Christians: Can you defend these verses of the Bible? - Page 5 - New England Patriots Forums

Wildo7 · 12-01-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

true. Shouldnt argue anyway. Nobody ever came to Faith because thet lost the arguement.

Whats interesting to me how many people WILL go on and on discussing matters pertaining to "The Force" or Klingons or Aliens and things featured on "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and will take many theories as faith things involving extra-terrestrials or Ghosts or all sorts of supernatural things, they'll pay big money to Psychics and they will believe their Grandmother watches over them like in the movies. Or they believe in a Heaven concocted up by Albert Brooks where the Sushi is great or in the one that Patrick Swayze went to.

But when a man fulfills hundreds of prohesies that were written long before his time in a book that has been researched and challenged more than any other in history and STILL has never been disproven, people will say "Awww, that cant happen....anyone believing in that must be stupid"

Its nothing I care to argue about, its just interesting to me how a society so wanting to believe any fairy tale that it hears gets so closed minded and "scientific" about anything involving the idea of a Creator.

except for the prophecies part, I totally agree with you here.

wistahpatsfan · 12-03-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

...But when a man fulfills hundreds of prohesies that were written long before his time in a book that has been researched and challenged more than any other in history and STILL has never been disproven, people will say "Awww, that cant happen....anyone believing in that must be stupid"....

Lifer,
No disrespect intended here, but you're thick-skinned enough:
I think the jury was in on what Jesus' life was about, but something tells me that the jury is out again. The Gnostic Gospels that have been re-invigorated recently shed new light on our interpretation of the words written by people who were interpreting what the apostles were interpreting about what Jesus said and did. There is a LOT of third and fourth-hand information in the NT. Most of it wasn't even recorded until generations after the death of Jesus. When I think of the political, cultural, and all other conditions of living between 33AD and 500AD, all I can think of is how people struggled to survive, much less give an accurate account of something that occurred 100 or 200 years prior.

What do you make of the time delay and subsequent editiing of the NT?

Lifer · 12-04-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Lifer,
No disrespect intended here, but you're thick-skinned enough:
I think the jury was in on what Jesus' life was about, but something tells me that the jury is out again. The Gnostic Gospels that have been re-invigorated recently shed new light on our interpretation of the words written by people who were interpreting what the apostles were interpreting about what Jesus said and did. There is a LOT of third and fourth-hand information in the NT. Most of it wasn't even recorded until generations after the death of Jesus. When I think of the political, cultural, and all other conditions of living between 33AD and 500AD, all I can think of is how people struggled to survive, much less give an accurate account of something that occurred 100 or 200 years prior.

What do you make of the time delay and subsequent editiing of the NT?

As I do not pretend to be qualified and educated enough to give a satisfactory answer on matter like this, I would refer you to either the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, or books by Josh McDowell, as any Biblically based Pastor. I would say there is lot of FIRSTHAND information in the NT, The writers of the Gospels were there. Peter was there. The Book of Acts tells of some pretty amazing firsthand spiritual experiences.

And again, much about Faith is believing first, then things get cleared up pretty quickly. Its a different approach from where Man usually comes from, needing all the factual evidence first. But thats why I recommend Stobel and McDowell, 2 non-believers who set out to disprove, and came to intellectual conclusions.

PatsFanInVa · 12-05-2008, 05:47 PM

Lifer, the Gospels were not signed. You don't even know who wrote them.

How do you know their writers were there? We can assign certain probabilities - most scholars say a high probability for the writers of Mark and Matthew, for at least second-hand knowledge, perhaps first-hand. Lower probability for the writer of Luke and very little for the writer of John.

What makes you think you can just say they were there?

Lifer · 12-06-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Lifer, the Gospels were not signed. You don't even know who wrote them.

How do you know their writers were there? We can assign certain probabilities - most scholars say a high probability for the writers of Mark and Matthew, for at least second-hand knowledge, perhaps first-hand. Lower probability for the writer of Luke and very little for the writer of John.

What makes you think you can just say they were there?

It is an absolute falsehood to imply that I am just pulling that idea out from a hat or something. This has been debated roundly by many people from both sides and Im not getting sucked into a debate about it here.

I choose to side with those who believe, and many of them are scholars, that John was the author of his Gospel. Part by what I know from the facts, and yes, partly from Faith.

Again, its not MY whacked out pulled from left field conclusions, and I encourage people to seek it out, pick up The Case for Christ, or read Josh McDowell, or google it.

If you dont believe it, PFIV, thats fine, just dont be disengenious by making it seem like this is a new idea fashioned by Lifer. You've made it clear that you are "disgusted" by this theology. So be it. Its your right.

PatsFanInVa · 12-06-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

It is an absolute falsehood to imply that I am just pulling that idea out from a hat or something. This has been debated roundly by many people from both sides and Im not getting sucked into a debate about it here.

I choose to side with those who believe, and many of them are scholars, that John was the author of his Gospel. Part by what I know from the facts, and yes, partly from Faith.

Again, its not MY whacked out pulled from left field conclusions, and I encourage people to seek it out, pick up The Case for Christ, or read Josh McDowell, or google it.

If you dont believe it, PFIV, thats fine, just dont be disengenious by making it seem like this is a new idea fashioned by Lifer. You've made it clear that you are "disgusted" by this theology. So be it. Its your right.

It is no more disgusting that you choose to believe an Apostle named John wrote a book attributed to him (though I'm fairly certain that particular bit had multiple authors,) than it is disgusting that I choose to believe in a God I cannot prove the existence of.

The point, for me, is not that there is a faith called Christianity; it is whether one goes to every street corner shouting it to the high heavens, no pun intended. Evidently my point of view and yours are similar on that subject.

By the way, to all and sundry: though the Gnostic gospels are interesting, and clearly illustrate that many Christianities flourished before Christian orthodoxy (as we know it) came into being, many generations after Jesus' time, those accounts do not directly challenge the books which were selected as orthodox accounts.

The great wonder to me is that "John" made it into the club... albeit with what I think is the "alternate ending" scene to make it fit the others a tad better. He's far too gnostic in spirit, by my lights... if something of a fuddy-duddy by gnostic standards.

PFnV

***Harry Boy*** · 01-14-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco Volante

This is not an attempt at trolling - rather a curiosity on how Christians defend the following contradictory parts of their scripture, which were compiled in a essay I read online.

Man is greater than woman - so much to the point she can't even speak amongst the other men? Slavery accepted? Innocent children not allowed into heaven? Quite frankly I find the text above me absolutely repulsing.

Yet Christians say - we were all created equal?

How does a Christian defend this? Again, not trolling – yet wanting to understand these views.

Sounds like todays Muslims.

I left organized religion many years ago, as I have said before on here I worship in my own way, I light a campfire, get a gallon of wine., tune up my Banjo or Guitar, fill up a Cains Mayonaise jar with wine then sing gospel songs that I learned sitting under a Black Baptist Church window many years ago on Allston St Cambridge Ma 02139

Just A Closer Walk With Thee (one of my favorites)

Synovia · 01-15-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

That was then this is now, The Muslims and the Kennedy's treat their women worse than that, they still buy and sell women and children in Africa & Asia, Muslims still Behead people and Stone Women to death. Muslims still Fly Planes into tall buildings, Gang Bangers in Los Angles shoot little old ladys and kids, Uncle Teddy Kennedy Waterboards Young Women With His Car, this ***** is all going today.

And Christian/Protestants still hang black people in the deep south. Hate is universal.

Lifer · 01-15-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synovia

And Christian/Protestants still hang black people in the deep south. Hate is universal.

puh-leeze. That is White Supremicists,KKK and Nazi youth behavior.

its not exactly people who listen to Joel Osteen. To tag your average Christian/Protestant with that is one of the most ignorant comments ive heard in a long while.

that would be like saying "Jews are serial killers" because of David Berkowitz.

Synovia · 01-15-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lifer

puh-leeze. That is White Supremicists,KKK and Nazi youth behavior.

its not exactly people who listen to Joel Osteen. To tag your average Christian/Protestant with that is one of the most ignorant comments ive heard in a long while.

that would be like saying "Jews are serial killers" because of David Berkowitz.

Or like saying Muslims are terrorists based on a couple suicide bombers?

Thanks for making my point.