Christians that make unchristians of others

[josephdc]

---

Yup, there are historical stories among the jewish people but I wouldn't consider them as all true. the fact is, I have not seen any Jewish home that put on images or anything that reminds them about "jesus" as the son of god. Why is that? History tells that Christianity in Israel is less in number than Judaism (78%) than the latter (2%). That history tells us that even the land where it all "started" didn't even recognized as "reliable" (numbers don't lie...). Who were the people responsible for popularizing the "jesus theory"? The "same" people who invaded us for more than 300 years in the past.

The Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, bro. To them he was just a prophet.

So what if Christianity was brought to our shores by our invaders, bro? Yes, many atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity, but that is not an argument against Christianity itself. Many people within the church in the past have indeed abused their power and position and used religion as a means to exploit and manipulate people, but that does not discredit Christianity itself. Christ himself taught us to love our neighbors, even our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, and to turn the other cheek to those who strike us.

[Sinyalan]

That's it pre, they don't believe jesus as the son of god... why the heck people all over have to believe that his the son of god? His country don't believe in him... It's like buying a recycled product glorifying that he's the son of god. If history insists, why would anyone adulate a foreigner that he's the son of god? I must say, majority of us pinoys like imports. But that's not the point... it's the history that makes him a true son of god. Why shouldn't christianity be brought in our country? Well, I can give you so many reason why. But that's not the point either because majority of our country knows god better than themselves.

Other religion can do better than Christ... the philosophical views fo buddhism or teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the beliefs or spiritual teachings of hinduism, the metaphysical concept found in Taoism, the concept of predestination of Islam and the beliefs and ways of thinking and deep in the subconscious fabric of Shintoism. These exists without Chrisitianity. But this is not the point di ba? people venerated christianity because it was in fact a perfect tool... well, that's what happened to Philippines.... historically speaking.

[Reason2believe]

Hehe... I hope to do that someday... The task looks so daunting man gud. I mean, bible scholars actually devote their entire professional lives studying it. Sa pagkakaron I'm just reading up a tiny bit on Christian apologetics. I'm not an apologist, but I want to learn more about apologetics, and I see conversations like these as a great opportunity for me to learn more about my faith and clarify it to myself and to others.



I don't think it's fair to say that sir, that the reason why the faithful stay faithful is because of their fear of hell. Many Christians have different reasons why they remain faithful. Many believe because the Gospel message speaks to them personally; it gives meaning to their lives, gives them hope, strength and courage. Others believe not just because the Gospel message speaks to them personally, but they have rational warrants for thinking that Jesus is indeed who he said he is, that he is God incarnate.

There are quite a handful of lay christians out there who never had the chance to get formal education in a bible seminary but studies the bible devoutly and extensively. I had the chance of debating with some of these faithfuls and they prove to be well informed.


okay, i will reprahse my point, ONE of the many reasons why some christians remain faithful inspite of seeing obvious errors in the bible is their fear of the effect of leaving their faith--hell.

[Reason2believe]

Yes, sir, I think I get what you mean. You mean to say that there are facts that can prove a few things about Christianity to be true but not enough to support its central claim, that Jesus is really who he said he is?

According to William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and author, the truth is that majority of New Testament scholars today actually consider these five as established facts concerning Jesus:

He was crucified. Craig said that this is recognized by historians to be the one indisputable fact about Jesus. Even Robert Funk, the late chairman of the Jesus Seminar, a group of New Testament scholars who are critical of the traditional picture of Jesus, supports the idea that Jesus' crucifixion really took place.

He was buried by Joseph of Arimathea who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. There are multiple and independent attestations to this fact. For example, in the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew and Luke, and independently by John. Also, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians which was probably written earlier than the Gospels.

Some people might say that the New Testament documents are unreliable because they were not "external sources". Actually, the New Testament did not exist as "one book" before 320s AD. The Gospels, Paul's letters, the Book of Acts, etc., were actually separate documents which were written within the first century. So there was no such thing as an "external source," though there were documents that corroborated some of the accounts in the New Testament written by non-Christians, like the Jewish historian Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

His tomb was discovered empty. There is also multiple and independent attestation of this fact in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. It is really unlikely that this account is just made up. Women were the chief witnesses of the empty tomb. That's significant because first-century Palestine had a very patriarchal culture; the testimony of women were not considered reliable. According to Josephus, women weren't even allowed to serve as witnesses in Jewish courts. If the early Christians just made up the story of the empty tomb, they would most likely write that men witnessed the empty tomb, especially the original disciples, not women. Also, all the Jewish authorities had to do to disprove the belief was to produce Jesus' body, but even they did not dispute the empty tomb story.

His post-mortem appearances. This, too, has multiple and independent attestations.

The origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. It is amazing that all of a sudden the original disciples found withim themselves the courage to preach the Gospels after his crucifixion. Where did their boldness come from? Was it simply make-believe, an illusion? No sane person is willing to die for an illusion, or a lie. Yet majority of them died horrible deaths to proclaim their beliefs. Jesus' crucifixion and death must've crushed them. Peter even denied knowing Christ after Jesus' capture by the Romans. The other disciples fled and hid. Yet why, all of a sudden after the crucifixion, did they have the folly to declare belief in Jesus? Why the sudden conversion of hundreds of Jews to Christianity?

Luke Timothy Johnson, a prominent New Testament scholar, said that “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required in order to explain the origin of the Christian faith," particularly the origin of the belief in the resurrection.

So I guess the best explanation for these facts is that Jesus really died and rose from the dead. His resurrection serves to vindicate his radical personal claims.

There are things that can prove that Jesus exist tho so little that it can hardly be called hard evidence and there are things from history that points indeed that christianity started from where it said it is. BUT it doesnt mean that this group bears the torch of the truth and it(historical facts) should not be equated as the truth.

to furhter explain my point...lets take Jose Rizal, there are ample of eivdence to prove that he actually exist,unlike Jesus. But these historical facts do not mean that Jose Rizal's words are the truth. Truth here means aboslute truth.

Jesus and christianity tho have some historical facts but not necessarily mean that MAO NA JUD NI ang kamatooran.


Christian Apologists tho remain convince of there defense failed to give the non-christian seekers convincing evidence of their claim.

take for example...

a)the claim of bible inerrancy...

Honest and objective scholars do find errors,insertions,contradictions in the bible. The only best answer we can get from faithful christian apologists is this--"well,the original manuscript contain no errors". But these people fail to realize that for them to say that,first they must possess the original manuscripts so they can conduct a proper investigation to see if indeed the original do not contain erros and contradictions. Correct sir? But we dont see that in their statements,their mind is already made up due to blind faith,that the original do not contain errors. They are not being objective. Thats not how sane people gather conclusive truths sir.

b)the claim of Jesus Godhood

objective investigation shows that Jesus never claimed to be God.


c) the claim of Jesus death and resurrection

this is also problematic because the most reliable and ancient manuscript do not contain the death account of Jesus. A certain prophecy attributed by christians to Jesus proves to be in contrast to what really happened.

Remember the sign of jonah? When the people ask for a sign, Jesus said to them that no sign shall be given to them except the sign of Jonah. Christians do claim that Jesus here was talking about His death.Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

Even the process of his death and burial are problematic.


And there are more problematic CLAIMS done by christians sir,pero dili lang sa nato hisgutan.


You have to understand sir that according to Christian Apologists the bible is a unit. So therefore if its a unit,if one part have forgery then the whole thing is no longer reliable. Unless you tke the part that gives the unwholesome tste and throw it away but undfortunately we dont see that happening but instead they TRY with all their might to justify its obscurity. Thats tragedy.

[tynum]

some truths are LIES believed by many....... and so they all call them as the TRUTH... so truth is relative....

most people doesnt really know the TRUTH...

there is only one truth... and that is: "WE ALL DIE..........."

but somehow for me... i think there is someone up there looking at us laughing, crying, or maybe sleeping... and for most major religion... there is really someONE up there that is called by many names.... God, allah, etc..... then why fight over unnecessary things??

[josephdc]

There are things that can prove that Jesus exist tho so little that it can hardly be called hard evidence and there are things from history that points indeed that christianity started from where it said it is. BUT it doesnt mean that this group bears the torch of the truth and it(historical facts) should not be equated as the truth.

I disagree, sir. I think there's ample evidence available that can show that Jesus really existed in history. Even critics of the traditional New Testament portrait of Jesus like the Jesus Seminar don't deny that.

I sincerely think that the facts I've shared above are compelling, in that they point to the likely conclusion that Jesus is really who he said he is.

to furhter explain my point...lets take Jose Rizal, there are ample of eivdence to prove that he actually exist,unlike Jesus. But these historical facts do not mean that Jose Rizal's words are the truth. Truth here means aboslute truth.

Jesus and christianity tho have some historical facts but not necessarily mean that MAO NA JUD NI ang kamatooran.

Um... Jose Rizal didn't claim to be God did he? Hehe, seriously, I don't think there's any parallel between Rizal and Jesus. I mean, did Rizal make such radical claims about himself like Jesus did?

If Jesus really is who he said he is, and I believe so, then we can also trust that he spoke the truth, because he vindicated his claims by his resurrection.

Christian Apologists tho remain convince of there defense failed to give the non-christian seekers convincing evidence of their claim.

take for example...

a)the claim of bible inerrancy...

Honest and objective scholars do find errors,insertions,contradictions in the bible. The only best answer we can get from faithful christian apologists is this--"well,the original manuscript contain no errors". But these people fail to realize that for them to say that,first they must possess the original manuscripts so they can conduct a proper investigation to see if indeed the original do not contain erros and contradictions. Correct sir? But we dont see that in their statements,their mind is already made up due to blind faith,that the original do not contain errors. They are not being objective. Thats not how sane people gather conclusive truths sir.

But don't these "honest and objective scholars" need to possess the original documents themselves for them to conclude that the bible contains errors, insertions and contradictions?

I believe that the Gospels are reliable sources of historical data. For one, it possesses textual integrity (There's plenty of NT manuscripts that exist today, far more than any ancient document like Homer's Iliad, or the works of Sophocles, Aristotle and Plato. They were written within the first century AD, by writers who are contemporaries of those who witnessed the events concerning Jesus.) Second, it possesses reliable authorship (Luke, for example, is considered by many biblical scholars to be one of the greatest historians that ever lived because of the accuracy with which he described geographical and archeological data during his time. There are also good reasons to think that Luke in his Gospel accurately wrote the testimonies of those who witnessed the events in Christ's life.) Also, it was "externally corroborated" by Jewish historians like Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny.

b)the claim of Jesus Godhood

objective investigation shows that Jesus never claimed to be God.

I believe that Jesus did claim to be God. Even the Jesus Seminar believe that among the words of Jesus that are historically authentic are his claims that "reveal his divine self-understanding." In his parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard, for example, Jesus suggested that he was the son whom God sent to Israel. He did not talk of himself as just a prophet, but God's only son. In Matthew 11.27, he said: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."

Also, he claimed to be the Messiah (John 4:25-27), the Son of God (Mark 14:60-64), the divine I Am (John 8:53-59), and one with the Father (John 10:24-33).

c) the claim of Jesus death and resurrection

this is also problematic because the most reliable and ancient manuscript do not contain the death account of Jesus. A certain prophecy attributed by christians to Jesus proves to be in contrast to what really happened.

Remember the sign of jonah? When the people ask for a sign, Jesus said to them that no sign shall be given to them except the sign of Jonah. Christians do claim that Jesus here was talking about His death.Jesus says that just as Jonah spent three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so he will spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Here Jesus makes an incorrect prediction - he only spends two nights in the tomb (Friday and Saturday nights), not three nights.

Again, even the late chairman of the Jesus Seminar considered Jesus' crucifixion as "the one indisputable fact" about him.

Also, again, the following are considered to be well-established facts regarding his resurrection: Following his death, he was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb was found empty by a group of women, different individuals and groups of people claimed to have seen him on several occasions, and the original disciples experienced a radical transformation of their beliefs and proclaimed him to be God.

I don't know how to deal with the issue about the "three days" in the tomb. It doesn't seem to be that significant the way I see it.

Even the process of his death and burial are problematic.

In what way, sir?

And there are more problematic CLAIMS done by christians sir,pero dili lang sa nato hisgutan.

You have to understand sir that according to Christian Apologists the bible is a unit. So therefore if its a unit,if one part have forgery then the whole thing is no longer reliable. Unless you tke the part that gives the unwholesome tste and throw it away but undfortunately we dont see that happening but instead they TRY with all their might to justify its obscurity. Thats tragedy.

Can you give examples of these "forgeries"?

[josephdc]

That's it pre, they don't believe jesus as the son of god... why the heck people all over have to believe that his the son of god? His country don't believe in him... It's like buying a recycled product glorifying that he's the son of god. If history insists, why would anyone adulate a foreigner that he's the son of god? I must say, majority of us pinoys like imports. But that's not the point... it's the history that makes him a true son of god. Why shouldn't christianity be brought in our country? Well, I can give you so many reason why. But that's not the point either because majority of our country knows god better than themselves.

What's your point, bro?

Why would Jews place "pictures" of Jesus inside their homes when he's not even a God to them?

Other religion can do better than Christ... the philosophical views fo buddhism or teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the beliefs or spiritual teachings of hinduism, the metaphysical concept found in Taoism, the concept of predestination of Islam and the beliefs and ways of thinking and deep in the subconscious fabric of Shintoism. These exists without Chrisitianity. But this is not the point di ba? people venerated christianity because it was in fact a perfect tool... well, that's what happened to Philippines.... historically speaking.

Yes, I agree with you bro that our conquerors probably used religion to subjugate us, etc. But I don't think that's an argument against Christianity itself.

[Reason2believe]

I disagree, sir. I think there's ample evidence available that can show that Jesus really existed in history. Even critics of the traditional New Testament portrait of Jesus like the Jesus Seminar don't deny that.

I sincerely think that the facts I've shared above are compelling, in that they point to the likely conclusion that Jesus is really who he said he is.

I also disagree sir. When you say "ample" it means many, i dont know if you have read some it(evidences) but let me say this,its not many sir, you're just exaggerating. Well there is no question that he exist,for me. But secuilar critics,w/c have no religious affiliation would say that the evidences are so minute and so insignificant that it can hardly be called hard evidence.

This is what you need to do since you say that you have AMPLE evidence,you must provide it here lets see if its really as "ample" as you claimed it to be. can you do that sir? cos as far as i know these scholars only have Josephus writings(who was never there during the time of jesus), some greek historian quoting jesus, some roman officials alleged mentioned of jesus and the christians. Thats all it sir,but you can always correct me if im wrong.

concerning the facts you mentioned during your last post, i would say that its problematic sir. Even the account prior to his death and ressurection are also problematic. Take for example the spear pierced into the side of his ribs. The bible said that it would help accelerate his death but actually some doctors would say that piercing the side of Jesus would help Him breath easily because the water that was about to soffucate his lungs would be tunneled out. Then Roman standard procedure would require a "bone breaking" for a speedy death but we dont see that in the bible. Would a strict roman soldier violate a simple procedure of breaking a bone? i dont think so sir.

Then Jews dont annoint their dead. But we see in the bible that there was this woman going to the tomb of Jesus perharps wanting to anoint a dead body. These are just a few of the many problematic
accounts found in the bible.

[Reason2believe]

Um... Jose Rizal didn't claim to be God did he? Hehe, seriously, I don't think there's any parallel between Rizal and Jesus. I mean, did Rizal make such radical claims about himself like Jesus did?

If Jesus really is who he said he is, and I believe so, then we can also trust that he spoke the truth, because he vindicated his claims by his resurrection.

i think you are not giving much attention to my post sir and its major point.

my point in comparing Jesus and RizAL is to give you an idea that although historians can provide hard evidence of his history,it doesnt mean that Rizal is the truth or speaks the Truth.

same thing w/ Jesus,why? because historical facts does not necessarily mean TRUTH already.


Yes Jesus exist but it doesnt mean that He carries the Truth or have spoken the truth.

In your previous post you equated historical facts with truth(absolute) w/c i found very funny.

[Reason2believe]

But don't these "honest and objective scholars" need to possess the original documents themselves for them to conclude that the bible contains errors, insertions and contradictions?

I believe that the Gospels are reliable sources of historical data. For one, it possesses textual integrity (There's plenty of NT manuscripts that exist today, far more than any ancient document like Homer's Iliad, or the works of Sophocles, Aristotle and Plato. They were written within the first century AD, by writers who are contemporaries of those who witnessed the events concerning Jesus.) Second, it possesses reliable authorship (Luke, for example, is considered by many biblical scholars to be one of the greatest historians that ever lived because of the accuracy with which he described geographical and archeological data during his time. There are also good reasons to think that Luke in his Gospel accurately wrote the testimonies of those who witnessed the events in Christ's life.) Also, it was "externally corroborated" by Jewish historians like Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny.



I believe that Jesus did claim to be God. Even the Jesus Seminar believe that among the words of Jesus that are historically authentic are his claims that "reveal his divine self-understanding." In his parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard, for example, Jesus suggested that he was the son whom God sent to Israel. He did not talk of himself as just a prophet, but God's only son. In Matthew 11.27, he said: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."

Also, he claimed to be the Messiah (John 4:25-27), the Son of God (Mark 14:60-64), the divine I Am (John 8:53-59), and one with the Father (John 10:24-33).




Again, even the late chairman of the Jesus Seminar considered Jesus' crucifixion as "the one indisputable fact" about him.

Also, again, the following are considered to be well-established facts regarding his resurrection: Following his death, he was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb was found empty by a group of women, different individuals and groups of people claimed to have seen him on several occasions, and the original disciples experienced a radical transformation of their beliefs and proclaimed him to be God.

I don't know how to deal with the issue about the "three days" in the tomb. It doesn't seem to be that significant the way I see it.



In what way, sir?



Can you give examples of these "forgeries"?

Sir these honest and objective scholars are saying that the bible that christians possess today have forgeries,contradictions and insertions. BUt as a desperate defense, christian apologists since they already have found out for themselves that what these honest critics have said to be true, recklessly claimed that the original contain no errors.

i want you to take note sir,that these people never said that the original have errors,in fact they have not release an official statement because they dont have the original in their hands(see,they are very objective) BUT the faithful in the absence of the original blindly proclaimed that the original contain no errors. hmmm sounds very objective? Nah.


Yes they need the original for them to say that it contain no errors but as ive said earlier these critics have not yet release an official statement about it. They are neutral sir at this moment.

wouldnt it be more wise for these bible faithfuls to say that we dont know if the original contain errors or not? but we see blind faith at work in here.

------------------------------------

You sound much like Matt Slick.


Sir i never question its authenticity in history. You are slowly drifting away. Let me put you again in perspective. I am questioning its TRUTHFULNESS.

Now if you are trying to suggest that it does not contain errors and therefore reliable and attempting to use it as proof for its truthfulness,then let me say this. You are contradicting what your own scholars have said,that the bible contain insertions and errors.

There are obvious insertions and erros in the bible sir. Since you are quoting luke then let me say this to you. Luke's genealogy contradicts Matthew's. Now let me ask you w/c one is more reliable luke or Matthew? Then luke got some of its message from an unkwon source called Q. This Q sir raises more controversy in christendom than unity. Luke was never there during the life of Jesus,how can he possibly verify its authenticity therefore its a weak account of Jesus' life. Pliny,Jpsoephus,Tacitus are not AMPLE evidences sir, as you claimed previously.

----------------------------------------------------

Jesus claimed to be God. show me the verse sir.


yes he claimed to be Messiah and son of God(btw,in ancient manuscripts the word son is not in caps)but christians wanted it to be in caps to suggests something that isnt there,manipulation? anyway let me continue. Messiah and son of God doesnt mean that Jesus is God. Messiah is not God son of God is not God(adam and the angels were also called in the bible as son/s of God.)


divine I AM? this is taken out of its context.

me and the father is one? means that Jesus is God? negative sir. Ask yourself this question,if this means oneness, when Jesus died did the father died also? according to the bible,no. The Father was alive. If they were one then when Jesus died , patay pud unta ang amahan.

then according to systematic theology, the doctrine of trinity, these 3 have their OWN WILL how can 3 wills be one at the same time?

--------------------------------


Jesus seminar? sir they are not the barometer of what is true or not. there are lots of sources out there,reliable one, who can prove the absurdity of the non-original bible.


You dont know how to deal with the 3 day issue? Dont worry,even some brilliant Apologists feels the same way too.Obviously its a contradiction.

insignificant huh? hehe Jesus quoted it,tsk tsk,apologist used it to defend fulfilled bible prophecies,and to you its insignificant,haha. do you really believe that? but as ive said dont worry,its normal to feel that way,specially when one runs out of answer.


forgeries? well,you can always use google and find it out for yourself.