God of the OT or Jesus in the NT: Do they contradict one another?

[Butterbean]

Jesus had a great message.  I live by his golden rule. 

What is that and where did you read/hear about it?

Here's a question for you?  Aren't we all sons of god?  don't we all have the holy spirit in us ?

If by "all" you mean all people the answer is no.  If by "all" you mean all believers in Christ the answer is yes.

John 1:12,13
Yet to all who received Him (Jesus), to those who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not (just) of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus   (Paul speaking to believers here)

[Butterbean]

What makes you Christians think God only speaks to you and forsakes billions of souls he created?  What makes you think he doesn't acknowledge the compassion and love from others who aren't Christians who would never by the mere fact of social/culture proximity become Christians?   What evidence do you have other than a book that agrees with your assumptions?   Basically you have nothing but your believe. 

I don't see it as God forsaking anyone but more as them forsaking God. 

I've never said He doesn't acknowledge compassion and love from others who aren't Christians     But I don't believe that we can work our way to heaven if that is what you are saying 

And as i have seen first hand, once that is proven in some Christians minds that that might not be the truth they revert to old shameful, selfish, immoral ways which highlights the flaws of Christian salvation and proves they were impostors all along.  (the 2 people i'm pretty close to became this way long after i had these beliefs,,,  can you imagine a evangelist stealing....thousands and still preaching?  lol)

Why would you let the actions of some fallible people "harsh your buzz" so to speak on wanting to learn more about the Christ of the bible?  I know people that I believe are true believers that have done some of the most terrible things (I am no angel either). 

But why in your mind this prove that Christian Salvation has flaws?  The fact that people can act like fools doesn't mean the the Christian Plan of Salvation is wrong.  We are still living in the flesh and still sin.  Don't look down at people who claim to need a Savior.  Look up to the Savior and see what HE is like.  In looking at people, you will ALWAYS be disappointed.

Keep in mind also OzmO, that there are people who claim to be believers that are not.  Look at that guy Robert Tilton.  Now maybe he is a believer but I'll tell ya I have doubts about someone who sells hankerchiefs that he claims he's wiped his sweat on and if you buy one, you'll be blessed financially...oh brother lol!

the funny thing about this post is that some people who respond will not answer the questions i've asked.  they find the one they can respond to and only answer that one.  Much like how they read the Bible, finding the interpretation they like and focusing there.

[OzmO]

OzmO, how the bible was formed etc. is a great idea for another thread!  I'll start it later and address this (if anyone wants to start it now, go ahead)!

Why do you think that people didn't have the ability to verify ancient artifacts back then?  It seems as though a general theme in some people's thinking is that people that lived many years ago were just not that smart.  I can understand this in someone who believes that evolutionary theory is fact and in regard to what they believe was a cro-magnum man or something, but I don't understand why they think it applies to a civilized society, of which there were many, thousands of years ago.

Modern science and developed techniques have given us the ability to verify ancient artifacts far more accurately then what they had to use back then.  I think it was determine at one point in the 1400's that if you took all the pieces of wood that were supposed to be from the cross that were then being displayed as holy artifacts you could build a building the size of a church.

Point is, with science and the ability to cross check others sources of information we have today, people back then had little clue or the ability to verify the authenticity of what htey might have assumed to be genuine.

No, the tree of knowledge did not make Adam and Eve sin.  They chose to disobey God who told them not to eat of that tree.  When they disobeyed Him, they sinned and sin was brought into their world.

So they sinned with out it?   I thought they were sinless.   So Adam and Eve were created with the capacity to sin just as were a born with the same capacity now.

They WERE sinless to begin with.  They did have free will and their choice resulted in sin being brought into their world after they made that choice.  Before that they had never sinned.

There choice was sinful, they choose to disobey God.   Is killing a sin?   Has God told you not to kill?   If you kill then you have sinned.   If you did not have the capcity to sin you would not have the capacity to chose to sin or the strength not to be tempted to sin.

Adam and Eve fail in both areas, hence they were sinners as we are to begin with.   Whether it was the serpent or MTV, they would have sinned at some point.

Let's say you have a "perfect" apple.  It's perfect, no worms, no holes, etc.  While eating your living shoe stuffed with cheese Grin, your hands get greasy and you drop the apple.  Now the apple has a huge bruise and is no longer "perfect."  It was perfect before, but not after you dropped it.

The analogy would work but in this case the Apple choose to fall to the ground on it's own accord.

Adam and Eve being sinless doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't someday make the choice to give into the temptations of the devil who is extremely crafty and the father of lies.  It's apples and oranges.

We do the same thing from Birth.

Did God plan it?  I don't know about that but He did ALLOW it and yes, He KNEW it would happen.

Prior knowledge without action to stop it points directly to malice on his part.

The people were burned at the stakes etc. because they would not profess to believe in things like the transubstantiation (which is a load of bull IMO) were burned by misguided and probably egotistical church leaders in the Roman Catholic Church.

That was NOT "righteous killing" as you say.

Yes they were!!!   in the minds of those who did the killings they were, the representatives of God church......God allowed this to happen for hundreds of years, from 400AD to 1600AD

What is that and where did you read/hear about it?

Do you doubt the same concept is not in other religions of philosophies? 

If by "all" you mean all people the answer is no.  If by "all" you mean all believers in Christ the answer is yes.

John 1:12,13
Yet to all who received Him (Jesus), to those who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not (just) of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus   (Paul speaking to believers here)

That's religious doctrine speaking whose sole purpose is to operate and protect it's uniqueness and provide an exclusive place for it's followers.

[OzmO]

Sorry loco and Stella don't have time right now to respond as each response is taking about 10 to 30 minutes to do.    I'll get to it later on. 

And sorry HT if the thread is going in a different direction.   In a religious debate it's hard to stay on point because there is so much to it.

[Hustle Man]

Sorry loco and Stella don't have time right now to respond as each response is taking about 10 to 30 minutes to do.    I'll get to it later on. 

And sorry HT if the thread is going in a different direction.   In a religious debate it's hard to stay on point because there is so much to it.

NP bro, I am swamped myself lol

I did an experiment with my kids to explain what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden.

In short:
I brought home a precision measuring equipment container (black box) with latches and I told my kids not to open it, I told them they could touch it but never open it because it could have grave consequences! needless to say, this drove them crazy! Never have I seen such intense curiosity, even from my GF lol this went on for weeks... what do you think happened?

BTW I put our tickets to Disney World in the box lol talk about a million questions.

[the Pure Majestic]

Why did God create millions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe if we're the whole point of it all? 

If he did do that, why didn't he give us the brain power to comprehend the vastness of the universe? 

[OzmO]

NP bro, I am swamped myself lol

I did an experiment with my kids to explain what happened with Adam and Eve in the Garden.

In short:
I brought home a precision measuring equipment container (black box) with latches and I told my kids not to open it, I told them they could touch it but never open it because it could have grave consequences! needless to say, this drove them crazy! Never have I seen such intense curiosity, even from my GF lol this went on for weeks... what do you think happened?

BTW I put our tickets to Disney World in the box lol talk about a million questions.

In the end, Adam and Eve, just like your kids, didn't do what they were told to do.   I don't see any difference.

BTW,  i think that's a great way of teaching your kids.

[Hustle Man]

In the end, Adam and Eve, just like your kids, didn't do what they were told to do.   I don't see any difference.

BTW,  i think that's a great way of teaching your kids.

Man it was so funny the could not stand not know what was in the box especially with the teaser out there lol. BTW my youngest daughter confessed she opened the box while I was away but she didn't tell anyone what was in the box unless the rest are liars and keeping it to themselves not wanting to distroy dad's surprize lol! Just thought I would share some of me with ya!

[Necrosis]

Nope. Because skeptics have been making such claims for nearly 200 years; and such claims have shown to be unsubstantiated or flat-out false, for nearly as long.

It's the same old song and dance with non-believers. When injustice goes down, especially on God's people, and He seemingly does nothing or gives people the opportunity to repent, we get the smart-alec retorts, "Where is your God, now?"

Yet, when the Lord has had enough and it's judgment time, now He's Mr. Meanie; he's ruthless, cruel, etc., etc.

What's egotistical about that? Why wouldn't God be able to watch over His creation?

for one you dont know what your talking about, im sorry you have alot of misinformation. paganism predates the bible and has the same stories.

dude provide some evidence for YOUR god, and why YOUR god.

the flood story is all over the world in many religions are you claiming this is false?

[MCWAY]

for one you dont know what your talking about, im sorry you have alot of misinformation. paganism predates the bible and has the same stories.

dude provide some evidence for YOUR god, and why YOUR god.

the flood story is all over the world in many religions are you claiming this is false?

The Flood story being in different cultures proves one thing: Those cultures acknowledged that, at some point in Earth's history, the planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only a handful of people surviving by building an structure or Ark.

What that DOES NOT show, however, is your claim that the Hebrews took those accounts from other cultures. With the survivors of the Ark, going on to repopulate the earth, it makes perfect sense that multiple cultures would have some account about the Flood.

Unless you can show SPECIFICALLY that the Israelites took certain accounts from these pagans, all you're doing is spouting tired skeptic claims, that have been refuted more times than I care to mention.

[Necrosis]

The Flood story being in different cultures proves one thing: Those cultures acknowledged that, at some point in Earth's history, the planet was destroyed by a massive flood, with only a handful of people surviving by building an structure or Ark.

What that DOES NOT show, however, is your claim that the Hebrews took those accounts from other cultures. With the survivors of the Ark, going on to repopulate the earth, it makes perfect sense that multiple cultures would have some account about the Flood.

Unless you can show SPECIFICALLY that the Israelites took certain accounts from these pagans, all you're doing is spouting tired skeptic claims, that have been refuted more times than I care to mention.

ok i will post some shit about the date of christmas, the rebirth, all that shit. will you even accept it?

also, why does your god exist? and not the god of any other religion, or any of the greek gods?

i also will have other questions, as im interested in what you have to say

[OzmO]

OzmO,
You ask a lot of questions and that is great.  But now I have some questions for you.  Please forget, for the sake of discussion, that I am a Christian, that I believe in the Bible, or even that I believe in God.  Please pretend for a moment that I am seeking this "truth" you are talking about.

How do you know this?  Where did you get this information?  What spirit, prophet, holy man, holy text or whatever gave you this information?

How do i know?   Adam and Eve had a predisposition to sin before they did.  Just like babies......     And how do i know we are born to succeed?

Do you live in a bubble loco, open your eyes and see the things individuals do to better themselves and the capacity for change.....In your experiences you should be able to see this when people are born again.  But it is not limited to Christianity, people in all walks of life in all religions etc...   Have done great things to help others and better themselves......they ease suffering, cure decease, feed the hungry with innovations, inventions, people become parents etc... 

But in the end whether we succeed at bettering ourselves or not, it is a choice we make with what God has given us.  It's like the parable of the talents. (if i remember it right)

What is "the entire truth" and how do you know Jesus in the NT is "only a glimpse" of that entire truth? 

Because we don't have all the information.  We have eye witness accounts that were written many years after, like many many years right after, and these accounts aren't from the actual paper (papyrus, copper scrolls) they were written on, in fact they are probably reproductions 10 or 20 or even 100 times over.  Add that to all the other gospels and you have to wonder how much was left out or added.   Basically, it a very logical conclusion if you are objectively investigating it.  But what you take a fact is base on belief not real fact.

Who told you that?  How do you know?

when you have Children, and one day you will and you wil be a great parent, you'll exactly what i mean and you'll never deny it.

What is Jesus' golden rule? How do you know Jesus said this?  What is his "great message"?  How do you know that this is his message?

Actually that message is in many religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Is this really a question or do you already know the answer?  Do you say "Yes"?  How do you know?

Again, what is your answer.  Is it "Yes"?  How do you know this?  Who gave you this information?

They are questions.  Feel free to answer them.   

[loco]

Thanks, OzmO, for taking the time to type this up, but you misunderstood my questions.  I had asked you to please pretend for a moment that I am NOT a Christian, that I do NOT believe in the Bible, and that I do NOT believe even in God.  Let's say I'm seeking this "truth" you talk about:

How do i know?   Adam and Eve had a predisposition to sin before they did.  Just like babies......     And how do i know we are born to succeed?

How do you know Adam and Eve even existed?

And being "born" to succeed is different than what you said earlier, being "created" to succeed.  How do you know that a god would "create" us to succeed?

Do you live in a bubble loco, open your eyes and see the things individuals do to better themselves and the capacity for change.....In your experiences you should be able to see this when people are born again.  But it is not limited to Christianity, people in all walks of life in all religions etc...   Have done great things to help others and better themselves......they ease suffering, cure decease, feed the hungry with innovations, inventions, people become parents etc... 

"Born again"? Do you really believe in being "born again"?  If so, why?  Who told you about that?

But in the end whether we succeed at bettering ourselves or not, it is a choice we make with what God has given us.  It's like the parable of the talents. (if i remember it right)

"The parable of Talents."  Who told this parable and how do you know that he/she really told it.  How do you know its teaching is good?

Because we don't have all the information.  We have eye witness accounts that were written many years after, like many many years right after, and these accounts aren't from the actual paper (papyrus, copper scrolls) they were written on, in fact they are probably reproductions 10 or 20 or even 100 times over.  Add that to all the other gospels and you have to wonder how much was left out or added.   Basically, it a very logical conclusion if you are objectively investigating it.  But what you take a fact is base on belief not real fact.

I was not really asking about "Christian truth".  I was asking for what you mean by "truth", how do you know what it is?

when you have Children, and one day you will and you wil be a great parent, you'll exactly what i mean and you'll never deny it.

Okay.  "loco, you are too dumb to understand.  When you grow up some day you will understand."     

Actually that message is in many religions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

And that makes it true?  How do you even know that Jesus is one of the ones who said it?

They are questions.  Feel free to answer them.   

I know that they are questions.  I was honestly asking for an answer and an explanation.  Are we or are we not all children of God?  Do we or do we not all have the Holy Spirit?  If you don't know the answer just say so.  If you do, I would like to know the answer and I would like to know how you know.

And, if there is a God, how do you know that he is good?  How do you know that he is not neutral or amoral?  How do you know that, if he even did create us, is not just bored and simply entertaining himself by putting us all through experiments and tests for his own amusement?

[MCWAY]

ok i will post some shit about the date of christmas, the rebirth, all that shit. will you even accept it?

also, why does your god exist? and not the god of any other religion, or any of the greek gods?

i also will have other questions, as im interested in what you have to say

Post all you like. But, let's make a few things clear:

1) The Hebrews never claimed that Jesus was born on December 25. That date was assigned by the Roman Catholic Church.

2) Since your initial claim was that paganism predates the Bible and that the Israelites took accounts in the Bible from other religions, that is what I've asked you to support.

3) As for why God exists, as opposed to the Greek gods or any others, my answer would be, among other things:
  - Historical and archaeologic evidence that validates Scripture, which leads to another favorite of mine.......
  - Biblical prophecy

[OzmO]

Thanks, OzmO, for taking the time to type this up, but you misunderstood my questions.  I had asked you to please pretend for a moment that I am NOT a Christian, that I do NOT believe in the Bible, and that I do NOT believe even in God.  Let's say I'm seeking this "truth" you talk about:

I'm not trying to convert anyone to any particular religion.  I'm only questioning the doctrine that says "our way" is the only way to a after life in heaven. 

How do you know Adam and Eve even existed?

And being "born" to succeed is different than what you said earlier, being "created" to succeed.  How do you know that a god would "create" us to succeed?

I don't know Adam and Eve existed.  Unitl they dig up an ancient pair of bodies without belly buttons we'll never know.  I'm applying common sense and logic to the story of Adam and Eve and mankind's fall.

"The parable of Talents."  Who told this parable and how do you know that he/she really told it.  How do you know its teaching is good?

The teaching is good for most obvious reasons.  In reality it's not that important who said it is it?  It's more important that it's followed.

I was not really asking about "Christian truth".  I was asking for what you mean by "truth", how do you know what it is?

You never relly know.  Only in your heart can you begin to.

Okay.  "loco, you are too dumb to understand.  When you grow up some day you will understand."

that wasn't my intention.  It's just until that time comes you may have a hard time understanding.  My parents used to try an explain ti to me and i never understood until i had children of my own.  I didn't mean it in a negative or condesending way.

And that makes it true?  How do you even know that Jesus is one of the ones who said it?

Same as above.  Does it really matter who said it?

Fact is, it's very true and works.

I know that they are questions.  I was honestly asking for an answer and an explanation.  Are we or are we not all children of God?  Do we or do we not all have the Holy Spirit?  If you don't know the answer just say so.  If you do, I would like to know the answer and I would like to know how you know.

And, if there is a God, how do you know that he is good?  How do you know that he is not neutral or amoral?  How do you know that, if he even did create us, is not just bored and simply entertaining himself by putting us all through experiments and tests for his own amusement?

It all depends on what you believe.  But if you want facts.......based on todays sceince there isn't a GOD  I believe science will soon discover God.

[OzmO]

Post all you like. But, let's make a few things clear:


3) As for why God exists, as opposed to the Greek gods or any others, my answer would be, among other things:
  - Historical and archaeologic evidence that validates Scripture, which leads to another favorite of mine.......
  - Biblical prophecy

No it doesn't.

Just because you dig something up that was a place or a artifact named in the Bible doesn't all the associated "magical" things happened also.

[loco]

I'm not trying to convert anyone to any particular religion.  I'm only questioning the doctrine that says "our way" is the only way to a after life in heaven. 

I don't know Adam and Eve existed.  Unitl they dig up an ancient pair of bodies without belly buttons we'll never know.  I'm applying common sense and logic to the story of Adam and Eve and mankind's fall.

The teaching is good for most obvious reasons.  In reality it's not that important who said it is it?  It's more important that it's followed.

You never relly know.  Only in your heart can you begin to.

that wasn't my intention.  It's just until that time comes you may have a hard time understanding.  My parents used to try an explain ti to me and i never understood until i had children of my own.  I didn't mean it in a negative or condesending way.

Same as above.  Does it really matter who said it?

Fact is, it's very true and works.

It all depends on what you believe.  But if you want facts.......based on todays sceince there isn't a GOD  I believe science will soon discover God.

OzmO,
You should be a politician. 

I appreciate you answering my questions!  But the way you answered the questions, so carefully, left me in the dark.  Even after many debates, discussions and arguments with you, I still don't know what you believe, why, and what you base you belief on.  You are so vague.

And you talk of the Holy Spirit, being born again, Adam and Eve, the golden rule?  For someone who bashes Christianity and the Bible almost constantly, you seem to base much of your belief on Christianity and on the Bible.  How do you pick and choose which parts are true and which are not?

Richard Dawkins says that if fundamentalists betray reason, moderates betray both: reason and faith.  Then he asks the same question, how do you pick and choose which parts of Christianity or which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't?

Going back and considering your many posts, you seem to base your belief on Christianity, the Bible, your own heart, and what little you know about the many religions and cults out there.

[loco]

Because we don't have all the information.  We have eye witness accounts that were written many years after, like many many years right after, and these accounts aren't from the actual paper (papyrus, copper scrolls) they were written on, in fact they are probably reproductions 10 or 20 or even 100 times over.  Add that to all the other gospels and you have to wonder how much was left out or added.   Basically, it a very logical conclusion if you are objectively investigating it.  But what you take a fact is base on belief not real fact.

OzmO,
Are you simply repeating theories you heard or read from skeptics?  Are you ready to provide evidence of the above?  You, or whoever fed you this is mistaken.  I'm no Bible scholar, yet simply by reading the New Testament and knowing a little ancient World History, I can tell you that the gospels were written before 70 AD, within 40 years of Jesus' crucifixion.  Conservative Bible scholars agree with me.  If you are going to argue with this, you better have some evidence to back it up.  And I don't mean posting links to websites.  I mean, if this is your personal belief, then you will have evidence to back it up.

In addition:

If we want to disregard the New Testament, then we must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Ceasar.  This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing.  Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy...and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.  If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.

Just one example:

Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years.  We have only 49 copies.

Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years.  We have only 10 copies.

The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.).  The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.).  The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years.  We have 5,686 copies.

[OzmO]

OzmO,
You should be a politician. 

Yikes, thanks i guess.   My job involves a good amount of corporate politics.

I think/believe these things:

-  The Bible is not the 100% word of God, but there are many things in it that are "of God" just as there are in other religious books or scripture.  So when i talk about "the Golden Rule" which is in many other religions that's what I'm talking about.

-  I see the Bible full of religious doctrine.   The people who chose the books and the scripture chose them because they would serve to support that doctrine.   For example:  No matter how good you are, or how many good things you do you cannot go to heaven unless you accept Jesus as your savior. 

-  The murderous God described in the OT is not God.   Of course we went round and round with this, but i do believe "gods" actions would be consistent with the moral standards he expects from us at the very least.

-  I believe many Christians will go to heaven, but not solely because they accepted Christ, but because they lived loving, good lives and maybe it was the Holy spirit coming into their lives because of accepting Christ then that's great, but the same thing happens to people in other religions.

-  I believe God reaches people in many different ways in many different religions,  he finds ways to touch them and that might be through Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism etc...  Does it really matter how they come to God?  Does it matter what rules they accept or what doctrine?   Of course you'll show me some verse thats says that isn't true, but that's from the book your church is based on.   How effective would a church be of it had a doctrine that said in effect:  "we are not the only way"

-  I don't believe god would forsake billions of his creations over schematics or man made doctrine.

Richard Dawkins says that if fundamentalists betray reason, moderates betray both: reason and faith.  Then he asks the same question, how do you pick and choose which parts of Christianity or which parts of the Bible are true and which aren't?

Richard Dawkins is on one end of a polar extreme, just liek the other end they will try and manipulate the middle to come to their side.

Aristotle's ancient writings date 384-322 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 1,100 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,400 years.  We have only 49 copies.

Ceasar's ancient writings date 100-44 B.C..  The earliest copy we have is from 900 A.D..  The approximate time span between original & copy is 1,000 years.  We have only 10 copies.

The New Testament on the other hand dates 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.).  The earliest copies we have are from 2nd Cent. A.D. (130 A.D.).  The approximate time span between original & copy is less than 100 years.  We have 5,686 copies.

Comparing that to those other texts doesn't take away from that fact the gospels were written way way way way too long after Christ's death and have been recopied many times over and left open for any to take advantage of by inputing their own "wrongly assumed" God inspired additions and beliefs.  Also, Aristotle and Caesar's writing aren't be taken as the exact word of God and all scholars realize that they are but glimpses that are in some respects true and some respect potentially not.

Fact is you don;t know for sure if they are the original words and you don't even know if they remember it right.  How much do you remember about what was said 20 years ago?   so what's likely?   Error, gross error, and bias manipulation based on the belif of church leader of the time that produce this "doctrine of divine exclusivity"

I hope this sheds light a bit on my position and explains why i say the things i do.  I tend to try and look at the whole picture more than accepting something that makes little sense and limits my objectivity.

[Hustle Man]

Yikes, thanks i guess.   My job involves a good amount of corporate politics.

I think/believe these things:

-  The Bible is not the 100% word of God, but there are many things in it that are "of God" just as there are in other religious books or scripture.  So when i talk about "the Golden Rule" which is in many other religions that's what I'm talking about.

-  I see the Bible full of religious doctrine.   The people who chose the books and the scripture chose them because they would serve to support that doctrine.   For example:  No matter how good you are, or how many good things you do you cannot go to heaven unless you accept Jesus as your savior. 

-  The murderous God described in the OT is not God.   Of course we went round and round with this, but i do believe "gods" actions would be consistent with the moral standards he expects from us at the very least.

-  I believe many Christians will go to heaven, but not solely because they accepted Christ, but because they lived loving, good lives and maybe it was the Holy spirit coming into their lives because of accepting Christ then that's great, but the same thing happens to people in other religions.

-  I believe God reaches people in many different ways in many different religions,  he finds ways to touch them and that might be through Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism etc...  Does it really matter how they come to God?  Does it matter what rules they accept or what doctrine?   Of course you'll show me some verse thats says that isn't true, but that's from the book your church is based on.   How effective would a church be of it had a doctrine that said in effect:  "we are not the only way"

-  I don't believe god would forsake billions of his creations over schematics or man made doctrine.

Unbelievable! A classic paradigm of the spiritually delusional!

[OzmO]

Unbelievable! A classic paradigm of the spiritually delusional!

No, a person with some common sense.   

Try reading it again, but then again it might be a waste of time for you because you find your common sense in a book of stories written by MEN passing it off as written by god and passed down from generation to generation to control and keep you in fear and it has worked perfectly on you.

Thump thump 

[loco]

Comparing that to those other texts doesn't take away from that fact the gospels were written way way way way too long after Christ's death and have been recopied many times over and left open for any to take advantage of by inputing their own "wrongly assumed" God inspired additions and beliefs.

40 years = "way way way way too long after Christ's death" ?

Also, Aristotle and Caesar's writing aren't be taken as the exact word of God and all scholars realize that they are but glimpses that are in some respects true and some respect potentially not.

"all scholars realize"?  Can you name some of these scholars and show that they "all" "realize" this?

And the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar do not claim to be the word of God.  That is not the point here.  The point is that you have a problem with the New Testament because

1. You claim that it was written "way way way way too long after Christ's death"
2. The Gospels and different letters of the NT were copied many times, which they were in order to preserve them.  But you completely ignore the fact that we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts from different times, which can be cross examined for discrepancies to see if they were changed.  For example, we can compare a copy from the 1st century with a copy from the 4th century and verify that they match.  The New Testament writings are the best preserved ancient writings in existence today.

So you conclude that for these reasons we must assume that they do not say what the originals said.

So the point is that by your own logic, we must disregard the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar because we do not have their originals either, their only surviving copies date over 1,000 years after the authors lived, and we have only 10 to 50 copies so we can't cross examine them to the degree that we can cross examine the 5,000 + copies of the New Testament that we have.

[OzmO]

40 years = "way way way way too long after Christ's death" ?

Tell you what, try writing down a series of conversations exactly word for word you had or witnessed just 5 years ago.  Not just a few, but dozens.  How accurate would you be?

that's my point.

Another point:

How accurate are eye witness account right after a incident?  Police officers will tell you they are not as accurate as they should be and now you are banking that 40 years later they would be?

No, you are believing they would be and have to defend that POV because not to would mean potentially having to redefine your core beliefs.

"all scholars realize"?  Can you name some of these scholars and show that they "all" "realize" this?

And the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar do not claim to be the word of God.  That is not the point here.  The point is that you have a problem with the New Testament because

1. You claim that it was written "way way way way too long after Christ's death"
2. The Gospels and different letters of the NT were copied many times, which they were in order to preserve them.  But you completely ignore the fact that we have over 5,000 Greek manuscripts from different times, which can be cross examined for discrepancies to see if they were changed.  For example, we can compare a copy from the 1st century with a copy from the 4th century and verify that they match.  The New Testament writings are the best preserved ancient writings in existence today.

So you conclude that for these reasons we must assume that they do not say what the originals said.

So the point is that by your own logic, we must disregard the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar because we do not have their originals either, their only surviving copies date over 1,000 years after the authors lived, and we have only 10 to 50 copies so we can't cross examine them to the degree that we can cross examine the 5,000 + copies of the New Testament that we have.

But you do not have the exact original copy and you don't how many times it was copied or altered before you got the 5000 copies you do have that are consistent.

And yes  all scholars realize  that any texts or artifacts containing text are but glimpses that are in some respects true and some respect potentially not.   You cannot gain the entire truth from examining a few texts from the past.   It's plain logic.  Otherwise Evolution would be 100% true.   That's why the legitimacy and accuracy of the gospels will always be a theory in a sense or just a belief and far more likely to be a product of man made doctrine.

Use some common sense loco.

So the point is that by your own logic, we must disregard the writings of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Caesar because we do not have their originals either, their only surviving copies date over 1,000 years after the authors lived, and we have only 10 to 50 copies so we can't cross examine them to the degree that we can cross examine the 5,000 + copies of the New Testament that we have.

We don't need to disregard those writings of those philosophers because we look at the wisdom in their writings NOT as exact words of God.   Also, those are their words not other people's accounts of events.  The events accounted by them, (philosophers) are taken as a glimpse into how they viewed what happen understanding that their account is not the whole truth but instead a glimpse of it and potentially not true.   Remember, History is written by the victors which means it's written from the writers POV.

So you have 3 issues here:  (and these aren't all of them, just the ones talked about here)

1.  Absence of original documents
2.  Documents written too many years after the events occurred for word for word accounting
3.  Likely man made doctrine inserted because of the POV of the writers and those who transcribed the copies from the original to the 5000 consistent ones yo have today.

[MCWAY]

No it doesn't.

Just because you dig something up that was a place or a artifact named in the Bible doesn't all the associated "magical" things happened also.

How else do you verify that an event happened, that is mentioned in Scripture? The supernatural has to manifest itself in the natural realm for human beings to witness it. As I said, the historical and archaeological evidence is part of the picture. The other is Biblical prophecy. That's why the dates of the Biblical books are important. When archaeological evidence for events in the Bible weren't discovered, skeptics and atheists assumed the events did not occur and that the Biblical events were inaccurate.

The skeptic game is simple: if there are no artifacts to support an event or prophecy in Scripture, Scripture is deemed false. If there is and such verifies the Bible's accuracy, then it's because the passage was written after the fact.

But, as more evidence is unearthed, this tactic of non-believers is proven ineffective.

But you do not have the exact original copy and you don't how many times it was copied or altered before you got the 5000 copies you do have that are consistent.

No, he doesn't have the originals nor did he claim that he did. The point he is making is that the ancient manuscripts of the NT are far closer to the time period in which Jesus lived, than any other ancient manuscript is to the historical characters they describe. And we have far more copies of those NT manuscripts. Loco also mentioned that the copies, all 5000+ spanning hundreds of years, are virtually identical. And, keep in mind, that's just the copies in Greek. Throw in the other languages and the numbers exceed 20,000. The continuity of the NT documents, in those various language, is unequaled in ancient literature.

If, as Loco stated, the NT copies from 1st century A.D. and those from 4th century A.D. match, the odds heavily favors that the 1st-century copies match the originals.

 

[OzmO]

How else do you verify that an event happened, that is mentioned in Scripture? The supernatural has to manifest itself in the natural realm for human beings to witness it. As I said, the historical and archaeological evidence is part of the picture. The other is Biblical prophecy. That's why the dates of the Biblical books are important. When archaeological evidence for events in the Bible weren't discovered, skeptics and atheists assumed the events did not occur and that the Biblical events were inaccurate.

The skeptic game is simple: if there are no artifacts to support an event or prophecy in Scripture, Scripture is deemed false. If there is and such verifies the Bible's accuracy, then it's because the passage was written after the fact.

But, as more evidence is unearthed, this tactic of non-believers is proven ineffective.


No, he doesn't have the originals nor did he claim that he did. The point he is making is that the ancient manuscripts of the NT are far closer to the time period in which Jesus lived, than any other ancient manuscript is to the historical characters they describe. And we have far more copies of those NT manuscripts. Loco also mentioned that the copies, all 5000+ spanning hundreds of years, are virtually identical. And, keep in mind, that's just the copies in Greek. Throw in the other languages and the numbers exceed 20,000. The continuity of the NT documents, in those various language, is unequaled in ancient literature.

If, as Loco stated, the NT copies from 1st century A.D. and those from 4th century A.D. match, the odds heavily favors that the 1st-century copies match the originals.

 

This is what you said:

  - Historical and archaeologic evidence that validates Scripture, which leads to another favorite of mine.......
  - Biblical prophecy

Historical and archaeological evidence supports what is said in the Bible but does not make what's attached to it fact.

I understand your point of not being able to prove super natural occurrences, but your acceptance of these occurances as fact is little different from urban legends or other supernatural events from other religion as those religion have archaeological evidence that support them also.  Like Mt Olympus.

Re:  loco's assertion about 5000 copies.  It doesn't matter.  You don't have the original or the copies made in the many years before the 5000 were made.