The bible

[TimothyVI]

Thanks Jerry,

Much better.

TIm

[NickHassan]

Hi,
The bible is direct.
The teaching of Jesus can be offensive.

Matt 15
“12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? '

The Word of God demands change.
It demands repentance.
Instead it often initially provokes resentment and anger which is directed at the servant messengers who share it.

[Phoenix]

HI Nick

What just Repent and get baptised and thats it? we're saved?

Trust the HS and know that I wont sin again?

Hugs
Phoenix

[NickHassan]

Hi P,
Not quite so easy.
Not every seed sown takes root, and flourishes, and produces useful fruit.
But you do have to make a start and follow the way of Jesus.

[Proclaimer]

Quote

Since others want me to continue, I saw yet another contradiction in the resurrection accounts. This one is powerful because the contradiction takes place in the same book and chapter! ——————– Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. ——————– At this point notice that Peter did not encounter Jesus. He only found the empty tomb and then left. Notice what happens later ——————– Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. ——————– Where? Not in Luke! In fact none of the gospels have Jesus appearing to Peter (Simon) personally. The best clue we have to this is 1 Cor 15:5 ——————– 1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: ——————– Anyone notice a problem with this verse? Other than the fact that it is not supported in the gospel accounts? Paul says Jesus appeared to 'the twelve'. When Jesus was resurrected there was only 11 apostles! The 12th after Judas was not chosen until after Jesus ascended. So Paul has no clue, he is going by oral legend. Maybe he doesn't even know about Judas! The Christian bible has some nice philosophy but it fails miserably as a historical text.

I believe that a lot of these so-called contradictions can be explained in the same way a crime scene can pose inconsistencies when hearing the testimony of witnesses, but once the truth is understood, you can see how each thing fits in. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but when you are trying to work out what happened from eye witness accounts, it is easy to not see all the possibilities. E.g., it is easy for one person to not mention something that someone else mentions, yet that in itself would never lead a detective to think that this feature were not present, just because one person doesn't mention it. Non-mention does not equal non-happening.

That said, I would like to point something out to you. The gospels do not claim to be perfect, rather they are eye witness accounts.

You actually need to read each book in the bible for itself and see what it claims. Remember that the bible is a collection of books written by different authors at different times.

So what do the gospels claim?

Well here is at least what Luke claims:

Luke 1:1-4
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So as you can see, it is eye witness accounts compiled to explain what happened for those who were not present. So if that being the case, it would be understandably not a perfect record.

However in saying that, in court we may have say small contradictions in a crime from different eye witnesses, but this doesn't negate that what they are saying didn't happen. I bet if you worked as a detective that you would rarely find a crime with eye witness accounts that matched perfectly. In fact if you did, you could even suspect a conspiracy or working together of the eye witnesses. Likewise if the writers of the gospels had compared notes and made sure that all things lined up perfectly, then would we have a conspiracy? And if they wrote independently of each other, and ninety five percent lined up, then one would assume that you had a stronger case. Then you may also find that the 5% that appears to contradict could be anything from contradiction to not seeing the full picture or scenario where all the facts can fit.

OK, so that is the gospels.

But other books make different claims.

Malachi 1
An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.

Hosea 1
The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel:

Matthew 1 says
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ…

Finally we have the the Book of Revelation, which claims the following:
1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
2 who testifies to everything he saw that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So direct and powerful is this revelation that it actually says in Revelation 22:18-19:

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Towshab what I am saying is common sense and is what any investigator would do. But you appear to have neglected this so far.

Given this info, you would also need to factor in translation issues. But that doesn't make studying the bible impossible. No it just makes it more complex and then you also have to factor in whether you take something literally or symbolically.

[Towshab]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 28 2007,21:17)

Quote Since others want me to continue, I saw yet another contradiction in the resurrection accounts. This one is powerful because the contradiction takes place in the same book and chapter! ——————– Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. ——————– At this point notice that Peter did not encounter Jesus. He only found the empty tomb and then left. Notice what happens later ——————– Luk 24:34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. ——————– Where? Not in Luke! In fact none of the gospels have Jesus appearing to Peter (Simon) personally. The best clue we have to this is 1 Cor 15:5 ——————– 1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: ——————– Anyone notice a problem with this verse? Other than the fact that it is not supported in the gospel accounts? Paul says Jesus appeared to 'the twelve'. When Jesus was resurrected there was only 11 apostles! The 12th after Judas was not chosen until after Jesus ascended. So Paul has no clue, he is going by oral legend. Maybe he doesn't even know about Judas! The Christian bible has some nice philosophy but it fails miserably as a historical text. I believe that a lot of these so-called contradictions can be explained in the same way a crime scene can pose inconsistencies when hearing the testimony of witnesses, but once the truth is understood, you can see how each thing fits in. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but when you are trying to work out what happened from eye witness accounts, it is easy to not see all the possibilities. E.g., it is easy for one person to not mention something that someone else mentions, yet that in itself would never lead a detective to think that this feature were not present, just because one person doesn't mention it. Non-mention does not equal non-happening. That said, I would like to point something out to you. The gospels do not claim to be perfect, rather they are eye witness accounts.

Then you do not believe that the Christian bible is inerrent and inspired? What part is to be trusted then if there are that many discrepancies?

Quote

You actually need to read each book in the bible for itself and see what it claims. Remember that the bible is a collection of books written by different authors at different times. So what do the gospels claim? Well here is at least what Luke claims: Luke 1:1-4 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. So as you can see, it is eye witness accounts compiled to explain what happened for those who were not present. So if that being the case, it would be understandably not a perfect record.

I just have to ask this: if the gospels were eyewitness accounts why were they written so many years after Jesus supposed death? Why not immediately while the events were fresh?

Let me ask you, would you wait 30-40 years to try to recount something in your life? How old are you? How much detail would you remember after that many years? Especially the actual words that someone said?

Don't you find it odd that the very first person to write about Jesus was the very one who never met him face to face (Paul)?

Quote

However in saying that, in court we may have say small contradictions in a crime from different eye witnesses, but this doesn't negate that what they are saying didn't happen. I bet if you worked as a detective that you would rarely find a crime with eye witness accounts that matched perfectly. In fact if you did, you could even suspect a conspiracy or working together of the eye witnesses. Likewise if the writers of the gospels had compared notes and made sure that all things lined up perfectly, then would we have a conspiracy? And if they wrote independently of each other, and ninety five percent lined up, then one would assume that you had a stronger case. Then you may also find that the 5% that appears to contradict could be anything from contradiction to not seeing the full picture or scenario where all the facts can fit.

But how many of these witnesses would claim inspiration from G-d? That is what Christians want to believe. I don't know how you feel but my G-d is not that imperfect.

Quote

OK, so that is the gospels. But other books make different claims. Malachi 1 An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi. Hosea 1 The word of the LORD that came to Hosea son of Beeri during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel: Matthew 1 says A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ… Finally we have the the Book of Revelation, which claims the following: 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. So direct and powerful is this revelation that it actually says in Revelation 22:18-19: 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

I'm not following your line of reasoning here. Did you know that G-d also said not to add or remove anything from the Torah? Yet Paul comes along and tells everyone that the Torah is a worthless bunch of words. Do you expect me to take his word against Hashem's?
——————————-
Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
————————–
—-
So what does G-d say about Paul? That he is a liar.

Quote

Towshab what I am saying is common sense and is what any investigator would do. But you appear to have neglected this so far.

No. Because Christians say that their bible is inspired and without error. If I am to believe this than contradictions call this assertion into question.

Quote

Given this info, you would also need to factor in translation issues. But that doesn't make studying the bible impossible. No it just makes it more complex and then you also have to factor in whether you take something literally or symbolically.

I've seen some of this literal vs symbolic stuff on some of the other threads. I will not get into those threads because it matters little to me about the trinity or whether Jesus had some form of eternal existence since I deny he is the Messiah anyway.

[Not3in1]

2 John 7-11, in part

Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world.

Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

Anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and Son.

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 29 2007,15:36)

Then you do not believe that the Christian bible is inerrent and inspired? What part is to be trusted then if there are that many discrepancies?

Towshab it is self explanatory.

Many books give the method that the books came about. You don't need to ask me, just go to each book and read for yourself as I said.

You ask about inspired.

Well Christ's example may inspire a person to live a holy life. Another person may get a word from on high and be asked to write it down. Both are inspired.

God is perfect, but he does work through imperfect vessels. If you are looking for imperfections in Christianity, then you will find many. So what? I do not claim perfection. I do not claim that bibles have been perfectly translated, and I do not claim that even the bible itself is 100% inspired by God to the point that God sort of did automatic writing through people.

But nevertheless, God works through people. Perfection will happen, just not while we are in the flesh.

That said, all scripture and prophecy was inspired by God. And yes there is scripture and prophecy in the bible. In fact I heard that prophecy accounts for 1/3 of the bible's content alone. But I have also read where Paul gives an opinion as a man with wisdom. To some degree that is inspired too, as wisdom from God is a form of inspiration.

But I have also read accounts where the Devil said something or wicked men spoke. These accounts are not pretending to be the very words of God, are they?

Get over it Towshab. Some things are just common sense.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 29 2007,15:36)

I just have to ask this: if the gospels were eyewitness accounts why were they written so many years after Jesus supposed death? Why not immediately while the events were fresh? Let me ask you, would you wait 30-40 years to try to recount something in your life? How old are you? How much detail would you remember after that many years? Especially the actual words that someone said? Don't you find it odd that the very first person to write about Jesus was the very one who never met him face to face (Paul)?

What do you mean if? If a gospel says it is an eye witness account, then who are we to argue? Surely each books claim is more valid than what we make them out to be.

Would I wait 40 years?

No. But who knows why or if they did? Maybe they thought that Christ was coming back in their lifetime and they just focused on preaching the gospel to the world. Then again, they could have documented Jesus teachings, but released the gospels (or compilation of his teachings) years later when the memory started to wear thin. That makes sense to me, but there is not enough detail to make a conclusion here.

But regardless, eye witness accounts are better than oral tradition are they not?

My faith doesn't rest on the gospels being perfect and never have. I have a real relationship with God, that is all I need. I am glad that the gospel were written, it helps me understand Christ when he walked here as a man and frames his teachings in a context that shows the events that took place in those days. That said, my faith is in knowing God, not in books that talk about God or his son. The books contain teachings that help me stay on track that is true. But that is not what my faith is based on.

When Jesus left, he said to teach men all that he taught. So the gospels have preserved much of his teaching. But John says that if he included all the stories about Jesus that there wouldn't be enough books in all the world to contain them.

As I said before, you or I do not know if his teachings were written down earlier. It seems plausible that they would have been, but there is no proof either way. But the gospels contain Jesus teachings in context to events. A sort of greatest hits as I would imagine that the gospel writers recorded the more prominent works and teachings of Christ.

When you see the greatest hits from an artist, do you just assume that the songs were written right there and then? Of course not. They were written before hand and released in that fashion later on.

Now look what Luke says regarding the eye witness account.

“it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

So who is to say that what he was taught wasn't written down in some form?

Again, common sense should prevail Towshab. Your imagination as to what happened here would be pretty thin at best, wouldn't you say?

[kenrch]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 29 2007,17:07)

2 John 7-11, in part Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

Quote

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

WOW! Would that go to Stu too?

Just wondering.

Both have the same message, do they not?

[Not3in1]

Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 30 2007,14:32)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 29 2007,17:07) 2 John 7-11, in part Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. Quote If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. WOW!  Would that go to Stu too? Just wondering. Both have the same message, do they not?

Good question.

The difference, in my opinion, is that Stu does not claim to know God. In fact, he does not even believe he exists. Also, Stu is not teaching from the bible or any brand of Jewish/Christian doctrine in efforts to lead many into doubt.

I believe this passage is talking about believer's who are not acknowledging Jesus who has come in the flesh.

But suffice it to say my days of conversing with Stu are nearly over too. I've said my peace and he has said his. I'm not sure why he is here, to be honest, and he hasn't cared to answer that question yet.

[kenrch]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 30 2007,14:53)

Quote (kenrch @ Oct. 30 2007,14:32) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 29 2007,17:07) 2 John 7-11, in part Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. Quote If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.  Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. WOW!  Would that go to Stu too? Just wondering. Both have the same message, do they not? Good question. The difference, in my opinion, is that Stu does not claim to know God.  In fact, he does not even believe he exists.  Also, Stu is not teaching from the bible or any brand of Jewish/Christian doctrine in efforts to lead many into doubt. I believe this passage is talking about believer's who are not acknowledging Jesus who has come in the flesh. But suffice it to say my days of conversing with Stu are nearly over too.  I've said my peace and he has said his.  I'm not sure why he is here, to be honest, and he hasn't cared to answer that question yet.

Your right Sis on both accounts.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 29 2007,14:17)

but when you are trying to work out what happened from eye witness accounts

t8

I’d be interested in your views on these clippings from Wikipedia

Gospel of Matthew:
Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry.

Gospel of Mark:
The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses.

Gospel of Luke:
Luke's own statement at the beginning of Acts freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel.

Gospel of John:
Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle.

Where are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, written directly by people who indisputably saw him in person?

Stuart

[Not3in1]

Concering John, he received direct revelation, so in my opinion that is better than eye-witness status. However, it cannot be proven – faith is required – although not the same faith that is required to believe in the pixies at the edge of your garden – we are talking about holy faith which is rewarded! Trust me, I've received some of these rewards.

[Stu]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 31 2007,04:17)

Concering John, he received direct revelation, so in my opinion that is better than eye-witness status.     However, it cannot be proven – faith is required – although not the same faith that is required to believe in the pixies at the edge of your garden – we are talking about holy faith which is rewarded!  Trust me, I've received some of these rewards.

They're fairies not pixies, Not3in1, but they forgive you.
They are quite pleased that you acknowledge the depth and truth of faith required to serve them in a just manner. Join me if you like in praising their little green fingers that make even African Violets grow in pots. A miracle indeed.

Stuart

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2007,19:56)

Quote (t8 @ Oct. 29 2007,14:17) but when you are trying to work out what happened from eye witness accounts t8 I’d be interested in your views on these clippings from Wikipedia Gospel of Matthew: Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. Gospel of Mark: The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Gospel of Luke: Luke's own statement at the beginning of Acts freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel. Gospel of John: Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. Where are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, written directly by people who indisputably saw him in person? Stuart

stu

Have you noticed that Wikipedia can be edited and information can be added by anyone.

Wikipedia is not always right.

Fact is Jesus existence can not be proven by the natural. Neither can anyone prove he dosnt exist. He is Spirit and can only be known by faith.

Like the wind. You know its there for you can feel it and you can see its results blowing on the trees, but you dont know where it comes from or where it is going and you cant reach out and grab a handfull.

The Spirit blows like the wind and those who have faith can see its results and feel its presence.

But to explain that to an Agnostic or unbeliever is like explaining to someone who has never eaten a peach what one taste like.

Taste and see that the Lord is Good!

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 01 2007,07:28)

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2007,19:56) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 29 2007,14:17) but when you are trying to work out what happened from eye witness accounts t8 I’d be interested in your views on these clippings from Wikipedia Gospel of Matthew: Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. Gospel of Mark: The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Gospel of Luke: Luke's own statement at the beginning of Acts freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel. Gospel of John: Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. Where are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, written directly by people who indisputably saw him in person? Stuart stu Have you noticed that Wikipedia can be edited and information can be added by anyone. Wikipedia is not always right. Fact is Jesus existence can not be proven by the natural. Neither can anyone prove he dosnt exist. He is Spirit and can only be known by faith. Like the wind. You know its there for you can feel it and you can see its results blowing on the trees, but you dont know where it comes from or where it is going and you cant reach out and grab a handfull. The Spirit blows like the wind and those who have faith can see its results and feel its presence. But to explain that to an Agnostic or unbeliever is like explaining to someone who has never eaten a peach what one taste like. Taste and see that the Lord is Good!

Hi worshippingjesus

I'm a bit confused by this answer. You are saying that Wikipedia is unreliable (it certainly needs to be checked against other sources, I agree) but then you are essentially saying that it is right, that there were no eyewitness accounts and that the words and deeds of Jesus, indeed his existence are things that must be taken on faith, because there actually is no reliable historical record?

Stuart

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2007,19:38)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 01 2007,07:28) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 30 2007,19:56) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 29 2007,14:17) but when you are trying to work out what happened from eye witness accounts t8 I’d be interested in your views on these clippings from Wikipedia Gospel of Matthew: Secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. Gospel of Mark: The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses. Gospel of Luke: Luke's own statement at the beginning of Acts freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel. Gospel of John: Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. Where are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus, written directly by people who indisputably saw him in person? Stuart stu Have you noticed that Wikipedia can be edited and information can be added by anyone. Wikipedia is not always right. Fact is Jesus existence can not be proven by the natural. Neither can anyone prove he dosnt exist. He is Spirit and can only be known by faith. Like the wind. You know its there for you can feel it and you can see its results blowing on the trees, but you dont know where it comes from or where it is going and you cant reach out and grab a handfull. The Spirit blows like the wind and those who have faith can see its results and feel its presence. But to explain that to an Agnostic or unbeliever is like explaining to someone who has never eaten a peach what one taste like. Taste and see that the Lord is Good! Hi worshippingjesus I'm a bit confused by this answer.  You are saying that Wikipedia is unreliable (it certainly needs to be checked against other sources, I agree)  but then you are essentially saying that it is right, that there were no eyewitness accounts and that the words and deeds of Jesus, indeed his existence are things that must be taken on faith, because there actually is no reliable historical record? Stuart

stu

Yes you are correct, the wikipedia needs to checked by other sources.

That was my point.

The most reliable historical evidence is the scriptures!

The scriptures were written over a period of 1600 years by 40 authors, many of them confirming each other and speaking the same things, though some were centuries apart and of different backgrounds!

The Bible is still the best selling book ever. and always has been. The Bible is responsible for changing the course of history and cultures and men. That accounts for a lot. No other book has had more influence on man than the Bible.

But if you were to take it away, which many have tried for centurys, then believers in Christ would still exist because our Faith is not just in a letter but in a living Jesus who lives in us by his Spirit.

In fact it is the Spirit of truth that brings the scriptures to life for the believers.

To the unbeliever it is a dead letter.

Jn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him (not a letter) should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It is a historical fact that many believers died for their faith in him.

Anyone who does not believe these facts is pulling blinders over their own eyes.

[IM4Truth]

W,J. I believe that God is pulling blinders over their eyes. Unless God lets you see and teaches you by His Holy Spirit we will not belief. The Father does the calling and gives us to Jesus and he will not loose us. That is His promise and I for one am taking Jesus up on that. Yes Sir. I was baptized and received the Holy Spirit. I doubt that Stu has done so. Otherwise I do not think He would write like this, what do you think?

Peace and LoveMrs.

Peace and Love Mrs.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 02 2007,06:27)

W,J. I believe that God is pulling blinders over their eyes. Unless God lets you see and teaches you by His Holy Spirit we will not belief. The Father does the calling and gives us to Jesus and he will not loose us. That is His promise and I for one am taking Jesus up on that. Yes Sir. I was baptized and received the Holy Spirit. I doubt that Stu has done so. Otherwise I do not think He would write like this, what do you think? Peace and LoveMrs. Peace and Love Mrs.

Imfortruth

You are correct Sis!

Knowing God can only be done by his Spirit and not by intellectual arguments.

This is why the dialogue and the debates on this forum will never change anyone by themselves.

We can only hope that the Spirit of truth will shine brightly until it breaks through to those who have an honest and a sincere heart and desire to know him who is truth.

Blessings!

[Author]

Posts