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.
Jane Fonda is a traitor to the American people. I don't know how she can be considered a Christian.
The inverse of that statement is that American patriots are, by definition, Christians. That's ridiculous! Patriotism (to any country) is not defined by one's religiosity.
You bet! Well, actually, I don't really know what Jesus said and neither do you!
Considering that reports of what Jesus said only began to be written down some forty years after the fact (or so we are led to believe). That would make the authors some sixty or more years old with some degree of memory degredation. Would you take my my testimony of what happened forty years ago when I was in my twenties as being accurate?
And that is better than any other ancient history known. It's literally 800 times better than anything we know about what Aristotle said, 1000 times better than anything we know about what Plato said.
I just don't understand why we cannot tell people about how good God is and how he can help people who have a relationship with him without people saying we are cramming our beliefs down their throat. Christians just want to help. I think some go overboard but if a person has a rough time in their life I try to tell them to pray and trust God. Nowadays, you can't even go public with your beliefs yet it is ok for people to say that they don't believe in God. This is why I am scared to try to convince people to come to God. Folks get so upset.
What are you talking about?
Some may want you to think you can't "spread the good news," but you can (uh...and the Watchtower people who regularly show up at our door haven't gotten your message). No one's coming to arrest you when you suggest that they pray.
If someone says Enough, already...that's your cue to shut up. Stop acting and feeling persecuted.
And that is better than any other ancient history known. It's literally 800 times better than anything we know about what Aristotle said, 1000 times better than anything we know about what Plato said.
Although many of Aristotle's works have been lost, we still have others that he wrote.
How do you think that 40+ year old hearsay is better than the actual written words of a man?
Do Christians view my use of this fact to refute Ralph's erroneous statement as persecution?
Although many of Aristotle's works have been lost, we still have others that he wrote.
How do you think that 40+ year old hearsay is better than the actual written words of a man?
So we don't really know who wrote any of that--we don't know that we aren't looking at the work of a student of Aristotle...except that what we do know of practices back then suggest that was most likely the case. That was certainly the case with Plato.
So if students of Jesus were the persons who actually wrote what He taught, that would be only par for the course of ancient teachers.
The earliest surviving copy of what Aristotle allegedly wrote (actually, what his students allegedly wrote) dates to the mid 9th century...1200 years after Aristotle. The earliest copies of the New Testament date to the mid second century...only 200 years after Jesus. And there are many more ancient copies of the New Testament...but only one of each of Aristotle's writings.
So we don't really know who wrote any of that--we don't know that we aren't looking at the work of a student of Aristotle...except that what we do know of practices back then suggest that was most likely the case. That was certainly the case with Plato.
So if students of Jesus were the persons who actually wrote what He taught, that would be only par for the course of ancient teachers.
The earliest surviving copy of what Aristotle allegedly wrote (actually, what his students allegedly wrote) dates to the mid 9th century...1200 years after Aristotle. The earliest copies of the New Testament date to the mid second century...only 200 years after Jesus. And there are many more ancient copies of the New Testament...but only one of each of Aristotle's writings.
Isn't the contents of what is written more pertinent to the level of acceptability of imperfect evidence though?
Aristotle, Plato, etc. are attributed to (relatively) mundane stories and observations about the world around them. So even if they are not the actual authors of their books...it doesn't do much to the validity of whats written. Only the credit of who wrote it.
In the case of Jesus & the New Testament...given the extraordinary content involving resurrection claims and divinity...does it not require any more validity to accept those stories as actually true reality rather than just stories about somebody named Jesus like we might see in the Odyssey?
Isn't the contents of what is written more pertinent to the level of acceptability of imperfect evidence though?
Aristotle, Plato, etc. are attributed to (relatively) mundane stories and observations about the world around them. So even if they are not the actual authors of their books...it doesn't do much to the validity of whats written. Only the credit of who wrote it.
In the case of Jesus & the New Testament...given the extraordinary content involving resurrection claims and divinity...does it not require any more validity to accept those stories as actually true reality rather than just stories about somebody named Jesus like we might see in the Odyssey?
Which is why second-party testimony is more significant than first-person self-aggrandizement.
Which is why second-party testimony is more significant than first-person self-aggrandizement.
Why are either of those credible though? You seem to be assigning a value of credibility to each and choosing one over the other. How does that process work?
We see lots of 1st and 2nd person accounts that are debunked all the time. Everything from aliens to bigfoot to Nessie to Jesus on toast. What makes 1st (let alone 2nd or 3rd) hand accounts from over 2000 years ago any more reliable? Especially given the unusual (or extraordinary) claims made.
Which is why second-party testimony is more significant than first-person self-aggrandizement.
This 'if you can't trust the Gospels, you can't trust any other book' is a good point and has several rejoinders.
One is that it doesn't matter too much whether Plato reported what Socrates said or used Socrates to argue what Plato thought. The ideas themselves are what matter. Indeed I found recently that we can't be sure the question of Epicurus is his or only ascribed to him (1). But Jesus is different. What is in the gospels has no force unless we know that Jesus actually said those things and backed up what he said by real demonstrations of divine authority. It is extraordinary claims and then some.
Another is that we do have reservations about histories and are always open to finding out that some events are anecdotal. We can take the Jugurthine war (Sallust) as a real event but the miracle of the rain -making we would reject. The same with a lot of the old histories. We reject the miracles, suspect some bias but accept the general story.
We must surely reject some of the gospels as unreliable, but how much? But that's another thread.
(1) though two church fathers credit Epicurus with the argument, so it's probably his in a work now lost.
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.
