Christianity Changes View

[Ambrose]

Lol, I had a brainfart. I saw Lord, and satan and I was typing clearly, my mistake.

Lol glad to see easing tension. Just gonna remind you that you dont have to come here with a raised shield and a raised weapon! We are friendly to eachother here as long as one treats another with respect or at the very least dosn't hurl insults at them. As Christians though we are generally going to be friendly to you :nod. you thought I said Lord Satan.

Tell your friend to follow this link:
http://us5.chatzy.com/38922151529109

 

[Atothetheist]

I don't know if I can do skype though, Perhaps somewhere else? I know. Outside of these forums I can call up a live chat room where the chat will move much faster than here. Just let me open one and then give your friend the link. I am currently researching Evolution and the facts for it and against it so i can settle on one side or the other. First impulse would be to settle on OE but I have to be sure about things. So if you wouldn't mind i will ask plenty of questions. Because Im not exactly an evolution "officianato".

Here's the problem. When you set up a chat room like that, you become an admin, and you have power to ban. We really like skype because it doesn't allow that to happen.

We can also link you, and talk to you directly, even if you jut want to type.

I would prefer it to be skype, but if you seriously object, I would be willing to try another alternative.

 

[Ambrose]

Here's the problem. When you set up a chat room like that, you become an admin, and you have power to ban. We really like skype because it doesn't allow that to happen.

We can also link you, and talk to you directly, even if you jut want to type.

I would prefer it to be skype, but if you seriously object, I would be willing to try another alternative.

LOL Im not gonna ban you! ROFL its a free private chatroom. I cant ban you from the site just the chatroom. (If even that I may just be able to kick you.) But if that could happen then obviously the conversation has gotten to intense and tense to continue.

 

[Atothetheist]

LOL Im not gonna ban you! ROFL its a free private chatroom. I cant ban you from the site just the chatroom. (If even that I may just be able to kick you.) But if that could happen then obviously the conversation has gotten to intense and tense to continue.

Ughhhhhhhh.... I really hate typing. Written english is one of the hardest things to manage... Is there a mic option?

 

[Ambrose]

Ughhhhhhhh.... I really hate typing. Written english is one of the hardest things to manage... Is there a mic option?

I doubt it but it is a fast paced Real Time Chat. Its much better than discussing it here. I'm sorry but skype isnt an option for me.

 

[yoamocuy]

I could more than likely skype tomorrow if you and your friends are available.

 

[Grazer]

Lee storbel or strobal is not a biblical historian. He has majored in Common Law. What the hell does he know? Did you look at the link I gave you? Did you see the manuscripts, or at least read some of the historical works? Listen. WE HAVE NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE. They are the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the manuscripts. :eeeekkk

Two historians in a book as logically fallacious as A case for Christ is not a good and impartial source.

The quote I put was from Dr Bruce Metzger (who does know a thing or 2 about history and scholarship) who Lee Strobel interviewed for his book. Apologies, I should have made that clear. I would like to point out that I also quoted Dr Craig Blomberg who is very much an expert and provided a link to an interview with him.

You are correct in that we have no original manuscripts of the Bible, but this is not unique to the Bible, it's something that affects virtually all historical documents. But the unique thing about the New Testament in particular is the sheer number of surviving copies. According to Metzger, over 5000 manuscripts (that's complete Greek manuscripts, not counting the other languages that have been found or the fragments from other documents) have been catalogued. The runner up is Homers Iliad at less than 650, some are just fragments.

The earliest manuscript we have of the New Testament has been dated to within a couple of generations. Again for comparison, the earliest copy of Homers Iliad has been dated 2nd/3rd century AD (though I have found a book which dates it first century BC) but he wrote it in 800BC!!

So yes we have copies, copies so early that it is unprecedented for historical texts. We have such a vast number (again, unprecedented for historical texts) that historians and scholars have been able to determine what changes have been made and as I highlighted in my previous post, these changes are small in number and minor in the difference they make to the claims of the Christian faith.

 

[farouk]

Grazer:

Good point about the sheer amount of Greek manuscripts. Also, the Old Testament Hebrew text was copied meticulously by devout Jews over the centuries.

 

[wayseer]

not entertainment. There are better ways to have fun. I genuinely seek to know the truth.

How can you 'genuinely seek to know the truth' when you have already made up your mind?

Faith can't coincide with the scientific method.

Do not presume to tell me about my faith.

the christian world view condemns me, homosexuals, and others to eternal punishment.

You condemn yourself - do not blame others for that which you are responsible.

 

[reba]

These verse are not going to have any meaning to Atothetheist but at least we, who believe His Word, can see not all are fit for the Kingdom of God..

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

[farouk]

reba:

I find John's Gospel so very special and so very searching.

There is a uniqueness about its language in comparison with the other Gospels, and it's probably the source of many people's most memorized verses.

 

[Grazer]

Faith can't co-incide with scientific method

“Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as a lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.†- Physicist Paul Davies (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9508/articles/davies.html]

 

[Drew]

I have gained skills to see through things. I have gained scientific knowledge about the origins of life. I am able to know the method of scientific inquiry, and have the critical thinking skills to apply it to normal things in life. I have realized the beauty of life as a complex process. I am able to accept people's differing opinions on different ideas because they have different perspectives. Whether or not those ideas are true are subject to debate.

I have learned that condemning people, and judging people by their beliefs is ultimatly a stupid thing, and to try to dicuss with them on the merits of their thinking.

You are asserting that faith is good. I disagree.

I suggest that all of these good things that you say you have acquired "outside" Christianity are available within Christianity.

It has been my experience that one needs to careful in respect to who one lets be the "voice" for the content of the Christian worldview.

 

[Drew]

Jesus never once claimed Divnity.

This is not really correct. I would perhaps agree that Jesus never made a direct claim to divinity, but a careful study of the Bible shows that Jesus clearly does claim divinity. To the extent that one accepts that the Bible is "accurate", it is manifestly clear that Jesus sees Himself as "divine".

How did He make such a claim, if not through a direct declaration? He did so by a series of actions and cryptic statements through which He places Himself in the role of the fulfiller of an Old Testament promise - that although God has temporarily abandoned His people, He will return to them.

If you carefully study the texts, it becomes clear that Jesus is very intentionally "acting out" that role through his extended return to Jerusalem as set forth in the gospel of Luke.

I politely suggest that you may been misled by the, frankly, poor arguments that many well-intentioned Christians will make about how Jesus establishes His divinity.

 

[Drew]

He kept ALL of the Jewish laws, not only the ten commandments,...

Demonstrably incorrect. Jesus repeatedly "breaks" the Law of Moses.

Just one example: Jesus declares, in direct contradiction to a whole section of the Law of Moses, that there are no "unclean" foods.

Again, I suggest you are listening to certain voices within Christendom who, for ultimately unBiblical reasons, believe that Jesus must have religiously (pun intended) followed the Law of Moses - otherwise He would be a sinner. And so these (again, well-intentioned) Christians come up with implausible ways to explain a number of texts where Jesus is clearly "challenging" the Law of Moses.

I am happy to give the relevant details about Jesus and the food laws, as well as other instances where Jesus "breaks" the Law of Moses.

I would hasten to add that this does not detract from His faithfulness to Judaism. Again, you need to be careful about the assumptions people bring to their arguments. With all due respect to those who cannot imagine how "breaking" the Law of Moses is faithful to Judaism, such actions are indeed consistent with Judaism if you accept the following two propositions:

1. The Law of Moses was never intended to be eternal;
2. God uses the Law of Moses in order to get to the cross.

If you accept these two things, one can coherently believe that Jesus remained faithful to Judaism, even though He declared the "end" of the Law of Moses.

I am happy to provide the details.

 

[smaller]

I should say I'm not surprised that they let people post this kind of stuff below. Way below.

Demonstrably incorrect. Jesus repeatedly "breaks" the Law of Moses.

Just one example: Jesus declares, in direct contradiction to a whole section of the Law of Moses, that there are no "unclean" foods.

Again, I suggest you are listening to certain voices within Christendom who, for ultimately unBiblical reasons, believe that Jesus must have religiously (pun intended) followed the Law of Moses - otherwise He would be a sinner. And so these (again, well-intentioned) Christians come up with implausible ways to explain a number of texts where Jesus is clearly "challenging" the Law of Moses.

I am happy to give the relevant details about Jesus and the food laws, as well as other instances where Jesus "breaks" the Law of Moses.

I would hasten to add that this does not detract from His faithfulness to Judaism. Again, you need to be careful about the assumptions people bring to their arguments. With all due respect to those who cannot imagine how "breaking" the Law of Moses is faithful to Judaism, such actions are indeed consistent with Judaism if you accept the following two propositions:

1. The Law of Moses was never intended to be eternal;
2. God uses the Law of Moses in order to get to the cross.

If you accept these two things, one can coherently believe that Jesus remained faithful to Judaism, even though He declared the "end" of the Law of Moses.

I am happy to provide the details.

 

[Atothetheist]

Demonstrably incorrect. Jesus repeatedly "breaks" the Law of Moses.

Just one example: Jesus declares, in direct contradiction to a whole section of the Law of Moses, that there are no "unclean" foods.

Again, I suggest you are listening to certain voices within Christendom who, for ultimately unBiblical reasons, believe that Jesus must have religiously (pun intended) followed the Law of Moses - otherwise He would be a sinner. And so these (again, well-intentioned) Christians come up with implausible ways to explain a number of texts where Jesus is clearly "challenging" the Law of Moses.

I am happy to give the relevant details about Jesus and the food laws, as well as other instances where Jesus "breaks" the Law of Moses.

I would hasten to add that this does not detract from His faithfulness to Judaism. Again, you need to be careful about the assumptions people bring to their arguments. With all due respect to those who cannot imagine how "breaking" the Law of Moses is faithful to Judaism, such actions are indeed consistent with Judaism if you accept the following two propositions:

1. The Law of Moses was never intended to be eternal;
2. God uses the Law of Moses in order to get to the cross.

If you accept these two things, one can coherently believe that Jesus remained faithful to Judaism, even though He declared the "end" of the Law of Moses.

I am happy to provide the details.

Interesting, please give me details.

 

[Atothetheist]

I suggest that all of these good things that you say you have acquired "outside" Christianity are available within Christianity.

It has been my experience that one needs to careful in respect to who one lets be the "voice" for the content of the Christian worldview.

Faith is useless if you apply it to the scientific method. If you really use the scientific method on everything, you can't come out being a christian, or a muslim, etc.

 

[Atothetheist]

How can you 'genuinely seek to know the truth' when you have already made up your mind?



Do not presume to tell me about my faith.



You condemn yourself - do not blame others for that which you are responsible.

I can seek the truth, Atheism is not stating we know for sure there is no God. We are saying there is no reason to believe. Which, according to me, gives us a reason to try to find evidence in order to find out more about the truth

I was't talking about your faith... I used the dictionary definintion.

Can you tell me how I condemn myself? It obviously seems the otherway around.

 

[Free]

Faith is useless if you apply it to the scientific method. If you really use the scientific method on everything, you can't come out being a christian, or a muslim, etc.

If you use the scientific method on everything, you can't come out with any concept of beauty, love, good, or evil. Science can tell us a lot but it simply cannot answer the larger, most important questions of life; it just cannot be used on everything.