Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What makes you believe?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Indeed. We can show that the New Testament accounts were not likely to have been corrupted through these 40,000 documents. The reason so many exist is probably because it was such an extraordinary claim.
Biblical archaeology has been bringing more and more to the debate also. After claims that Nazareth didn't even exist during Jesus' time, amongst others evidence has come to the contrary. I expect that other such finds will also shed light on the historicity of the Bible, including the Exodus from Egypt.
Hello there Jakkass. You seem a decent, kind hearted sort and are not exactly the kind of figure who would bring Christianity into disrepute through excessive zeal and savagery. Just thought I should point that out
With regards to the quoted statement above, I don't think there is that much debate about how authentic the bible manuscripts are - the editing which has taken place has been relatively minimal, considering we have a lot of originals to compare with. Most of the problems really lie in translation, and in those who take the words of the Bible literally. And there is also the historical problem associated with which gospels were accepted when the Church organised itself properly for the first time, and the reasons for why they were excluded. In my opinion this takes much of the halo away from the four gospels, since they were written by fallible men, chosen by fallible men for mainly political reasons, and are alike to the other gospels written but discarded, and forgotten by only the most archaic of scholars. The four gospels in this sense, are far from satisfactory.
A literal reading of the Bible scares the hell out of me to be honest, and its perhaps the one criteria in my mind which distinguishes a fundamentalist from a thoughtful Christian. The problem with the Gospels is not that they were 'invented' but that they were exaggerated; I think there is little doubt that the words of the Bible as written by their respective authors are genuine - the problem is that the people who wrote them are mere mortals, and hence fallible. Which is why when I read the bible (And I have read it numerous times, as well as having read the Koran) I read it as a philosophical tract, not an historical work, or even a literal religious narrative. The gospels are a hagiography, no more, no less, written by mortal men for other mortal men, which are abused, misquoted and misunderstood to the extent that only mortal men are guilty of.
P.S- I also have always found it curious when the religious quote other parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as a substitute for the Gospels of Jesus Christ - why is that important exactly? Why does a Christian not simply concentrate all his energies on the actual gospels that deals with his life and times? I don't really see how a Christian can consider St. Paul as relevant in any way other than the fact that he was supposedly 'consumed' by God. Christ, as the son of God, should be the forefront and sole arbiter of the Christian faith - why do the prophets of the Old Testament and St. Paul regularly get rolled out in discussions like these?
P.P.S- I am aware that Jesus said something along the lines of 'not forgetting those who came before me', but still.0 -
-
Anton.Mamyko wrote: »I find your stance interesting.
It's not mine, I'd argue. It's His.Question: The members of those religious orders that you have listed as being self righteous, are they then as lost as in the eyes of God as much as I would be, if not more so?
As pointed out to you earlier, the man-attached label isn't the salient issue, it's the God-attached label that matters. And so, I'd warrant there will be folk in all those orders who have the God-attached label dangling from them, even as they work (uselessly) to make themselves righteous before God. Salvation doesn't necessarily bring that kind of clarity to a man
But if they are truly lost - as in not-(yet perhaps)-found then they are as lost as the secular irreligionist. They, and you (assuming you are lost) are precisely as you were the day you were born - lost. Whether a man engages in the "worship" of a religious false idol or a secular one doesn't alter anything in any material sense. There are only two states of being: lost and found. And one route across the divide: through Christ.
All the rest is window dressing.]I suppose at this stage it comes down to faith, which I don't have, for now. And if God does find me (or I find him) I'm sure it will not be a labeled belief.
Heh, in a way I do hope I am wrong and that there is something else other than nothing after this life...... (thoughts of a dying Athiest...)
I wouldn't worry about finding yourself with a labelled belief hanging from you if found - I know folk who attended the stuffiest of Churches on being saved - simply gagging for next Sundays service so they could hear more of Gods word (which is anything but stuffy).
But you're right. If you've no faith you've no reason to believe. Whereas Dawkins and the like are wont to consider faith as something blind (a kind of shot in the dark belief) the Bible has quite a different definition of the word. The King James version puts it like this at Hebrew 11:1 "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
When you have biblical faith it is the same as saying you have evidence. And when you have evidence from something (anything) you believe. Indeed, it's the only reason why one should believe anything. On the basis of evidence.
That that evidence (the utterly compelling evidence I mean) is spiritual in nature (as opposed to empirical, 5 sense stuff) need not put you off. If you are given faith by God it will be because you have already been saved. And you need not worry about the arguments anymore. You believe.0 -
-
-
Hello there Jakkass. You seem a decent, kind hearted sort and are not exactly the kind of figure who would bring Christianity into disrepute through excessive zeal and savagery. Just thought I should point that out
I try. It's up for other people to assess what kind of figure I am.And there is also the historical problem associated with which gospels were accepted when the Church organised itself properly for the first time, and the reasons for why they were excluded. In my opinion this takes much of the halo away from the four gospels, since they were written by fallible men, chosen by fallible men for mainly political reasons, and are alike to the other gospels written but discarded, and forgotten by only the most archaic of scholars. The four gospels in this sense, are far from satisfactory.
Alas, this is a favourable interpretation. However, the reality is that they chose the Gospels which were most reliable by dating and origin. The only books accepted in the New Testament were those written before 100AD.
How are the four Gospels "far from satisfactory"?A literal reading of the Bible scares the hell out of me to be honest, and its perhaps the one criteria in my mind which distinguishes a fundamentalist from a thoughtful Christian.
The Bible is a book of numerous literary genres. Certain parts are indeed to be interpreted literally, others allegorically. For example I don't interpret the parables of Jesus literally because they are intended to be allegorical. Likewise, I don't interpret Jesus' moral commandments in the Sermon of the Mount allegorically because they are intended to be followed.
Common sense. I don't personally regard myself as a fundamentalist, others are welcome to their views howeverThe problem with the Gospels is not that they were 'invented' but that they were exaggerated; I think there is little doubt that the words of the Bible as written by their respective authors are genuine - the problem is that the people who wrote them are mere mortals, and hence fallible.
This is the issue. What reasoning do you have for this? This is mere assumption and nothing more.Which is why when I read the bible (And I have read it numerous times, as well as having read the Koran) I read it as a philosophical tract, not an historical work, or even a literal religious narrative. The gospels are a hagiography, no more, no less, written by mortal men for other mortal men, which are abused, misquoted and misunderstood to the extent that only mortal men are guilty of.
It appears more that you do not want to believe as you think it insults your intelligence.P.S- I also have always found it curious when the religious quote other parts of the New Testament or the Old Testament as a substitute for the Gospels of Jesus Christ - why is that important exactly?
Jesus says this concerning the Old Testament:John 5:46-47 wrote:For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
The Bible is a full revelation. Other parts of the Old Testament refer to morality, and even prophesy about Jesus Himself. Jesus quotes the Old Testament prophets extensively, as such there is no reason to believe that these writings aren't legitimate. As for the New Testament Apostles, Jesus said the following:John 16:12-14 wrote:“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Jesus said that He would tell His Apostles more when they were ready through the Holy Spirit. This is the reason why we regard the Apostles so highly.Why does a Christian not simply concentrate all his energies on the actual gospels that deals with his life and times?
Precisely because God revealed more to us, and all of it is one revelation.I don't really see how a Christian can consider St. Paul as relevant in any way other than the fact that he was supposedly 'consumed' by God. Christ, as the son of God, should be the forefront and sole arbiter of the Christian faith - why do the prophets of the Old Testament and St. Paul regularly get rolled out in discussions like these?
See above.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement