The difference between the Christian God/religion and others

reply to post by resonance


I have a love/hate relationship with moocowman.The type of proof that
he wants,and will accept,has to be modern,scientific,carbon dated,seen
with his own eyes type.Anything that goes beyond his five senses is not
proof he will accept.
You and I go by faith,not by sight.Moocow has to have sight,because he
hasn't any faith.

reply to post by moocowman


www.rtforum.org...

this is lengthy but gives a full run down of the now accepted by many events of resurrection morning..there were 4 separate trips to the tomb and probably more..please read if you would like this cleared up for you

i welcome any contradictions..they help me to learn and strengthen my faith when proven to be nothing more than contextual or translation errors

reply to post by mamabeth


i understand the need for evidence..when i first started looking in to the bible i approached it with an open mind but looking for anything that didnt sit right..if i found something i did research to see if it could be backed up..every time it has been..i no longer need much because i have seen the bible proved right time and time again haha..

reply to post by resonance


..

if the exodus is such a bogus story i dont know why so many people have accepted it over the years..it should have died out early on..

In fear of death torture or ridicule people will believe what they are told or choose ie they will have faith regardless of the absence of evidence.

People believe bogus stories all the time mate look at modern day urban legends.gist (just meaning he did not have a degree in archaeology) who found chariot p

this is a page explaining the discoveries of ron wyatt..i knew of these but wanted to find more evidence..he was an amateur archaeoloarts

Give it a rest dude the charlatan Ron Wyatt has been debunked time and again as a lying fraud and clown, heres what some christians have to say about him -

Wyatt's "discoveries" have been rejected by real archaeologists not because, as Wyatt contends, they are jealous, or lack faith, but because his stories are unsubstantiated by facts. If facts are the basis for our faith (Christ actually died and rose again), then it is no lack of faith to demand of those with incredible claims that they be supported with evidence. The bottom line is: Wyatt has given us nothing to believe, so believe nothing he says!

Flavius Josephus who is a well known, well documented, and well accepted historian wrote of moses and the exodus..

Josephus was not an archeologist and never dug up half of egypt failing to find evidence of over 2 million hebre people being held captive there.

Hearsay stories are just that hearsay, retold over and over still no evidence and in your case "facts", so in this instance it is not a fact that the event tool place.

the above page shows a translation of his writings..he says God smote the egyptians..

He was not there (it was a story) and as there is no evidence for this god let alone it smiting anyone once again you have failed to produce a fact.

as i come across most historical evidence ill post it

What ? You off to dig in Egypt and find what no one else has found, ie evidence of 2 million slaves being held captive there ? I look forward to seeing your very long beard.

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by moocowman

 

www.rtforum.org...

this is lengthy but gives a full run down of the now accepted by many events of resurrection morning..there were 4 separate trips to the tomb and probably more..please read if you would like this cleared up for you

i welcome any contradictions..they help me to learn and strengthen my faith when proven to be nothing more than contextual or translation errors

"First, the inerrancy of Scriptural history does not require a complete account of the relevant events from any single author. "

Well there you go M that was a hell of a lot of reading to hear "well it's anybodies guess".

The admition of an inerrant bible destroys most arguments from the word go.

reply to post by resonance


JOHN 1

According to the fairy tale, the apostle John lived a remarkable life.

At what must have been a very tender age he fell in first with John the Baptist and, soon after, with Jesus himself. Renamed ‘Boanerges’ (‘son of thunder’) by the godman (Mark 3.17), the dying Christ apparently made him guardian of the Blessed Virgin no less. (What happened to John’s natural mother, one wonders?) Taking his new charge seriously, John re-settled Mary in Ephesus and here faced-down a challenge from the local high priest over a poisoned cup.

It was also in Ephesus that John fled the baths, lest the presence of the heretic Cerinthus should ‘cause the roof to fall’ (or so said Clement of Alexandria!). John became the most active of the apostles, next to Peter, organizing the early church in Palestine and throughout Asia Minor. Sometime around the age of eighty three (‘the last year of Domitian's reign’ i.e. 96 AD), he was exiled to the Roman penal colony of Patmos.

Uniquely in the history of the Roman judicial system, John survived immersion in burning oil. His jailers must have been so surprised that they provided him with writing materials and he wrote a best-selling 50,000 word horror story (‘Apocalypse’) about the imminent end of the world. Several years later, at a not inconsiderable age, this ‘unlearned ex-fisherman’, now a bishop, wrote the beautiful, ‘poetic’ gospel in best Greek that bears his name. He seems to have died peacefully at his retirement home in Ephesus.

What a guy!

In art he is represented by several emblems – he deserves them – among them an eagle and a cooking pot. Then again, maybe all of this is nonsense.

reply to post by resonance


JOHN 2

Pure Invention

Few people believe that the tormented author of Revelation can possibly be the same John credited with the Gospel and Epistles. The two books are utterly different, one full of apocalyptic hatred, the other a work of theology. Thus many Christians believe there were at least two Johns, an early and a late. Was even one of them an apostle called John accredited with a gospel? Says the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The historical genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at the present time almost universally denied outside the Catholic Church."

Why does almost everyone but a committed Catholic believe that the fourth gospel is a fake?

Consider the evidence:

Points of detail at odds with the synoptic gospels:

– the duration of Christ's public ministry is extended by John from one year to over three years, during which time John recounts three visits by Jesus to Jerusalem, not just one; within this extended time frame, John moves the so-called ‘purification of the temple’, which the synoptics put at the end of the Christ's ministry, to the beginning.

– John does not agree with the others on the day of crucifixion – surely an occasion of the utmost import? John says Christ held his last supper with his apostles on Thursday; according to the synoptics, the last supper was on Friday.

OK, so the old man’s memory could have been failing (though he remembers torturous dialogue verbatim!). But then consider the content of the gospel – very different from what we would expect from the ‘memoirs of an apostle’:

– While the synoptics focus on the anticipated ‘Kingdom of God’ (and Christ is ‘Son of Man’), John centres on Christ himself, as ‘Son of God’ and eternal king, and upon the evangelical goal of convincing others that Christ was the Messiah – sentiments more in keeping with an established church.

– the advanced theology of the fourth gospel is difficult to reconcile with the homely simplicity of the synoptics; this is allegedly an old fisherman’s tale, after all.

– the long discourses and colloquies of Jesus – remembered so clearly after more than sixty years?

– the dogmatic character of John's narrative sits oddly alongside the moral discourses of Jesus in the synoptic gospels.

reply to post by resonance


John 3

Oddities:

– John's Gospel is the work of a trained mind who wrote good Greek with some semitizing; but Acts 4.13 says that John was illiterate.

– John makes little reference to Galilee, which is scarcely what we would expect from a native of the province, especially since Galilee (supposedly) was the centre of Christ’s ministry. Nor does he mention at all his brother James.

– John makes frequent and unnecessary references to the "the Jews", as if they were a hostile group, e.g. "as I said unto the Jews" (John 13.33) said by Jesus (a Jew) to a group of Jews. He was one of them, was he not? John's knowledge of Judaism is also tainted. Critics cite John 18.13 in this regard (as if there were an annual priest): "and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year."

– The author of this work would hardly refer to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved."

– John does NOT mention the 'Transfiguration' – when supposedly Jesus was joined by Moses and Elias on a mountain top, transformed into "glory" and was addressed by God himself – an astounding omission considering that we are informed by each of the synoptic gospels that John was one of only three eye witnesses to this stunning miracle!

"And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus." – Mark 9.2,9.
– Similarly, John omits any mention of the raising of Jairus's daughter but according to Mark's gospel it was John who was a privileged witness:

"And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly ... And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment." – Mark 5.37,42.
– Nor does John mention the 'Ascension', one of the crucial events of the whole Christian story. Yet apparently John was a witness to this grand finale whereas the two reporters of the bizarre story (Mark and Luke) were not!

"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you ... And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." – Luke 24.33,

reply to post by resonance


John 4

Recovering Reality

If John’s Gospel is only in part a novel re-telling of the Jesus fable, what, then, is it really about?

Essentially, it is mid-second century theology written to combat rival, ‘heretical’ theologies. The authors sought not to re-write a Jesus history – they already had several versions of that! – but to define and dogmatise religious ideas and theological speculations and thus call a halt to the free-for-all theorising.

This was theology from the anti-theoreticians, from the ecclesiasta. John emphasizes, in opposition to the heretics, the divine status of Christ, rejecting out of hand the popular notion that Jesus was merely a man on whom the Holy Spirit had descended. In consequence, the authors suppress entirely the sequence where John baptised Jesus and have the baptist further demean himself:

"He must increase, but I must decrease. He who comes from above is above all."
(John 3.30,31)

The whole narrative of the fourth gospel centres round Christ as the divine "Word." To gather up authority, it even begins with a borrowing from Genesis: "In the beginning …"

Again and again, John repeats the message: the divine Word, divine Love, the fullness of his Grace and Truth, and so on. Unlike the pithy, ambiguous ‘sayings’ in the synoptics, in John, whole discourses are chronicled. These include the famous "I ams" borrowed from the Old Testament (self-referrals by God himself): I am the Redeemer; I am the Light of the World; I am the Way; I am the True Vine; I am the Bread of Life; I am the Lamb, etc, etc. Jesus is elevated to nothing less than eternal co-creator of the universe – beat that, heretic!

As evidence of this astounding claim, the writers chronicle many of the miracles by which Christ revealed himself, adding a new one, the raising of Lazarus, not found in the synoptics. The purpose was to establish divinity.

Again in opposition to heretics, who tended to reject the (pagan-like) significance of baptism, wine, special bread etc., or regarded them as mere symbols for a subjective psychological state, John stresses these ceremonial aspects (beloved by the hierarchy). Chapters 3, 6, and 15 all stress rebirth in "water and spirit", partaking of the "bread of heaven", of the "true vine," etc. There is a lot of reliance on lengthy discourses which conveniently rebut the claims of heretics.

reply to post by moocowman


you sir try way to hard to find hole's..i never said i believe wyatt, of all his stories the red sea one in my opinion is the most likely but i never said i believed it...

Josephus was not an archeologist and never dug up half of egypt failing to find evidence of over 2 million hebre people being held captive there.

Hearsay stories are just that hearsay, retold over and over still no evidence and in your case "facts", so in this instance it is not a fact that the event tool place.

...here you are just making things up again which really is no fun..i would much rather you provide some evidence to say that this is hearsay...if you want to argue you need to back up your points as well..

and i never said josephus was an archaeologist..i said historian..which he was..and if you read the link i posted, an egyptian commented on moses being in egypt, said god smote egypt, and more...

as to the rest of your post..you constantly try to poke at certain parts to find holes in what i tell you..please explain why you feel the way you do about things as i have...now what kind of evidence would suffice..you are certainly not going to find 2million footprints still in the sand followed my chariots..so i do not know what you expect..

the FACT is ..we have more ancient texts of the bible than whole chapters of roman history...and this egyptian who mention moses and god smiting egypt is relied on to fill in the Pharaohs of ancient egypt...he would not write what he did in the middle of serious historical documentation as a joke..

you have no basis for disagreeing with me besides you dont like what im telling you and until you present ME with some factual evidence to the contrary your argument is weak and pointless...

for instance if we were in court..you have no evidence..i have presented some..i win..

reply to post by moocowman


your arguments are so sad..if you would continue reading it explains what it means..that just because a detail may be left out in scripture by one author does not mean it is wrong or did not happen..for instance..matthew's book is more detailed than the others because he wrote every day as part of his job..the other books also put more emphasis in certain areas due to the nature of the writer..

your arrogance and stubbornness is really blinding you and i pray that stops one day..if you would open your mind and not be so fixated on problems you would be able to see there are none..you are creating problems on your own as many do

Really? A quick search reveals a common sense answer, but then again, your goal is not understanding... but only airing your own opinion


...even though Luke does not specifically refer to the two men as angels; the fact that he describes these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting” should have been a dead give away. Moreover, as a historian addressing a predominately Gentile audience, Doctor Luke—no doubt—measured his words carefully so as not to rise give unnecessarily to pagan superstitions.

Finally, as with Mark, the fact that Matthew only references one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present. After reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke or John, for that matter, there is ample data by which a real historian can determine that the man described by Mark was indeed an angel and that “men in clothes that gleamed as lighting” were angelic, and that though Matthew only mentions an angel, he clearly does not preclude the possibility that another was present. CRI

reply to post by moocowman


please cite where you got all the john information if you would..seeing as how it begins with "according to the fairy tale" i cant really tell if it is unbiased..

[edit on 12-1-2010 by resonance]

Thank you for the link. A compromise story about how Judas died does not solve the problem.

Either Luke's story is correct as it is written, or else Luke was less than candid in the opening verses of his gospel.

"Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received."

The problem, then, is not to explain how Judas died. Luke did a complete and adequate investigation, or else he did not. If we have to fiddle and diddle, then he did not. If we do not fiddle and diddle, then Matthew erred. That's your problem.

Luke is not an eyewitness. He had better be a competent investigator, 'cause you really, really need his Acts for Paul to have any authority at all.

i think it looks better lol, but who in their right mind would randomly just up and do that..

Quite a few men, not just Jewish men, are circumcised. It can't all be on account of crazy people playing mohel.

The point of including of the just-plain preference in my list was that very little study of anatomy is required to form an aesthetic taste. It is pretty obvious that the flap of skin is just that. No more medical science is involved than is needed to realize that many body piercings will not be fatal. You can always experiment on a few prisoners of war, or your slaves, if some empirical data is needed for FDA approval.

Other cultures have hit on the practice. It may have been distinctively Hebrew in the "cradle of Western Civilization," but worldwide, people who had never heard of Yahweh have adopted the practice, perhaps as a rite of passage.

And, of course, what gets rewarded is doing the right thing, not investigating what is the right thing to do. Jewish women end up having less cervical cancer, maybe fewer gynecological problems generally, in the poor conditions of the ancient world. More babies survive to make more babies in their turn.

So, your people survive, and your national book gets read by other peoples. To whatever extent, cleaner rods contribute to that success, and nobody need have a clue why. So long as you actually do it, why you do it makes no difference whatsoever, and not knowing why it makes a difference makes no difference.

reply to post by eight bits


the gospels were not about judas...they are about jesus..why would they need to give a detailed account of judas' death..all they really needed to say was he died...now logically..a person can not just fall on their head and their guts bust out, that can happen however if someone falls from a height..it never says how he fell..it never says he didnt fall after he hung himself..

it is perfectly logical that matthew only wanted to say judas hung himself as that sounds much better than falling and having your guts bust out (that is kinda tmi, and as matthew is a good writer i dont think he would include that)..but maybe luke when writing thought judas' death needed to be more violent for what he did..so he chose to include the gut busting part..we do not know what they were thinking when writing..but it is perfectly logical that both events happened..

the authors were different people..they all focused on different aspects of jesus in their gospels..there is no reason to assume they would all include every detail exactly the same as they did not write their gospels together..

[edit on 12-1-2010 by resonance]

Providing evidence is nice and all, but if you recall Jesus' narrative of the rich man and Lazuras, even if people seen someone return from the dead, they still would not believe. They say "I don't believe simply because of A, B, C.." then once refuted, they forget about A,B,C, and move on to "well D, E, F is false so I don't believe". There are some people that simply choose to play this game of tossing around fallacies as a means of avoiding the main issue. Just look at some of the foolish topics in this forum that people subscribe to, that have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, yet they cling to them with religious fervor. If they say they don't believe the Bible because of the facts, they are only lying to themselves.

reply to post by kingofmd


oh i know..i just enjoy these discussions..it helps me learn..gives me new things to research..and who knows maybe an open minded person will read all of this and start looking in to the bible

Originally posted by resonance
reply to post by kingofmd

 

oh i know..i just enjoy these discussions..it helps me learn..gives me new things to research..and who knows maybe an open minded person will read all of this and start looking in to the bible

Yeah, I don't mean stop by any means, because there are people that read these posts (w/o replying), and will investigate for themselves and come to the Truth. Myself being one of them 5 years ago. Anyone that honestly/objectively evaluates the Bible comes to the same conclusion, Jesus is God, and there is only one way to be saved.

the gospels were not about judas...they are about jesus..why would they need to give a detailed account of judas' death..all they really needed to say was he died...

Actually, Luke brings it up in Acts, and Peter explains why it must be discussed. Peter has determined that there is a vacancy in the Twelve that must be filled.

This is official church business. And if, as Matthew says, Judas died before the Resurrection, why didn't Jesus fill the vacancy, if there was some vacancy to be filled?

That's a rhetorical question, you needn't answer. The point is that Luke needs the details to be his way and not Matthew's way in order for Peter's decision in Acts 1 to make sense - for it even to be Peter's decision to make.

On another subthread...

That's all swell, moocowman, but:

The Gospel of John itself does not claim to be written by John the Apostle, nor does it identify the Beloved Disciple by name. The gospel's claim is that it is based on something written by an eyewitness (obviously not all of the gospel, since nobody could have witnessed the opening verses except Jesus himself, and enough is said about the Beloved Disciple to exclude his being Jesus).

John 21: 24

It is [the Beloved Disciple] who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

That's it. Nothing about the relationship between the finished product and what the witness wrote, and nothing about who the witness was.

Rarely have I seen a dead horse so expertly beaten.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by eight bits]

reply to post by resonance

you sir try way to hard to find hole's..i never said i believe wyatt, of all his stories the red sea one in my opinion is the most likely but i never said i believed it...

If you didn't believe wyatt why introduce him ?

It was you who started out like this -

I do not pressure people into my belief, i present them with the facts and let them make their decision as that is all i can do.

I've asked you to present facts and you introduce Wyatt, implying you accept his nonsense, but now you're claiming you didn't believe him.

You will of course remember that you introduced wyatt in response to the request of factual evidence proving over 2 million Hebrew people were held captive as slaves in Egypt.

You have still not provided a fact that this was the case introducing Josephus as proof of a fact doesn't help your case. Josephus was a Jew of course he's going to be aware about the Moses "story" but certainly does not make it a fact no more Claudius retelling the tale of Mithras.

You make yourself look foolish by whining I'm no listening, dude I'm all ears and I've heard Wyatt and Josephus neither of these are evidence to that over 2 million jews were held captive in egypt, please bare in mind that the Egyptian evidence speaks to the contrary.