Read...then discuss

[mererdog]

On 10/21/2017 at 4:01 AM, Dan56 said:

 

There are no original manuscripts of anything thousands of years old.. They rot and decay, so we're reliant on accurate copies and translations into a hundred different languages.

We have more than a few examples of cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts that are more than five thousand years old. It sort of begs the question: If you want your words to remain unchanged throughout the ages, why put them on something that rots? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

We have more than a few examples of cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts that are more than five thousand years old. It sort of begs the question: If you want your words to remain unchanged throughout the ages, why put them on something that rots? 

 

 

Good one.     

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

10 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

 

von

 

 

Yes.     

[Dan56]

On 10/21/2017 at 10:02 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

That is an odd assertion.  What is it based on?

 

 

I probably should not have said "most", since I doubt an official survey has been conducted to substantiate it. They did do a poll in England of 3000 people, 12% of which were atheist, and 40% of them believed Jesus was a mythical figure, meaning the other 60 percent thought the man Christ actually existed, but just not as a god. From page 10 of my link; "Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.." 

 

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

We have more than a few examples of cuneiform and hieroglyphic texts that are more than five thousand years old. It sort of begs the question: If you want your words to remain unchanged throughout the ages, why put them on something that rots? 

 

It was hard enough lugging the 10 commandments around, can you imagine the entire bible in stone?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I probably should not have said "most", since I doubt an official survey has been conducted to substantiate it. They did do a poll in England of 3000 people, 12% of which were atheist, and 40% of them believed Jesus was a mythical figure, meaning the other 60 percent thought the man Christ actually existed, but just not as a god. From page 10 of my link; "Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.." 

 

 

It was hard enough lugging the 10 commandments around, can you imagine the entire bible in stone?

 

 

In fairness, it does sound like some heavy reading.         

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

can you imagine the entire bible in stone?

Yes. I've seen ancient Egyptian temples. You can pack a lot of text on a wall. I suppose I worded my question poorly, since it isnt an either/or kind of thing. You can have some copies that have a ten thousand year shelf life and others that are easily portable. So the question is why only have copies that rot?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Yes. I've seen ancient Egyptian temples. You can pack a lot of text on a wall. I suppose I worded my question poorly, since it isnt an either/or kind of thing. You can have some copies that have a ten thousand year shelf life and others that are easily portable. So the question is why only have copies that rot?

 

This is good.     

 

Even better.  Paper copies that refuse to rot.  It would make a nice miracle.       

 

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:06 PM, ULCneo said:

 

It facilitates understanding of the topic by way of not giving examples which are incorrect in terms of the parts of history that agreed to by both the early Christian Church and the Secular historians whom were contemporary to the events. Otherwise, we insert incorrect information into our arguments, and such arguments will fail as a consequence that flows from incorrect information. This is what Google is for.

Care to cite those contemporary sources?

[mererdog]

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Even better.  Paper copies that refuse to rot.  It would make a nice miracle.

"Never do with a miracle what you can do with a chisel and hammer."

-mererdog's Guide To Lazy Godding Vol 72: You Didn't Need The Other 71 Volumes

Edited October 23, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Care to cite those contemporary sources?

 

 

We keep coming back to that.  The lack of independent verification.  There are no contemporary sources.  Only allegations which can not be trusted -- at all.  Which have been exposed as frauds.  

 

 

 

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

"Never do with a miracle what you can do with a chisel and hammer."

 

I very much doubt that the bible chiseled in stone would not make a difference to those who reject paper. They reject the message, not its authenticity.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

We keep coming back to that.  The lack of independent verification.  There are no contemporary sources.  Only allegations which can not be trusted -- at all.   

 

No independent verification would suffice, no non-believer would accept it. There are contemporary sources; https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/

 

God has never relied on non-believers to verify himself, and why would he? There's a reason we are called by faith, doubters have never understood that.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I very much doubt that the bible chiseled in stone would not make a difference to those who reject paper. They reject the message, not its authenticity.

 

 

No independent verification would suffice, no non-believer would accept it. There are contemporary sources; https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/

 

God has never relied on non-believers to verify himself, and why would he? There's a reason we are called by faith, doubters have never understood that.

 

 

Then you stand with St. Augustine.  "We believe because it is absurd."  

 

[mererdog]

10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

God has never relied on non-believers to verify himself, and why would he? 

According to the Bible, Moses and Saul were both nonbelievers, until they were shown direct proof of God. They weren't called by faith or expected to believe the accuracy of rotting texts. And you just don't have Christianity without those two.

 

Even though he was told that those who believe without evidence are blessed, he was still given the evidence he needed to go from Doubting Thomas to Fully Convinced Thomas.

Edited October 24, 2017 by mererdog

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Then you stand with St. Augustine.  "We believe because it is absurd."

 

 

Close...... I believe because it makes sense.... As absurd as that may seem 

 

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

According to the Bible, Moses and Saul were both nonbelievers, until they were shown direct proof of God. They weren't called by faith or expected to believe the accuracy of rotting texts. And you just don't have Christianity without those two.

 

Even though he was told that those who believe without evidence are blessed, he was still given the evidence he needed to go from Doubting Thomas to Fully Convinced Thomas.

 

Moses & Saul believed, one was used to write most of the OT and the other wrote most of the NT. Remember that the Pharaoh witness many of the same miracles as Moses, and the Pharisees saw some of the same miracles as the disciples (John 9:16), but neither demonstrated faith despite the evidence. As Jesus said; "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). 
 

[cuchulain]

19 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I very much doubt that the bible chiseled in stone would not make a difference to those who reject paper. They reject the message, not its authenticity.

 

 

No independent verification would suffice, no non-believer would accept it. There are contemporary sources; https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/

 

God has never relied on non-believers to verify himself, and why would he? There's a reason we are called by faith, doubters have never understood that.

i reject the bible because i reject its authenticity.  if i knew it was god inspired and accurately portrayed your version of god i'd be stupid to reject the message.  but it's such a poorly written work that it's easy to see it's not perfect as claimed.

[cuchulain]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Close...... I believe because it makes sense.... As absurd as that may seem 

 

 

Moses & Saul believed, one was used to write most of the OT and the other wrote most of the NT. Remember that the Pharaoh witness many of the same miracles as Moses, and the Pharisees saw some of the same miracles as the disciples (John 9:16), but neither demonstrated faith despite the evidence. As Jesus said; "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). 
 

and none of those sources are contemporary...meaning same actual time AND place.

[mererdog]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Moses & Saul believed, one was used to write most of the OT and the other wrote most of the NT. 

Yes. After they were given direct evidence. Talking bushes and angels in the sky... None of that ringing any bells? 

As for Pharoah, Exodus 9:12.

Edited October 24, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yes. After they were given direct evidence. Talking bushes and angels in the sky... None of that ringing any bells? 

As for Pharoah, Exodus 9:12.

 

 

More than one man has found God in a burning bush.          

 

Somebody had to say it.          

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

i reject the bible because i reject its authenticity.  if i knew it was god inspired and accurately portrayed your version of god i'd be stupid to reject the message.  but it's such a poorly written work that it's easy to see it's not perfect as claimed.

 

The difference is perception, I think the bible is an excellent written work.. If we look hard enough, we all find what we're looking for.

 

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

and none of those sources are contemporary...meaning same actual time AND place.

 

I guess there weren't too many reporters following a peasant from Nazareth around back then.. Go figure ... And even if there was an independent source from the exact same time,  I seriously doubt it would change anyone's mind.

 

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yes. After they were given direct evidence. Talking bushes and angels in the sky... None of that ringing any bells? 

As for Pharoah, Exodus 9:12.

 

God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that was just facilitating a process that the Pharaoh himself initiated. Prior to God turning the Pharaoh over to being a hard head,   Exodus repeatedly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15 and 32). Saul believed in God, he was  a zealous defender of the law, the intervention was to change his understanding and set him in the right direction.

 

Of course God gave the prophets and apostles some direct evidence, they were all chosen for a specific purpose, but imo it was faith not belief that got the task done. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The difference is perception, I think the bible is an excellent written work.. If we look hard enough, we all find what we're looking for.

 

 

I guess there weren't too many reporters following a peasant from Nazareth around back then.. Go figure ... And even if there was an independent source from the exact same time,  I seriously doubt it would change anyone's mind.

 

 

God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that was just facilitating a process that the Pharaoh himself initiated. Prior to God turning the Pharaoh over to being a hard head,   Exodus repeatedly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15 and 32). Saul believed in God, he was  a zealous defender of the law, the intervention was to change his understanding and set him in the right direction.

 

Of course God gave the prophets and apostles some direct evidence, they were all chosen for a specific purpose, but imo it was faith not belief that got the task done. 

 

 

You seem to think that the Jesus movement was the only thing going on back then.  There were plenty of God men, mystics and messiahs making claims.  Or their followers were making claims for them.

 

Through the centuries, there have continued to be various messianic movements.  Jacob Frank and Shabbatai Tzvi were among the biggest.  They still have underground movements. There were others.

 

Even now, the world is full of God people and their movements.  You probably don't care.  I don't.   If you do care, I can name some of them.  A few have shown up on this board, trolling for followers.  

 

Which brings me to the point.  Why should the silly claims, made by your Scriptures -- be taken more seriously, than all the other ludicrous claims, that have come to my attention?  Some of them, quite current.  Others of only historic interest.  All of them expecting belief.  Most of them with miracle stories of their own -- and yes.  Fulfilled prophecy.