10 Questions that every Intelleigent Christian must answer

[Sinyalan]

anyone

maybe it's not in the bible?

[bluedes]

maybe it's not in the bible?

tumpak na tubag, brad!

[tatakalz]

anyone

ancient people are historians...no doubt...

[HopeForJANA]

hayz may pa si Sir Malic makatubag pa ani.....

waiting mi sa tubag Bro. Malic ...

[Sinyalan]

hayz may pa si Sir Malic makatubag pa ani.....

waiting mi sa tubag Bro. Malic ...

Of course he can! he reads and study's the bible... unlike those nitpickers that they only do is just read one verse and then jumps to another verse.

[tatakalz]

hayz may pa si Sir Malic makatubag pa ani.....

waiting mi sa tubag Bro. Malic ...

maam here's mine...: spare me for my poor intellects......just dont get me wrong.....just giving my insights though....

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.

A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let's then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let's compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.

There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.

Peace be with you brothers and sisters...

[kowkruche]

OT: agi-agi lang ko mga amigo, amiga... gimingaw nko discussion diri sa S&O. pero bz na ko.

kamo lang sa diha. hehehe

[pugak_79]

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

[tatakalz]

weeeeeeeeeeee.....in fairness........

[Dakota]

gods and religions are based on a greed and fear doctrine. love me and have everlasting life. do not love me and burn in hell for ever. some choice from the god we call father and loves you. would you offer your children the same choice. why is fear used to motivate us to love him.