U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-11-2016, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
26,201 posts, read 14,096,059 times
Reputation: 10089

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules View Post
The fact that Paul is mentioned by an ancient historian means literally nothing in regards to my question.

0 and counting
Great... I guess we are done here since you are the arbiter of truth and have found nothing to your liking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2016, 09:24 PM
 
2,539 posts, read 888,763 times
Reputation: 2323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
You said the same thing. The only difference was that you thought Paul meant the OT only.
How can anyone not conclude that the Torah was the only scripture that Paul, et al, had when the particular text in question was penned? Are some seriously believing that Paul actually KNEW that his letters would one day be compiled into a book called "The New Testament" which would eventually be read by millions in the year 2016? Would Paul have had any inkling that "Pauline Churches" would spring up all over the world and that his epistles would be referred to as 'the word of God'?

That said, just HOW MUCH of the Old Testament can we honestly say is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2016, 09:38 PM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
15,548 posts, read 6,999,363 times
Reputation: 1603
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I don't have to ask, but I wanted to hear what YOU THINK they are. I KNOW what they are from 1 Cor 13, Galatians 5 and the Sermon on the Mount. Is that your understanding too???
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
It doesn't matter what I think. I have figured that out from being on C-D since 2009.

And look - I suggested what to read and you came back with entirely different verses. That's how much "what I think", matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Like I said... I could explain it... I am sure I have done it along the line since 2009. It doesn't matter. I will let the Bible explain it. I try to do that, you don't accept that either.

So no worries on my end...
Do you think that the verses that Mystic cited as describinh the character of the Spirit in any way contradict the chapters you cited about what the Holy Spirit would DO? The question was about the characteristics of the Spirit. What are they from scripture?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2016, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,854 posts, read 9,651,582 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
And there are millions of people that do.
Indeed there are. And there are millions of people that believe in leprechauns too; and mermaids: and Brahma, Zoroaster or that they have been abducted by aliens or that the Earth is flat.

Quote:
It's not made up out of thin air.
Then you would agree that leprechauns, mermaids, Brahma, Zoroaster, aliens, all the Hindu gods and flat earthers and all the gods of Shintoism are not made up out of fresh air either...because millions believe it...right?

Quote:
Just curious... why do I have to prove anything? What's the point?
My personal reasons are that I think that belief in ancient superstition has no place in our modern world. Religion and the religion of Christianity in particular has stunted the growth of mankind for 2,000 years and it's time it went.


Quote:
You don't have to agree with me.
...and I don't but this is a discussion forum; a place where people put forward ideas, thoughts and beliefs and 'discuss' them. It would be a pretty boring place if everyone just patted each other on the back and said ...yes, I agree with you.

So then, if you have verifiable evidence for your claims I'd love to see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2016, 11:27 PM
 
37,500 posts, read 25,232,088 times
Reputation: 5855
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Do you think that the verses that Mystic cited as describing the character of the Spirit in any way contradict the chapters you cited about what the Holy Spirit would DO? The question was about the characteristics of the Spirit. What are they from scripture?
They do not seem to want to address what the characteristics of the Spirit are because that would require that they then test the Spirit of the other things they believe against them. They avidly avoid acknowledging contradictions and inconsistencies in defense of retaining thier "precepts and doctrines of men." It is sad that Christ's message has been corrupted by this refusal to be guided by the Spirit to what God has "written in our hearts" in agape love. They prefer to be guided by "precepts and doctrines of men" derived in primitive ignorance from the words "written in ink."

Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-11-2016 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2016, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,854 posts, read 9,651,582 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
2,000 plus years into the future... who has verifiable evidence?
We have verifiable evidence for people that lived at that time and even for people that lived earlier. Roman emperors, Greeks, Egyptians...and all of them doing far less than performing astonishing miracles...yet they are noted in history.

Quote:
Today, all we have have are opinions and guesses of what took place.
Wrong. We have verifiable history, archaeology, palaeontology and a host of other sciences that allow us to verify history.

Quote:
The first hand eyewitness testimony is in the Bible. That's the best you are going to get.
The Bible is not a first-hand eyewitness account. It was written by people who had never even met your Jesus. There is not one single historian worth his salt, on either side of the argument, that would agree with you that the gospels were written by eye-witnesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by garya123 View Post
For a Christian it is as the Scriptures say, Heb 11:1 "Faith is the evidence if things not seen." Our Faith is not as an unbeliever sees faith but rather the Spirit of God bears witness/evidence to us that a certain thing comes from God and therefor to be trusted.
So as I said Gary, faith is belief without evidence.

Quote:
You intuitively believe you have a human spirit but have you or those you know seen it.
We see 'spirit' as something different you and I.

Quote:
But besides all of this, Jesus showed many proofs....
Well that is something you are going to have to show as verifiable evidence isn't it...and the only evidence you have is your Bible...and that is neither verifiable or trustworthy.

Quote:
....and turned the world upside down like no other in history.
Really! What about the gods of Hinduism? They have been believed to have existed for about 2000 years LONGER than Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The Bible did not write itself. Nor is it one book. It is a number of different books written by a number of different people.
Nor did the Vedas. What is your point.

Quote:
Concerning the NT documents, they were written by apostles and by men closely associated with the apostles.
The authors of the NT are unknown. Anonymous.

Quote:
That the apostles historically existed is attested to by the apostolic church fathers who were contemporaries of the apostles and in some cases personally knew them.
In other words, they were believed to have existed by people who believed the Bible when it told them that they existed. Brilliant logic there old chap.

Quote:
For instance, Polycarp (A.D 69-155) was ordained in the church of Smyrna by the apostle John, and Clement of Rome (? - c. A.D.100) was ordained in the church of Rome by the apostle Peter. These ordinations were recorded in church registers still in existence at the time that Tertullian (c. A.D. 150-225) wrote of this.
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [ THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS. CHAP.XXXII]

Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson)
Polycarp himself, writing to the Philippian church, refers to Paul and the rest of the apostles.
I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead. [THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS, CHAPTER IX]

Polycarp to the Philippians (Roberts-Donaldson translation)
Clement of Rome, who, again, was a contemporary of the apostles stated in his letter to the Corinthians that the apostles, having received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of Jesus proclaimed their message.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. [Letter of Clement to the Corinthians Chap. 42]

First Clement: Clement of Rome
The point of the above quotes is to show the historical reality of the apostles from the attestation of some of the apostolic church fathers.

And the apostles themselves testify to the existence of Jesus.
LOL! Oh Gary! THEY are all believers writing after the facts; repeating the hand-me-down stories that they were taught...as believers.

Quote:
Based on evidence such as the above, the historical existence of Jesus is not in doubt by the vast majority of historians and scholars.
You are confused Gary. 'Historical Jesus' is not YOUR Jesus aka, 'Jesus the Christ.'


Quote:
Quoting Bart Ehrman,
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.

[Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman, p. 12]
While Ehrman, who describes himself as an agnostic with atheistic leanings, does not believe that Jesus was divine, he nevertheless defends the historical existence of Jesus.
Yep. I have no problem whatsoever with the possibility of THAT 'Jesus' having possibly existed but THAT Jesus is irrelevant. It is the miracle-working, son of a god Jesus that I and historians have the problem with. Personally, as you are a believer of the 'divine' Jesus, I find it odd that you put forward and argument that goes against you.

Quote:
Now as for the resurrection of Jesus, there is historical evidence which can be examined.
Then I and no doubt the rest of the word would love to see it. Do you have it rather than just claiming that it exists?

Quote:
And resurrection studies have been conducted by scholars for many years. Even skeptical scholars acknowledge that the apostles believed they saw the resurrected Jesus, ...
I have no doubt that they believed it but that is no more evidence for a JtC than people who believe that the Earth is flat is evidence that it is flat.

Quote:
...and many naturalistic theories have been advanced by the skeptics in an effort to explain why the apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus. Commenting on this, Craig L. Blomberg writes,
''Today comparatively few scholars opt for the alternatives to belief in the resurrection that have been most commonly offered down through the ages, and that still surface more often in popular literature. These include the swoon theory, according to which Jesus did not quite die on the cross, but revived in the tomb, managed to escape, and appeared to his disciples before expiring shortly thereafter, the original counterclaim of the Jewish authorities that Jesus' disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:13); the notion that Jesus' followers went to the wrong tomb and thus found it empty; and the idea that all the witnesses of the resurrection experienced some kind of mass hallucination. Such 'explanations' require more faith for one to believe in them than does the supernatural explanation that Jesus did in fact rise bodily from the grave.''

[The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Blomberg, pp. 136-37]
...and so far, all your 'evidence' consists of is ...it's true because people believed that it happened'. That is no more evidence that it's true than belief in Bigfoot means that it's true. You need much more than that my friend.

Quote:
Now, it is one thing to believe something based on second hand information; that is, believing something that someone else has said. But it is another thing to believe something because you were an eyewitness to what you proclaim to be true. The apostles were eyewitnesses to what they believed was the risen Jesus. They were therefore proclaiming something they believed to be true based on their personal encounters with what they believed to be the resurrected Jesus.
Do you have any evidence, other than the Bible to show that your apostles existed? You see Gary, what you are basically doing here is using the Bible as evidence for the Bible.

Quote:
If the naturalistic theories can be ruled out, then that leaves the conclusion that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus because they actually did see Him; because Jesus actually did rise from the dead and appeared to them.
Well...

1. You need to prove the existence of the apostles outside of the Bible.
2. You need to show that what they believed was actually true.

If you are going to claim that something is true simply because people believed it, then you are going to have to accept that every other claim made by the crackpots that walk amongst us is also true...simply on the grounds that they believe it.

Quote:
The disciples were willing to endure suffering for the rest of their lives for proclaiming the risen Jesus. And at least some of the disciples who had been eyewitness's were martyred for proclaiming the risen Jesus.
So the Bible claims but as yet, you have not shown the Bible to be trustworthy and reliable. Nor have you shown any evidence for them being 'martyrs'. As far as you know (assuming they existed for the sake of the discussion) they may have been given no choice in the matter. Please show evidence extent of the Bible that they even existed.

Quote:
The resurrection of Jesus doesn't even depend on appeals to Biblical inerrancy or inspiration.
There is no verifiable evidence for your JtC much less his 'resurrection.'

Quote:
The historical evidence for His resurrection can be examined and a conclusion drawn.
No it can't. It doesn't exist.

Quote:
Gary Habermas, (PhD.,...
Oh please stop this nonsense Gary! Habermas is a Christian apologist. It's his job to make the story believable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
Causation
No viable alternative to a creator
The Law of Teleology
Mankinds inate desire to discover their creator
The existence of good and evil
The vastness of the universe
Morality/purpose/meaning
Why aren't those things evidence for any of the other 'creator gods' that exist or have been said to have existed in other religions?

Quote:
Former atheist Lee Strobel,...
First off. Strobel was not an atheist and if you bother to take the time and effort to read his biased book...'The Case for Christ' he admits that he isn't and never was an atheist. He was raise as a believer by Christian parents.

Quote:
...who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason.
Yet it is not atheists who believe that but theists! You, as a theist, believe that your god came from 'nothing'; produced the universe from 'nothing'; produced Earth from 'nothing'; produced plants and animals from 'nothing' and then made humans from 'nothing'. Something from nothing is not our beliefs but YOURS!

Now chaps. We'd better get back on track. If you'd like to carry on in a new thread I'd be happy to tale you both on.

So, if the Bible verses are inspired by your god. What about all the Bible verses that were thrown out?

Last edited by Rafius; 04-11-2016 at 11:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 12:14 AM
 
2,539 posts, read 888,763 times
Reputation: 2323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
So, if the Bible verses are inspired by your god. What about all the Bible verses that were thrown out?
Haven't you caught on by now? It's pretty easy. God was in control of the minds of the Bible collators the day they gathered together to sift through all of the scriptures to determine what went into the New Testament Canon and what did not. God can do that ...apparently.

I'm uncertain, however, as to whether the same 'divine' process took place with regard to the collating of the Old Testament scriptures. I somehow hope not because there appears to have been some major foul-up somewhere!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 12:21 AM
 
Location: City-Data Forum
6,905 posts, read 4,298,435 times
Reputation: 1155
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8 View Post
2 timothy 3:16


15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work
According to Lord Paul's letter, is it LITERALLY "all scripture" or actually "only holy scripture as designated by a vote from a fraction of mostly pro-Roman Bishops"?

From childhood you have known the sacred writings? But the New Testament (especially the gospels) were written AFTER this letter from Lord Paul.

So why not write in his (Accidentally?) Holy Letter that "All sacred writings are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training.

The Old Testament says that only the Creator/Father Judges, the book titled Luke says that only the Son judges, not the Father. And Paul says that All Christians should judge and WILL judge at end-times, even the angels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,854 posts, read 9,651,582 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomulusXXV View Post
Haven't you caught on by now? It's pretty easy. God was in control of the minds of the Bible collators the day they gathered together to sift through all of the scriptures to determine what went into the New Testament Canon and what did not. God can do that ...apparently.
Ah!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2016, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
26,201 posts, read 14,096,059 times
Reputation: 10089
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Do you think that the verses that Mystic cited as describinh the character of the Spirit in any way contradict the chapters you cited about what the Holy Spirit would DO? The question was about the characteristics of the Spirit. What are they from scripture?

No - it was not directly about the characteristics of the Holy Spirit.

I answered Mystic's initial question already. Jesus is clear about the role of the Holy Spirit... chapters 14-16 in John.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top