10 Questions that every Intelleigent Christian must answer

[seven_segment]

Question:

why is the bible created 300 years after the death of Jesus?
why Jesus didnt preach through bible?

enlightened us

sis....buhat na lang laing thread...

[Malic]

sis....buhat na lang laing thread...

hahaha...This thread i believe is about asking Question to christians...puede pod ko masayop.

[seven_segment]

hahaha...This thread i believe is about asking Question to christians...puede pod ko masayop.

10 Questions that every Intelleigent Christian must answer

[Malic]

10 Questions that every Intelleigent Christian must answer

well lets make it 11 or more...basta Question lang...

[Malic]

by the way, mr.regnauld, whoever told you that kebot and bungot25 are intelligent Christians?

Sadeeq maayo man pod diay ka ug punchline noh? hehehe

[seven_segment]

well lets make it 11 or more...basta Question lang...

that would be out of topic...

you may request the mods to edit the title...para masatisfy...

[Malic]

that would be out of topic...

you may request the mods to edit the title...para masatisfy...

dili gihapon kay its all about questions man...


but so far wala pa moy tubag...hehe...dili na lang ta mag usik usik ug page...

[seven_segment]

dili gihapon kay its all about questions man...


but so far wala pa moy tubag...hehe...dili na lang ta mag usik usik ug page...

aws...usik page? hehe...imo jud ko patubagan sadeeq...

question lang daan sayop naman sad...

why is the bible created 300 years after the death of Jesus? -->created? the bible is a compilation...
the OLD Testament existed already...New Testament is all about Jesus!

why Jesus didnt preach through bible? --> He preached! he uses the scripture...
diba Maliq nagstudy man ka sa Bible? What did Jesus said to the devil when He was tempted?

On the New Testament...its all about Jesus! Jesus was preaching about Himself already...

enlightened us --> are you sure you want to be enlightened?

[schmuck]

TS: i know u have answers for all these since you're always found inside the spirituality & occult

So anyhow, your questions seem to fall mostly under human suffering. Yes the world could be inconvenient on among many. Why? Suffering keeps you humble. You lose a leg so you may know that you are better than that. You show people that there is hope by just living life to the full with it. People starve to show us that there are more important things other than cars, shoes, video games. Bad things happen to good people to make them better stronger people. More endurance over trials just as the sun shines to all men good or bad. See how kind God is? The world is built out of kindness so why do we keep whining and dig for evidence?

Bad things happen to let the world know our wickedness - our arrogance, our pride, our selfishness, and all that worldly things that lead to death (and by death, it means death to all good things i.e. relationships w friends, family even thy self, relationship to the world)

Bad things happen to let victims see the truth. To make them see that NOT all friends are cool and that being "cool" is not what you're looking for afterall. It teaches you to stop complaining when it hurts. Do you know anyone who has actually done this? And time is running short. I see everything as a chance. Chance to love, chance to respect, chance to become the solution to all the injustice. Yes we are the problem and we could also be the answer. Isn't that enough for physical evidence?

Statistics. On divorce, cancer, drug addiction, homosexuality, etc. The harvest are many but the workers are only few.

There are plenty of things we don't understand or have misunderstood based on all the complications i.e. creed, experiences, culture, etc. All these lead to confusion. Currently, I don't have an answer for this but this is how i see it today

That doesn't make any sense at all. Bad things happen because they are lessons?? How insensitive can you get?

people dying in tsunamis and all sorts of disasters
people born with congenital defects(physical and mental)

they should'nt feel bad becuase they are lessons? naman, how deluded.

[tatakalz]

Since the thread is about asking "Questions" for the intelligent christian...here is one from me...I mean kini lang sa...


1.What qualifies a manuscript as "inspired scriptures" ?

brother Malic, Im not really good on this but heres my poor attempt..


Author Date Written Earliest Copy Time Span Copies (extent)

Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD 1,300 years 8
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD 1,300 years ?
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD 1,400 years 5
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD 1,000 years 10
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD 750 years 7
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD 800 years ?
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD 1,000 years 20

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26) 1st century 50-60 AD co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John) 90 AD 130 AD 40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John) 90 AD 150-200 AD 60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels) 1st century 200 AD 150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible) 1st century 325-350 AD 275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) 1st century 350 AD 300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible) 1st century 400 AD 350 years


What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.

What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.

Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD (Time April 26, 1996, pg.. Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.

The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.. But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

To be fair:

So what comparisons are there between the manuscript evidence for the Qur'an and the Bible? We know from the historical record that by the end of the seventh century the Arabs had expanded right across North Africa and up into Spain, and east as far as India. The Qur'an (according to later Islamic tradition) was the centrepiece of their faith and practice at that time. Certainly within that enormous sphere of influence there should therefore be some Qur'anic manuscripts which still exist till this day. Yet, there is nothing from that period at all. The only manuscripts which Islam provides turn out to have been compiled in the ninth century, while the earliest corroborated manuscript is dated 790 A.D., written not 1400 years ago as Muslims claim but a mere 1,200 years ago.

While Christianity can claim more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 10,000 Latin Vulgates and at least 9,300 other early versions, adding up to over 24,000 corroborated New Testament manuscripts still in existence (McDowell 1990:43-55), most of which were written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ (or between the 1st and 5th centuries) (McDowell 1972:39-49), Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the eighth century (Lings & Safadi 1976:17; Schimmel 1984:4-6).

If the Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all of which were written long before the Qur'an, at a time when paper had not yet been introduced, forcing the dependency on papyrus which disintegrated with age, then one wonders why the Muslims are not able to forward a single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Qur'an was supposedly revealed? This indeed gives the Bible a much stronger claim for reliability than the Qur'an.

(Im not favoring someone, but it make sense)