format for making requests, though people do ritually seem to get comfort in reciting it. I suppose that's ok, but one point is "Give us this day our daily bread." That simply means you respectfully ask God to give you what you need to eat. And since very few of us actually ever go hungry, we can confirm that God has allowed us, either through His generous grant or by simply allowing us to procure food through our own means, to have adequate sustenance. What is most important is acknowledging that God is in control and ultimately responsible as to whether you are well fed or hungry.

Magic and sorcery, along with idol worship, seeks to circumvent this proper relationship between God and His people.

Further, magic and sorcery are forbidden in the New Testament as well as the OT on the same grounds. Jesus and His disciples would not hesitate to correct those following after illusionists and magicians/sorcerers. We are also warned in regards to others who can also perform "signs and wonders" to substantiate false teaching.

And by the way, I don't really get into "God of the gaps" arguments very easily. For me, the only "gap" is the one in which there CANNOT be another explanation. I don't mean stuff we just haven't figured out yet or lack the proper advancements in technology. I mean real, incontrovertible truths and experiences. Paul's conversion is one example. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Consciousness after the cessation of brain functions prior to resuscitation reported as NDEs. Things like that for which science has no concern or interest but IS the place of theology. Most "god of the gaps" arguments take place in the physical world when no other explanation can be found because the means by which they may be ascertained have not been found or invented. I CAN be guilty of that, but I really do try to avoid jumping to a "Goddidit" conclusion. Biblical accounts are more like "No, REALLY. God DID do that." As such, supernatural events that are blatantly supernatural do not fall into the automatic "gaps" trap.

To answer your question about what Jesus said about "miracles," here you go: It's in Mark 8. I'll back up verse 8 to give a little context: They ate and were filled. Then they collected seven large baskets of leftover pieces. About 4,000 men were there. He dismissed them and immediately got into the boat with His disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha. The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, demanding of Him a sign from heaven to test Him. But sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, "What does this generation demand a sign? I assure you: No sign will be given to this generation!"

Matthew gives a little more detail in chapter 16, I'll skip to verse 4: An evil and adulterous generation wants a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." Then He left them and went away.

You can read up on the rest of both accounts to get the point about the "yeast of the Pharisees." But the idea is that Jesus was never meant to be a street performer or a fortune teller. He fed 5,000 in one place and 4,000 in another. In THIS case, the wording is "4,000" men, which in Biblical language often refers to families, not individual persons. So let's say, assuming this follows the usual pattern, that an average 5-member family, counting husbands, wives and children were present, then we're talking about AT LEAST 20,000 (roughly) people. IF that's true, maybe or maybe not, then that's a picnic on the order of a mega-church. Even if we're only talking about 4,000 people (literally), then it's still a considerable size. Either way, being able to feed that kind of number with very little is itself a sign. So what more did the Pharisees want? Well, the passage does say "a sign from heaven." So we can assume they wanted manna just like the Exodus period.

John suggests the same. Chapter 6:30--"What sign then are You going to do so we may see and believe You?" they asked. "What are you going to perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat." Jesus said to them, "I assure you: Moses didn't give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the real bread from heaven. For the bread of God is the One who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

So the purpose of miracles is not to sustain faith, but spark new faith or strengthen weak faith. Same reason you don't give a baby or a newborn solid food. The problem that Jesus encountered was that there were those determined not to believe Him in the first place. His point was that no amount of "signs" would change their minds, anyway, so what was the point?

But, yeah, Jesus wasn't bound by having to go around proving who He was all the time. Either you will believe, or you won't.

And you're right. It's sad, in my opinion, that "magicians" in this day and age are making REAL money and even expose themselves as fakes, and some people will actually believe that it's REAL "magic." I'm not one to say that "psychics" are real or not. It probably is a scam. But I have to be fair: If I allow for one belief in the supernatural, then I have to accept other possibilities, as well. I have to admit at least the possibility that there might be some credence to ouija boards and other garbage like that. But the Bible warns us to not even let the thought cross our minds of resorting to that kind of craziness. The first king of Israel slipped one time visiting a medium. It did NOT end well for him. So, real or not, I'm not indulging in it.

And if we're only relying on reason, we may infer from clues what's in the box. We Christians, on the other hand, already know the only "box" is an empty one, and we rejoice in what that means. Jesus was very open about his teachings, so there's no need to assume the box is "unopened." If the "box" was still closed, then we wouldn't have much foundation for what we believe, now, would we?

magic is illusion. it's not real. sorry, dude.



full disclosure: i am proficient in every brass instrument and take pride in my ability to bring a picture of the "circle of fifths" into my visual memory on demand. music is math. there is nothing supernatural about it and everyone who plays "by ear" or "by faith" is playing "by memory" and just isn't thinking of it that way.



you're still THINKING you're just not wasting any time second guessing yourself. your brain is still doing all the work. give yourself the credit you deserve.



and if you read a half-truth, you take everything by the author as gospel?



magic is illusion. it's not real. sorry, dude.



which goes along really well with the lack of "miracles on demand" but not at all with "prayer."



so.... you can pray to god...... but you don't expect anything to happen that wasn't already going to happen.........
you might want to contemplate this.



which, for all intents and purposes, is identical to random chance.



over one billion people are starving right f***ing now. your god's a f***ing d*****bag.



no really. your god seriously sucks at feeding people.



seriously.... think about that for a minute....



fishing seriously, dude, magic is illusion. it's not real.



how is anyone's conversion proof of validity? do you not believe the millions of people who convert to new/different religions every year are sincere?



in my formative years, i attended quite a few pentecostal "revivals." aside from the realization that not all christian rock sucks from an entertainment perspective, all i learned is that people who speak in "tongues" are faking it.



there is absolutely no reason to believe any memories from near death experiences are from a time when the brain was not functioning. to pretend otherwise is to pretend otherwise.



ok.... you do realize you just said "I really do try to avoid jumping to a "Goddidit" conclusion. Biblical accounts are more like "No, REALLY. God DID do that." right?



name one.



i paraphrased this pretty accurately already. look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't already believe this and tell me you see it differently. "the bible is true because the bible says the bible is true" is crap. max brooks' world war Z claims to be true.



again, i already paraphrased this pretty accurately with the "you want proof that i'm god? only evil as*holes ask for proof. instead, i'll tell you about some other miracles that have happened and you should just believe them because i'm god." thing. repetition doesn't create truth.



hearsay, at best.



hearsay requires additional evidence to be considered "true."



yes. how ridiculous to assume someone is lying when the "truth" that they claim is not reproducible. andrew wakefield agrees with you.



except new faith in any of the nonbelievers of the world who ask for miracles to spark their faith.



the point is that a god who is not a god is not a god. that's not a difficult concept.



and whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life. those who don't, can go f**k themselves, apparently.



ask your pastor how much he takes as a salary.



A MILLION DOLLARS!! !! !! !



...quija boards.... QUIJA BOARDS!! !..... i'm sorry, but QUIJA BOARDS?!? i have to admit, i agree with you here. christianity is as credible as a quija board.



no. no you would (read as: do) not.




don't they?

Last edited by waltur on 23 Oct 2010, 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.