• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ask any question about Christianity!

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mark1615 said:
You might be referring to "circular reasoning."

.... you think?

Mark1615 said:
The fulfilled prophecies, the amazing cosistency, and the many scientific statements of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin.

The fulfilled prophecies could be because Yeshua never existed, a make believe person can do anything you want them to do.

The Bible has nothing to do with science, and there shouldn't have to be proof for faith.

It's supernatural like any other religion, mythology, or belief system. There is nothing unique to Christianity. Most of the concepts preached in the NT were there before Yeshua was supposed to have been alive. There were mythological figures of Greece who performed many miracles that Yeshua was said to have performed, including a god-man who was crucified.

"The Jesus Mysteries" -- Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mark1615 said:
Flavius Josephus was a historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 100 A.D. He was a member of the priestly aristocracy of the Jews. Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3 (this paragraph is so phenomenal, that scholars now debate the authenticity of some of the more “favorable” portions of this text):

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”


Cornelius Tactitus (55-117 AD) is regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome. Writing on the reign of Nero, Tacitus alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome:

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."


[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]​
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]One of the first secular writers that mentioned Christ. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. Unfortunately, his writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, a Christian who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun (Luke 23:44-45). This account seems to detail the time Jesus died:



tp.gif
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."


[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1.

[/font]​
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Clement affirms the Resurrection, Gospels and that Jesus was sent to earth by God to take away our sins:



[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
tp.gif
"Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome, the first being Peter. Did he know Peter and Paul? It is completely possible that those two Spirit-filled men taught him. Clement even wrote a letter to the Corinthian church that echoed the teachings of the apostles."


[/font]
For more examples visit www.myfortress.org/historians




[/font]



[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

[/font]


[/font]

that, in no way, shape, or form answered Halcyon's question
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mark1615 said:
I believe in my friend's description of his great grandfather even though they never met, and has never seen a picture of him. People who have seen him relate their experiences to others.
That's nice, but that doesn't prove that he even ever existed, you take that upon faith.

Mark said:
Paul was inspired by God to write the things he did. When you write a letter, do you write the letter, or does the pen? Obviously, you do; the pen is merely the instrument you use. God used men as instruments to write His letter to humanity. They ranged from kings to common fishermen, but the 66 books of the Bible were all given by inspiration of God. Proof that this Book is supernatural can be seen with a quick study of its prophecies.

The Bible doesn't attempt to defend its inspiration. But here is an intersting thing: Genesis opens with the words "God said" nine times in the first chapter. The statement "Thus says the Lord" appears 23 times in the last Old Testament book, Malachi. So you have "God says" from Genesis to Malachi. "The Lord spoke" appears 560 times in the first five books of the Bible and at least 3800 times in the whole Old Testament. Isaiah claims at least 40 times that his message came directly from the Lord; Ezekiel, 60 times; and Jeremiah, 100 times.

Anyone can write, "God said" on a piece of paper, does that mean that God actually did? No. This is known as a "rhetorical question"

Mark said:
There are about 3856 verses directly or indirectly concerned with the prophecy in Scripture. God's challenge to the world is "Prove Me now...I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass. Mormons, Buddhists, and Muslims have their own sacred writings, but the element of proven prophecy is absent in them. The destruction of Tyre, the invasion of Jerusalem, the fall of Babylon and Rome - each even was accurately predicted in the Bible and later fulfilled to the smallest detail.

Those "prophecies" from Paul were written after all of the events happened. Check your dates. He could have simply written down what happened at Tyre and said that Yeshua predicted it. Paul never even met Yeshua, so how could he know what Yeshua said?
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mark1615 said:
This may be what you are refering to: contradictions in the resurrection accounts. Did Christ appear first to the women or His disciples? Both Matthew and Mark list women as the first to see the resurrected Christ. Mark says, "He appeared first to Mary Magdalene" (16:9). But Paul lists Peter (Cephas) as the first one to see Christ after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5). Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, then to the other women and then to Peter. Paul was not giving a complete list, but only the important one for his purpose. Since only men's testimony was considered legal or official in the first century, it is understandable that the apostle would not list the women as witnesses in his defense of the resurrection here. A list of Christ's appearances: 1)Mary (John 20:10-18); 2) Mary and women (Matt. 28:1-10); 3) Peter (1 Corinth. 15:5); 4) Two disciples (Luke 24:13-35); 5) Ten apostles (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23); 6) Eleven apostles (John 20:24-31); 7) Seven apostles (John 21); 8) All apostles (Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18); 9) 500 brethren (1 Corinth. 15:6); 10) James (1 Corinth. 15:7); 11) All apostles (Acts 1:4-8); 12) Paul (Acts 9:1-9; 1 Corinth. 15:8).

The four Gospels give four differing accounts as to what was written on the sign that hung on the cross. Matthew said, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (27:37). However, Mark contradicts that with "The King of the Jews" (15:26). Luke says something different: "This is the King of the Jews" (23:38), and John maintains that the sign said "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (19:19). Those who trust God have no problem harmonizing the Gospels. There is no contradiction if the sign simply said, "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to "snare" the proud. He has "hidden" things from the "wise and prudent" and "revealed them to babes" (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinth. 1:27).

How many angels were at the tomb - one or two? The question has arisen simply because Matthew and Mark mention one angel, whereas Luke and John refer to two. There is no conflict if there were two angels but Matthew and Mark quote the one who was a spokesperson.

It is interesting to note that the seeming contradictions in the four Gospels attest to the fact that there was no corroboration between the writers.

Therefore, we have contradictory statements. Halcyon asked which one was more accurate, you have a habit of not answering the question asked.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Mark1615 said:
However, here are many more verses showing that Jesus allowed Himself to be worshipped, simply because he was God "manifest in the flesh": "While he spoke these things to them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, "My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay your hand upon her, and she shall live" (Matt. 9:18); "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, "Of a truth you are the Son of God" (Matt. 14:33); "Then she came and worshipped him, saying, "Lord, help me" (Matt. 15:25); "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, 'All hail.' And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him" (Matt. 28:9); "When they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted" (Matt. 28:17). He received their worship because He was "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15) - "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16, emphasis added).

From the Gnostic stand point, death equates sleep, which means ignorance. To "raise someone from the dead" would be to wake them up from their ignorance into understanding/light/holy spirit. He is truly the Christ because Christ is a title, not a person's name. Christ is "the annointed" and therefore Yeshua is no more than an annointed, and knowledgable Jew who understood the mysteries. This made his actions eminate Silence's ultimate truth. Unfortunatley, men were too focused on Jewish law to see clearly what Yeshua told them, so he used parables.

The story of Yeshua and Miriam of Magdala is an allegory for enlightenment. Miriam is a parable for Sophia, and Yeshua for Seth. He never lived, pagan gods were used and transformed into what we now know as Jesus. Of course he can fit any prophecy if he's made up.

Gnostic Christianity pre-dates the time when Yeshua was said to have even been alive.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Mark1615 said:
In reality, the alleged spaces and so-called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.
This is patently untrue.

Aristotle's Ode to Poetics was written between 384 and 322 BC. The earliest copy of this work is dated AD 1100, and there are only 49 extant manuscripts. The gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1400 years. There are only seven extant manuscripts of Plato's Tetralogies, written 427-347 BC. The earliest copy is AD 900 - a gap of over 1200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in AD 30. The New Testament was written between AD 48 and 95. The oldest manuscripts date to the last quartar of the first century, and the second oldest AD 125. This gives us a narrow gap of 35 to 40 years from the originals written by the apostles.
There's a gap in your "logic" here. No one doubts that Plato and Aristotle are ancient documents because they are quoted by other ancients.

Isn't P46 the oldest at 150?

From the early centuries, we have some 5300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic, we have a whopping 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the Scriptures. So the bottom line is, there was no great period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great time lapse between the original writings and the oldest copies. With the great body of manuscript evidence, it can be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2000 years ago.
You forgot to mention that no two MSS of your 30k+ MSS are exactly the same. Therefore, your conclusions don't match your evidence. We don't know exactly what the original MSS said because we don't have them. All we have is best guess.

Critics also charge that there are no ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. Writings confiriming His birth, ministry, death and resurrection include Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger's letter to the Emperor Trajan, the Annals of Tacitus, Maria Bar Serapion, and Suetonius' Life of Claudius and Life of Nero.
Welcome to fantasy land. There is no ancient writing outside of the NT that confirm his birth, death, ministry, and resurrection. There may be a hint of his existence.

Pliny mentions Christians, not Jesus. Josephus simply mentions that Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but this source is dubious. Seutonius mentions rebellions incited by Chrestus - hardly confirmation of Christ's ministry. The Annals of Tacitus mention Christ? Where?

The rest of the post hardly deserves response.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
robosnail said:
Wow, are you sure you're a Christian AE? Because if you are you sure do not help out your fellow Christian much do you? I would have corrected my brother a little more gently and backed him up with more information to help out, not criticized. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sure Christ is.

Marks point was not valid, AE was just speaking his mind. That's completely rude and uncalled for to say that Christ is ashamed of anyone. AE is one of the better Christians in this place!
 

darkwaldo

Member
How do you know Mary wasn't cheating on Joseph?
If a woman today said she was a virgin while being pregnent or, that the child came from god, she would either have to be artificially incementated or lying.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Buttons* said:
Gnostic Christianity pre-dates the time when Yeshua was said to have even been alive.
No, Gnosticism pre-dates Christ, the term Christianity wasn't coined until after the time of Christ and hence Gnostic Christianity can't possibly pre-date Him. Given that Gnosticism is more a group of related cults than an actual religion, each sharing a certain emphasis on gnosis, or enlightenment, and given that the Gnostic mystery cults were amazingly syncretistic, borrowing deities from whichever other religious traditions seemed appropriate at the time, the fact that a version of Gnosticism including Christian elements arose after Christ is not surprising but nor can it be said to constitute any evidence whatsoever either for or against the historical existance of Jesus Christ. In actual fact there was more than one Gnostic Christian cult in the early years of the Church, and some lasted until quite late, often with widely differing mythologies, moral values and doctrines. Gnostic Christianity (at least historically speaking, I'm still not clear on how unified neo-Gnostic beliefs are) is a catch all term for such groups rather than a religion per se, in much the same way as Protestantism is a catch all term for the western churches who broke away from Rome. In neither case does the catch all term give you much of an idea, in and of itself, as to what the group actually believes, though it does narrow the possibilities (a little).

James
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
robosnail said:
Wow, are you sure you're a Christian AE? Because if you are you sure do not help out your fellow Christian much do you? I would have corrected my brother a little more gently and backed him up with more information to help out, not criticized. You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm sure Christ is.
Hi robosnail,
As I notice that this is your first visit here, I thought I would take the opportunity to welcome you to Religious Forums;
I hope that you would feel able to introduce yourself to the other members of the forum, by posting on:- Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

Please feel free to ask questions, if you have any. You might like to check out our article with links for our newer members; from there, there is also a link to the forum rules which you ought to look at.

I hope you will enjoy being a member here. ;)


 
I do not know much about other religions (outside my own), so I am here to just learn from you guys.

Questions: What is the difference between the New and Old Testament, and why did the Old Testament have to be changed.

(This question has probably been asked a million times but I still struggle understanding it)

Jesus never said "I am God, Worship Me." But yet he is considered God and is begin worshipped?

If anyone can answer those questions it will help me with my homework, lol

Thanks and Peace to all of you.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Buttons* said:
Marks point was not valid, AE was just speaking his mind. That's completely rude and uncalled for to say that Christ is ashamed of anyone. AE is one of the better Christians in this place!
Thanks, Buttons.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
JamesThePersian said:
No, Gnosticism pre-dates Christ, the term Christianity wasn't coined until after the time of Christ and hence Gnostic Christianity can't possibly pre-date Him. Given that Gnosticism is more a group of related cults than an actual religion, each sharing a certain emphasis on gnosis, or enlightenment, and given that the Gnostic mystery cults were amazingly syncretistic, borrowing deities from whichever other religious traditions seemed appropriate at the time, the fact that a version of Gnosticism including Christian elements arose after Christ is not surprising but nor can it be said to constitute any evidence whatsoever either for or against the historical existance of Jesus Christ. In actual fact there was more than one Gnostic Christian cult in the early years of the Church, and some lasted until quite late, often with widely differing mythologies, moral values and doctrines. Gnostic Christianity (at least historically speaking, I'm still not clear on how unified neo-Gnostic beliefs are) is a catch all term for such groups rather than a religion per se, in much the same way as Protestantism is a catch all term for the western churches who broke away from Rome. In neither case does the catch all term give you much of an idea, in and of itself, as to what the group actually believes, though it does narrow the possibilities (a little).

James

you're completely right, sorry for my mis-information. I was tired when i posted it, wasnt really thinking....
:eek:
 

Ody

Well-Known Member
darkwaldo said:
How do you know Mary wasn't cheating on Joseph?
If a woman today said she was a virgin while being pregnent or, that the child came from god, she would either have to be artificially incementated or lying.
No one has answered his question :bounce
 
Top