What are your thoughts on god? Part 3

POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Sunday, January 22, 2006 06:51
VIEWED: 16563
PAGE 3 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

CARTOON

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Hey now, that's really not funny . . .

Oh, wait, actually it is. Please continue.

Not sure I want to provoke someone whose signature boasts about how they can kill people with their brains.

Let's just pretend I'm not here.

Actually, I'm not.

Well, I'm here (where I am), but not where the rest of you folks are. Unless, of course, you're actually here, too. No. I'd see you then.

Hmmm...

I think we've strayed from the subject of this thread. Chris will be most irrate. My apologies in advance.

HEB

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:52 PM

I think Lee Strobel's book stated that there were more surviving copies of the bible than other manuscripts not that there were more surviving supporting documents. But it's been a while since I read it so it's worth double checking that.
I think the point of this argument was to support how reliable the current bible is as a copy of the original text, so how accururately the bible was passed down.

The issue of supporting documents is another matter. I'm pretty sure the first mention of Jesus by a non-Christian historian (who didn't mention the resurrection) was many years later and in my (non-expert) opinion you can't historically prove a guy was resurrected nearly 2000 years ago.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CARTOON

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
and in my (non-expert) opinion you can't historically prove a guy was resurrected nearly 2000 years ago.

I fully concur (and I say that as someone who does believe that Jesus bodily resurrected).

However, the resurrection is the thrust of any belief in Christ as Messiah, and I believe the way Strobel related to that subject in his book was well-handled, and made a lot of sense to me. Obviously, not everyone agrees.

I believe you're also right about the surviving documents bit. But, that was the point I was trying to make. There are more surviving manuscript copies of the Bible (Old and New) than everything else from that time period, combined. I believe the point Strobel (and I) was trying to point out that if people will believe that Alexander conquered Persia on the basis of (I don't know, I'm making up figures) 3 contemporary (or close-to-contemporary) documents, why should they disbelieve the accuracy of the Bible which has hundreds or thousands of contemporary (or close-to-contemporary) documents?

HEB

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:05 PM

Well I'm not an expert on Alexander or Persia but I should imagine that there is evidence for this in more than one of the historical categories of evidence. For example archaeological evidence (coins perhaps?) and that the event was covered in more than one document. Although I will concede that these documents are likely to exist in fewer copies than the bible.

I also think there's a difference between prooving that someone commanded an army that conquered a country and proving that someone rose from the dead, (which also has a lot fewer eye witnesses than the conquering of a country).

I will try and find the link I read about historical evidence when I'm not supposed to be writing a biology essay.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CARTOON

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Well I'm not an expert on Alexander or Persia but I should imagine that there is evidence for this in more than one of the historical categories of evidence. For example archaeological evidence (coins perhaps?) and that the event was covered in more than one document.

Yes. There are coins and other other archeological things. Mostly just names and inscriptions, though, not historical accounts. For those, we have very few contemporary manuscripts.

And when I say "contemporary", I'm willing to go several hundred years beyond the fact -- which is usually where you have to go for anything from this period. There's very few actual contemporary accounts of anything from antiquity -- with the exception of the New Testament, where all of the books of the NT (by most established conservative accounts) were written within 20 to 50 years of the events which are portrayed in them (and written by people who claim to be eyewitnesses of said events).

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I also think there's a difference between prooving that someone commanded an army that conquered a country and proving that someone rose from the dead, (which also has a lot fewer eye witnesses than the conquering of a country).

Again, I'll fully agree.

I wasn't talking strictly about evidence of resurrection accounts, though, just the textual verity of the ancient manuscripts (of both Hebrew old and Greek new testaments).

HEB

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:26 PM

Yeah I agree about the large number of bible manuscripts.

Can I ask, if it's not too personal, why you believe in the resurrection? Is it from a historical perspective or for spiritual or philosophical reasons? Or because you believe the bible as a whole for spiratual reasons?

Thanks

heb

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

PHOEBE

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:37 PM

My post was mainly referring to god :p Just verging onto religion. I'm anti-religion because at the core I believe there is no god. That god is just a creation of humans to instill fear and/or obedience.

RIVER6213

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:45 PM

Sorry to be bit of a bore, but what exactly is the purpose of this thread? I'm not in any way offended by this topic, I'm just curious.

Didnt you have a part 1 and 2 of this topic? Did you not obtain the information that you sought when you started it, or is this a food-for-thought sort of thread, where you are attempting to get us to seek god or something?

If it is the latter, trust me, god will plague us all one way or another until we hit the grave, through people and things; for all there is no escape which is rather sad because some of us want to escape.

I wish God had minded his own business and left creation of earth and humans alone....especially me; I was doing quite fine in the world of the unliving.

Some people just can't seem well enough alone, and in that area, I can clearly see that man was indeed created in the image of God.

Just a thought.

RIVER6213

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:45 PM

Sorry to be bit of a bore, but what exactly is the purpose of this thread? I'm not in any way offended by this topic, I'm just curious.

Didnt you have a part 1 and 2 of this topic? Did you not obtain the information that you sought when you started it, or is this a food-for-thought sort of thread, where you are attempting to get us to seek god or something?

If it is the latter, trust me, god will plague us all one way or another until we hit the grave, through people and things; for all there is no escape which is rather sad because some of us want to escape.

I wish God had minded his own business and left creation of earth and humans alone....especially me; I was doing quite fine in the world of the unliving.

Some people just can't seem well enough alone, and in that area, I can clearly see that man was indeed created in the image of God.

Just a thought.

CARTOON

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Can I ask, if it's not too personal, why you believe in the resurrection? Is it from a historical perspective or for spiritual or philosophical reasons? Or because you believe the bible as a whole for spiratual reasons?

No, it's not too personal. As a matter-of-fact, as a Christian, I'm commanded to give reason for my faith. I won't push it, but I'll state it matter-of-factly, and if queried, am more than happy to comply.

I was raised with the Bible, and initially just accepted it as fact because I trusted the people telling me about it (mostly my mother). But then, I know a lot of people who were raised with the Bible who later fell away, so that (in itself) isn't sufficient.

In my twenties, I came to personally receive the Lord as my Savior -- at which time, I started studying the scriptures in more detail. I even have an interlinear Hebrew-English OT and Greek-English NT. I can't read either Hebrew or Greek (unfortunately, languages aren't my strong point), but I have good lexicons which help.

I've also studied and read a bit on hermeneutics (a study of how to interpret and read the scriptures in context) -- which I believe everyone (even skeptics) should know a little bit about, as they lay down some very basic rules on how to read something in context.

I think the historical evidence for the verity of the text of the scriptures is very compelling, and would probably lead me to trust the accuracy of the documents even if I were not a believer.

However, to be honest, no amount of historical evidence can make a person believe the nature of what's written therein. For that, one needs faith.

Given the number of ancient documents supporting the scriptures (as opposed to anicent documents supporting secular, historical events), I'd probably need more faith to believe that Alexander conquered Persia, than I would to believe that Jesus was cruficied and resurrected.

Nonetheless, to be honest, no amount of historical evidence can make a person believe the nature of what's written in Scripture. For that, one needs faith.

I can point out things which have happened in my life (and the lives of others I know or have heard about) which underscore that faith, but it won't make anyone else believe if they don't want to.

Certain things can be proven on face value (I'm standing on the ground, because I see my feet on the ground. Assuming I'm of rational mind and not dreaming, it would be hard to convince me otherwise.) Belief in God cannot be proven or forced.

That's why I find this thread interesting. I see people stating reasons why they believe or don't believe -- and while I can understand reasons for "unbelief", I cannot fully describe "belief", and do not attempt to do so.

Anyhow, I hope I've satisfactorily answered your question, and not put too many folks in here to sleep in the process. (Except for Queenofthenorth, who, quite frankly, needs to be sedated -- and often.)

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE