Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I find this sentiment among detractors as well as professed believers: it all has to be done on faith alone. Now while Faith is what saves you, and True Faith will have Works to evidence it; I reject that the only way there is to believe is by faith because I came to faith by reason. Like many that run hot and cold, I came to faith in Christ from being an atheist and literally trying to disprove God.TWA Dude said:Sorry, but that's circuitous reasoning...how can you put this off on Jesus when all we know of his teachings is what was written by Christians?
I am also getting tired of the "circular" argument. How hard is it to establish a fact these days? If you don't see it yourself, or feel it, or can't give a web address where you can watch a video, evidently it doesn't exist.Josephus; Jewish Antiquities; Book 18, Chapter 3
(63) 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. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among 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.
Yes, don't you?TWA Dude said:(Only Jesus says it's been done for you.)
And you consider this to be a good thing?
`The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes' ? (PS 118:22-23)
enigma said:In my way of thinking, if the Bible can be verified to be accurate in it's historical and prophetic terms, I am happy to accept that it's other, non-provable contents are also true.
Although this perspective must seem quite clever and self-satisfying to those who hold it, it doesn't conform to the scripture. Inasmuch as the word claims to be inspired (not some cute collection of fables), we much conclude that either the claim comes from a liar - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from a lunatic - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from God - - in which case we should trust all of it.TWA Dude said:As far as the non-historical, non-provable contents of the Bible all I can say is that one has to choose to believe it. My very personal opinion is that the Bible has stories to tell, lessons to teach, and commandments to deliver -- yet the depicted conversations need not to have happened verbatim. Poetic license, if you will.
Super 80 said:...I reject that the only way there is to believe is by faith because I came to faith by reason.
You haven't even taken the time to examine the Gospel, so how do you know what His teaching is to criticize it?
Josephus wrote about Christ. The Gospel account is not the only record of Jesus.
I am also getting tired of the "circular" argument. How hard is it to establish a fact these days?
Up until this modern age, you established fact with witness. There were a dozen witnesses to Jesus' entire ministry. There were thousands that saw Him teach. Hundreds saw Him resurrected.
These facts have been established. The only circular argument is to say they made it all up, because if they did, then you don't have to believe.
But how do so many eye-witnesses to the miracles of Jesus are going to die for professing their belief when if, as you say, they're lying, and their faith is worthless and they know it? Well all the Apostles save John were martyred -all without giving up their faith. Now you reason with me, how is it that they were willing to die for nothing?
(Only Jesus says it's been done for you.)And you consider this to be a good thing?
Yes, don't you?
TonyC said:Inasmuch as the word claims to be inspired (not some cute collection of fables), we much conclude that either the claim comes from a liar - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from a lunatic - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from God - - in which case we should trust all of it.
Super 80 said:First I note no one was put up a counter-argument to Timebuilder's excellent defense of the Bible in all its versions, and I'd also like to thank Tony C for his contribution. For surplus1 I would add that there are legitimate reasons for differing versions. Because Greek and Hebrew incorporate words that do not have a one-for-one translation, it is not always possible to render the exact verbiage as was written into a meaning that has the same impact in our language. This sets up two different and competing schools of translation, word-for-word and thought-for-thought. While the latter can include some verses that may be over-stretched, those same verses can lose meaning otherwise.
Quite frankly I don't like the idea that one must profess faith in another man for salvation. Furthermore I don't like the idea of a religion that tells other religions they must do the same. Yeah, I know, it's G-d's demand and not yours. Tell it to the Judge.
Candidly, I think that people who did not even exist for 1500 years of Christianity have a he!! of a nerve telling me that "Christianity contradicts Catholicism". I'm old enough to have spent nearly sixty years listening to Reformists, otherwise known as Protestants, telling me that they are Christians and I am not. I'm sick of it and feel no need to be "politically correct" in responding. If Protestants expect me to be tolerant of their beliefs, then they need to be equally tolerant of mine.