(February 22, 2012 at 4:50 pm)Abracadabra Wrote:(February 22, 2012 at 3:51 pm)Carnavon Wrote: I trust in Jesus Christ and his work on the cross – as an atonement for sin.
If that's true, then why appeal to the words of Paul or others?
Why not go with things that were attributed direct to Jesus, or to the authors of the Gospels who claim to be quoting him directly all the time?
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God
Here John is making a pretty straight-forward claim. If you are to believe that you can trust John to speak for God and that Jesus was "The Word Made Flesh", then why should you doubt the words of John or go off using the words of Paul or others to contradict these words?
The issue was predestination and the comments are my personal take on what do I do with this – and my response is that I trust only in Jesus (and not in the concept of predestination), although that (predestination) is my view and experience of how I came to Christ. I did not deal with the basis on which we are justified – belief in the Jesus Christ as you correctly pointed out.
Maybe you can explain why you see John 3:18 as contradictory?
Quote:Carnavon Wrote: Jesus' claims are either that of an outright liar, a lunatic or he was speaking the truth (I think it was CS Lewis that said that). Historical facts contradict that he was either of the first two mentioned.
The trustworthiness of the Bible (as far as can be verified) add to my confidence
Yes, you're right it was CS Lewis who said that, but CS Lewis assumes that the New Testament represents the word of Jesus verbatim. There's no reason to assume that unless you have already accepted that these rumors represent the undeniable "word of God". And if you have already done that then there's nothing more to consider.
In fact, if you take CS Lewis' position that you need to 'justify' every word of the Bible verbatim, then you're stuck with having no choice to believe that it's all the sacred word of God. Because in these tales they claim that God himself spoke to the people from a cloud stating that Jesus is his son and that we should hear him.
Matt.17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mark.9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke.9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
If you believe that, then it's a done deal. There's nothing more to question.
On the other hand if you believe, like me, that these rumors are most likely fibs made up in an attempt to give these absurd rumors clout, then you should simultaneously recognize that this is indeed a huge red flag that clearly demonstrates that nothing these rumors claim should be taken seriously or trusted to be genuine.
As far as CS Lewis in concerned, you will agree that when you use the argument on one point, (which you assume as your own view), the issue is not CS Lewis but the argument itself. So the point was actually Jesus as either liar, lunatic or He was speaking the truth.
True, you do not accept what is reported and make it off as rumours/fables/fibs etc. The problem is that you have no proof of your claims. At most, questions are raised. It is also true that one always attach more value to the stories of those that have proven themselves to be reliable than those whose claims almost always involve some form of lie. (Which is actually a hallmark of Satan- "You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it".
Why would I believe something that is outside of normal human experience? Because I can trust the Bible, based on facts that I am able to verify. If one is able to verify anything that is possible of verification and you have found no falsehood or deceit, one can trust the source.
Quote:I make no secret about the fact that I completely dismiss the entire Hebrew rumors as nothing more than extremely biased superstitions.
In fact, just look around you today. Look at how many people argue and try to support these stupid rumors when in fact, they weren't there and could have absolutely no knowledge of whether any of this stuff ever took place.
Apparently it's human nature to support fibs and rumors that they like.
Why should we believe that the authors of these ancient fables were any different?
In fact, most scholars recognize that Matthew and Luke were both just retelling Mark's fables.
So basically these gospels are just one rumor being retold by different authors. None of them saw the events that they are reporting. It's all just hearsay rumors being passed along from one idiot to another.
If these were rumours they would not be reflected in secular history? And at the very least be strongly denied by the "opposition" and factual evidence provided to disprove the claims (for one the resurrection of Jesus). Despite that, the best they could do is to spread rumours that the body was "stolen" , despite the most stringent security.
The confidence I have in the Bible is time and again validated. A little while back James Cameron claimed to have found Jesus’ grave, supposedly proving that the resurrection is a “fable” as you would call it. Now the claim by Cameron has been ridiculed by many and has “disappeared into thin air”
These so called fables have never been proven wrong, to the contrary, new evidence continuously support the Bible instead of proving it wrong – even in cases where the Bible record was previously reported as being incorrect.
You call the Bible records “fables” without evidence whereas I am able to supply evidence of secular history and archaeology supporting Biblical records.
As far as “copying”, it would seem that Luke (physician) lays claim to having accurately researched the information
Luk 1:1 Since many took in hand to draw up an account concerning the matters having been borne out among us,
Luk 1:2 as those from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good also to me, having traced out all things accurately from the first, to write in order to you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may know the certainty concerning the words which you were taught.
Luke was apparently a historian of quality and we can thus accept his record as fairly accurate (if not altogether) – wherever he obtained information from. To repeat a story is no indication that it is false, to the contrary it lends credibility to the source when it is claimed that it was properly researched. Thus Luke actually “underwrites” the sources he may have used.
There are sufficient extra biblical evidence that supports the events reported in the Bible (Refer for instance to the Ebla tablets etc)
It never fails to amuse me to hear of some or other claim of proof “contradicting the Bible” which is later found to be based on false information – whether intentional or not.
I am sorry that I have seemed to miss some of your previous and very good questions. If there is anything in particular you would like to address, I will be too happy to respond. I appreciate the value of your questions.
