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.
Used to live in a very baptist town. They were positive that Mormons were a cult. And pretty sure Catholics were too. Even Christians bias other Christians baed on sect.
No...absurd is believing hearsay in the absence of eyewitness testimony. Jesus supposedly did a lot of miraculous things, but where is the historical account of those things by the locals who saw them occur?
And so the question must be asked: is it more likely that a man should lie or that nature will go out of its course? You know the answer. Nature has NEVER went out of its course in 51 years of my life.
So based on that alone, the Bible must be dismissed outright by reasonable people as an historical document. The fables, parables, and allegorical stories are nice and have modern day application, but that's all.
Without an author and no reliable information on who the authors and aggregators of these books are, I can't work with it. Not to mention that the books are somehow quite propitiously compiled and written in a way that gives (or gave) churches (and men) a whole heap of power that was so strong that even monarchies had to swear fealty to religious figures!
So nahhh. Miss me with all that.
If you'll notice, I've never said a single word about "miraculous things." My discussion has been about the fact that there is better evidence of the existence of a Judean cult leader named Yeshua than there is of most other ancient figures whose existence goes unquestioned.
Professional historians fully understand that and few doubt that, by the same rules of evidence they use for any other ancient figure, a Judean cult leader named Yeshua must also have existed.
You're clearly debating someone else about the "miraculous things" stuff.
If you'll notice, I've never said a single word about "miraculous things." My discussion has been about the fact that there is better evidence of the existence of a Judean cult leader named Yeshua than there is of most other ancient figures whose existence goes unquestioned.
Professional historians fully understand that and few doubt that, by the same rules of evidence they use for any other ancient figure, a Judean cult leader named Yeshua must also have existed.
You're clearly debating someone else about the "miraculous things" stuff.
You said that the New Testament is an historical document. I'm saying that it obviously isn't by any reasonable standard because it postulates too many glaring falsehoods. So the baby must be tossed out with the bath water. Not to mention that the authorship and the aggregator of such books cannot be verified..
Used to live in a very baptist town. They were positive that Mormons were a cult. And pretty sure Catholics were too. Even Christians bias other Christians baed on sect.
It's true, sadly, that Christians do judge based on "sect". However, there is clear criteria what constitutes a sect. Primarily, it's departure from basic doctrine and elaborate interpretations they build upon someone who came along with new knowledge, sometimes to the point where it has very little relation to the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston
Messianic Jews are considered Christians by mainstream Judaism. In other words their beliefs are *not* Jewish nor apart of the Jewish religion.
OK, if you say so. That's not what I've learned though. Messianic Jews are Jews and consider themselves Jews. The argument between them is similar, in a way, to that between Christians of different doctrinal positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00
I have no problem with Christians believing Christ is their Messiah. No skin off my back - we all end up in the same place in the end. But according to my faith, that belief is misplaced. As we can see in this thread, plenty of Christians think the same of my beliefs. That's cool. Unfortunately, I don't think all of them think we end up in the same place.
Jesus is totally "new", original, the one and only, Immanuel ("God with us"), the Alpha and Omega. He and the Father are one. He has said so many times, as has been recorded by some of the apostles who wrote letters to the churches teaching, admonishing and encouraging them in doctrine. Jesus is prophecy fulfilled. Isaiah wrote about his birth some 600 years before it happened.
The Apostles, by the way, were eyewitnesses (all but one, Paul).
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
No...absurd is believing hearsay in the absence of eyewitness testimony. Jesus supposedly did a lot of miraculous things, but where is the historical account of those things by the locals who saw them occur?
And so the question must be asked: is it more likely that a man should lie or that nature will go out of its course? You know the answer. Nature has NEVER went out of its course in 51 years of my life.
So based on that alone, the Bible must be dismissed outright by reasonable people as an historical document. The fables, parables, and allegorical stories are nice and have modern day application, but that's all.
Without an author and no reliable information on who the authors and aggregators of these books are, I can't work with it. Not to mention that the books are somehow quite propitiously compiled and written in a way that gives (or gave) churches (and men) a whole heap of power that was so strong that even monarchies had to swear fealty to religious figures!
So nahhh. Miss me with all that.
Disciples/Apostles = eyewitnesses.
I do agree that later on men corrupted the teachings, devised their own, and exercised a lot of power over people. Hence Martin Luther made his now famous proclamation which he nailed to the door and changed "religion" forever by breaking from the Roman Catholic system.
Religion is man-made. Faith is God given. There's a world of difference.
You said that the New Testament is an historical document. I'm saying that it obviously isn't by any reasonable standard because it postulates too many glaring falsehoods. So the baby must be tossed out with the bath water. Not to mention that the authorship and the aggregator of such books cannot be verified..
You must not have read what was written about most heroes and kings up to the 1st century. The Romans were fairly unique in being "realistic" in their histories and art, but the same isn't true of earlier works.
This is one of the most obvious inconsistencies in the faith, so say former Muslims who converted to Christianity after studying both religions.
An - interesting - choice of source. Call me Mr. Skeptical, but I probably wouldn't take a former Christian who converted to Islam as an authoritative source on where Christianity gets its own dogma competely wrong - would you?
Expulsion would be extreme, but I'd expect someone getting their masters to understand the meaning of the word conservative. I'd not have him expelled, but his grade would probably be less than stellar.
Agreed.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
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.
OK, if you say so. That's not what I've learned though. Messianic Jews are Jews and consider themselves Jews. The argument between them is similar, in a way, to that between Christians of different doctrinal positions. 
