The Ultimate Conundrum.

[Landlord]

You aren't the Creator dude. Therefore your merit of such a claim is ridiculous. Some thought maybe would be better next time.

Edit:

Here comes the...neither were these authors! Blah blah blah...Ya, which all comes back to the point of Faith.

 

 

 

I think you have completely missed the point of the argument.

 

The original point knapp made is that the Bible is not a historical document, which is a true assessment. Even if the BIble is inspired and inerrant, it's still not a historical document. That doesn't mean it's false, that just means it was written as a different literary genre than historical record.

 

Then you took his statement and turned it into the Bible being the word of God, which he didn't make any reference to but I will play along.

 

The Bible is the word of God according to...? Oh, according to the Bible. And what do we know about God? We know what is written in the Bible.

 

So why is the merit of my claim ridiculous? Because I'm not god? I'm not saying I am god I am saying I am the best poster on huskerboard because I said so, which is exactly what the Bible is. It's a book that says stuff about God is true because it says so.

[Scratchtown]

 

You aren't the Creator dude. Therefore your merit of such a claim is ridiculous. Some thought maybe would be better next time.

Edit:

Here comes the...neither were these authors! Blah blah blah...Ya, which all comes back to the point of Faith.

 

 

 

I think you have completely missed the point of the argument.

 

The original point knapp made is that the Bible is not a historical document, which is a true assessment. Even if the BIble is inspired and inerrant, it's still not a historical document. That doesn't mean it's false, that just means it was written as a different literary genre than historical record.

 

Then you took his statement and turned it into the Bible being the word of God, which he didn't make any reference to but I will play along.

 

The Bible is the word of God according to...? Oh, according to the Bible. And what do we know about God? We know what is written in the Bible.

 

So why is the merit of my claim ridiculous? Because I'm not god? I'm not saying I am god I am saying I am the best poster on huskerboard because I said so, which is exactly what the Bible is. It's a book that says stuff about God is true because it says so.

 

 

The thing is, is that what I am saying doesn't make sense to the person who doesn't believe the Bible being God's Word or God being in existence.

 

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

This whole thing relies on Faith. Nothing more, it can't be argued factually by historical account, because, of how much time has gone by. Again, you either believe or you don't. Your choice.

 

I don't know how to answer it any other way.

[Landlord]

 

 

You aren't the Creator dude. Therefore your merit of such a claim is ridiculous. Some thought maybe would be better next time.

Edit:

Here comes the...neither were these authors! Blah blah blah...Ya, which all comes back to the point of Faith.

 

 

 

I think you have completely missed the point of the argument.

 

The original point knapp made is that the Bible is not a historical document, which is a true assessment. Even if the BIble is inspired and inerrant, it's still not a historical document. That doesn't mean it's false, that just means it was written as a different literary genre than historical record.

 

Then you took his statement and turned it into the Bible being the word of God, which he didn't make any reference to but I will play along.

 

The Bible is the word of God according to...? Oh, according to the Bible. And what do we know about God? We know what is written in the Bible.

 

So why is the merit of my claim ridiculous? Because I'm not god? I'm not saying I am god I am saying I am the best poster on huskerboard because I said so, which is exactly what the Bible is. It's a book that says stuff about God is true because it says so.

 

 

The thing is, is that what I am saying doesn't make sense to the person who doesn't believe the Bible being God's Word or God being in existence.

 

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

This whole thing relies on Faith. Nothing more, it can't be argued factually by historical account, because, of how much time has gone by. Again, you either believe or you don't. Your choice.

 

I don't know how to answer it any other way.

 

 

 

So what you are saying, as far as I can understand it, is this:

 

 

 

I believe in God because the Bible says He is real and I believe in the Bible because God says it is His word.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1650870/posts

 

One hundred and fifty years after the birth of Jesus, a man named Marcion decided that a Christian Bible was needed to replace the Hebrew Bible. Church leaders opposed Marcion's banning of the Hebrew books, but they did agree that Christians should have a Bible to call their own. After Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in the 4th century, a serious effort was made to compile a Christian Bible, one that included both the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) and Christian manuscripts (the New Testament). It took another 40 years before a final list of New Testament books was officially canonized by the church. Many of the most popular were excluded. Upon examination today, many of these writings attempt to resolve inconsistencies and questions raised from reading the Bible.

[Landlord]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1650870/posts

 

One hundred and fifty years after the birth of Jesus, a man named Marcion decided that a Christian Bible was needed to replace the Hebrew Bible. Church leaders opposed Marcion's banning of the Hebrew books, but they did agree that Christians should have a Bible to call their own. After Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in the 4th century, a serious effort was made to compile a Christian Bible, one that included both the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) and Christian manuscripts (the New Testament). It took another 40 years before a final list of New Testament books was officially canonized by the church. Many of the most popular were excluded. Upon examination today, many of these writings attempt to resolve inconsistencies and questions raised from reading the Bible.

 

 

 

^ This is one of the poorest and most misinformed views on New Testament canon formation I have ever read.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

 

You aren't the Creator dude. Therefore your merit of such a claim is ridiculous. Some thought maybe would be better next time.

Edit:

Here comes the...neither were these authors! Blah blah blah...Ya, which all comes back to the point of Faith.

 

 

 

I think you have completely missed the point of the argument.

 

The original point knapp made is that the Bible is not a historical document, which is a true assessment. Even if the BIble is inspired and inerrant, it's still not a historical document. That doesn't mean it's false, that just means it was written as a different literary genre than historical record.

 

Then you took his statement and turned it into the Bible being the word of God, which he didn't make any reference to but I will play along.

 

The Bible is the word of God according to...? Oh, according to the Bible. And what do we know about God? We know what is written in the Bible.

 

So why is the merit of my claim ridiculous? Because I'm not god? I'm not saying I am god I am saying I am the best poster on huskerboard because I said so, which is exactly what the Bible is. It's a book that says stuff about God is true because it says so.

 

 

The thing is, is that what I am saying doesn't make sense to the person who doesn't believe the Bible being God's Word or God being in existence.

 

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

This whole thing relies on Faith. Nothing more, it can't be argued factually by historical account, because, of how much time has gone by. Again, you either believe or you don't. Your choice.

 

I don't know how to answer it any other way.

 

 

 

So what you are saying, as far as I can understand it, is this:

 

 

 

I believe in God because the Bible says He is real and I believe in the Bible because God says it is His word.

 

sure.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1650870/posts

 

 

One hundred and fifty years after the birth of Jesus, a man named Marcion decided that a Christian Bible was needed to replace the Hebrew Bible. Church leaders opposed Marcion's banning of the Hebrew books, but they did agree that Christians should have a Bible to call their own. After Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in the 4th century, a serious effort was made to compile a Christian Bible, one that included both the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) and Christian manuscripts (the New Testament). It took another 40 years before a final list of New Testament books was officially canonized by the church. Many of the most popular were excluded. Upon examination today, many of these writings attempt to resolve inconsistencies and questions raised from reading the Bible.

 

 

^ This is one of the poorest and most misinformed views on New Testament canon formation I have ever read.

It's from the History Channel, I was surprised it didn't include this....

 

 

[Husker_x]

 

 

I guess the basic question on Christianity is this.

 

To you, did Jesus rise from the grave or not?

 

I have said this before in a topic somewhere else but I'll type it out again. Jesus, and his followers existed that can't be refuted. Jesus' closest disciples that were with him the night he was arrested were absolutely TERRIFIED of being associated with Jesus in fear of what would happen to them. 3 days later Christ is believed to have risen, and appeared to them, and proved to them that he was in fact ALIVE! So they went out to preach until they were killed for doing so while never wavering in their proclamations that Jesus IS Lord.

 

People don't just go from being terrified from association to be willing to get martyred for that same association and what they saw as truth and believed.

 

So did Jesus rise from the grave or not?

 

I think he did, but, thats just me. Everyone is free to make their own choice.

 

Technically you're right, the existence of Jesus cannot be refuted. Nor can the existence of God or unicorns, for that matter. The problem is, as a matter of history, it cannot be confirmed either. The gospels are anonymous propaganda tracts written many decades after the events they describe. They are not eye witness testimony, but even if they were, it would change little. There is no good reason at all to think what they claim as history corresponds with reality.

 

Ok, to make this an easy comparison, lets take the internet completely out of the equation. Lets say I started to copy the story and history of Nebraska football through the many years it has been around. I get all of the information from the eye witness "official" records. Then all the official records get destroyed with none to be found.

 

2000 years later, my book is the only thing that has record and account of Nebraska football that depicts the lost information. Even though I copied it directly from the official records (original copy) etc...Does it become discredited over time too?

 

I'm sure you get my point.

 

How do we know anything longer than our lifetimes ever happened? Before the invention of the camera/ability to film and take pictures, we really can't technically know if what we hear is true because it comes from "third party accounts". But, we would argue about how these other things in history really happened, and existed...why? Because we have FAITH, faith in the person that told us, faith in the book that we read, faith on the credibility of said things.

 

Again, my point is that the Bible is quickly undermined in being discredited, but do we do that on the history of Alexander the Great? (Pry a poor example but it helps make the point).

 

 

 

 

Probably. One of the things you didn't mention in this scenario would have been the key point to your analogy: the copying method. If you put in your future Husker Holy Book a references section w/ multiple citations there and within the text, and that text is then zeroxed for two thousand years, Nebraska could be swallowed in the earth and your account would likely be the authoritative ancient source, especially when compared against like relics from the time (other zeroxed social-historical commentaries w/ attending references and citations).

 

But if your book was a hand-written narrative––a story of sorts––about Nebraska football, and your work was passed through the ages by other copyists who work with pen and ink, your book would certainly suffer alterations and changes. We know this from extant New Testament manuscripts. Most of these changes would be small, inconsequential. Maybe the score of a game changes. Maybe a name is smudged here or there. But what if they weren't? What if a chapter went missing? Or someone "corrected" a score they didn't happen to like. "God will understand if I put that second back on the clock," the scribe thinks. Your source may not be worthless about everything, but it is less useful than other forms of evidence.

 

The central problem with your analogy, though, is that the things you're comparing aren't alike. The NT isn't a compilation of scores and sports history. It's basically a story about a 1st-century superhero named Jesus. He has wacky adventures turning water into wine, soothing storms, fighting demons, arguing with a$$hole$, dying but winding up not dead. No one who ever spoke to him or knew him wrote about him. The stories don't appear until around a half-century after his death––you know, fifty years of those fond "Remember Jesus?" retellings around the campfire. There's a fair question as to whether he was even a real person and not, say, a composite sketch of a few different dudes.

 

There are many historical figures whose existence is in doubt for the same reasons Jesus's is. But Alexander? We have many sources that describe him and his reign. They correspond with archaeological evidence. Multiple cities were named after him. We have coins with his face stamped on them. His existence is not a matter of faith but evidence. Although his deeds were great, they didn't bend the laws of physics. The story of his death--the Einstein of war killed by a mosquito or something about that glorious--seems about right, especially since no one claimed he went on to conquer Tibet on a winged Pegasus after he died.

 

If your point is that we only have blind faith to randomly select one arbitrary history out of an unknowably large sea of alternate realities, you're no better off picking yours than a Muslim, a Jew, Knapplc (who was touched by His noodly appendage), or anyone else. In this view, we might as well not do history at all.