Quality of this Forum (page 5)

aChristian

Dave,

You wrote: Would you like to read some things that have brought me to these conclusions?

I have read many such things before. Similarities do not prove influence. Jesus was a Jew. As such, He was greatly influenced by the Hebrew scriptures and the Jewish religion of His day. I believe that influence, along with the direct influence of God's Holy Spirit were his only spiritual influences.

It is, of course, possible that the influence of the Jewish religion which began some 1,500 years before Christ, and the influence of the religion of men such as Adam, Noah and Abraham which began thousands of years earlier than that, may have spread into eastern lands several thousands of years before Christ. It is also possible that, in ages long past, God revealed many of His truths to people in all parts of the earth who never came into contact with people living in the "Bible lands." (The story of Job, for instance, comes to mind. The Bible calls him, "The greatest man among all the people of the East." It also tells us that he lived in "the land of Uz." But Bible scholars have no real idea where that was.)

I am, however, convinced that God has revealed His greatest truths only through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

You asked: Are you saying that all religions teach good and moral things?

For the most part, certainly. I know few Christians who would say otherwise.

You wrote: If so, why did you choose Christianity? Geographical location? Familiarity with basic concept?

Those things certainly facilitated my conversion. But I refused to believe the Bible was the word of God until a thorough study of science and history convinced me that it was.

JanH

sunstarr,

IMO, everyone who enters a debate begins with the notion that they are correct. Would you suggest that your posts in this thread are any different?

When you enter a debate, sure. But it should not be like that when you investigate a subject. Personally, I prefer knowing a bit about the topic where I engage in a debate first. I realize others differ in this

Do you really post things such as:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are engaging in sheer, massive intellectual dishonesty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with the idea that you may or may not be correct?

That aChristian engage in massive intellectual dishonesty is a matter of record in this very thread. That is actually separate from the issue of him being right or wrong. He speculated wildly to save a preconceived position, before having done any research on the topic.

Further, is it not speculation to suggest that no written record of Herod's slaughter of children exists simply because none to date has been discovered?

Well, a "record" does exist, namely in Matthew. Of course, we know Matthew invented events to "fulfill" perceived or real messianic prophecies on Jesus. His credibility, to put it mildly, is very low.

One can always believe that undiscovered records do exist. But we do know that Josephus omitted this story, which is very strong evidence it did never happen.

Your "argument" is the same the GB and JW apologsist like Rofl Furuli uses to support the 607 date for Jerusalem's destruction. Sure, they admit, thousands of known documents from the Neo-Babylonian era fail to mention the "missing 20 years". But they take comfort from the fact that thousands of known documents are still not translated, and hope some will turn up supporting their chronology. DO I really have to point out to you the folly of this reasoning?

It is always rational to base ones beliefs on known and existing facts. By definition, new and previously unknown evidence can go either way. The sure way of almost always being wrong is to reject known facts and hope for new discoveries.

Surely, all beliefs are provisional to change if new evidence surfaces. In some cases, such evidence is not very unlikely. In other cases, it is so extremely unlikely that to hope for it is to engage in massive self-deception.

- Jan
--

aChristian

Jan,

You wrote: "He speculated wildly"

Cut me a break. I said, "the Bible tells us, "Herod was afraid of the people because they considered John a prophet." (Matt. 14:5) That being the case, it is very likely that Herod ordered that his killing of John not be publicized.

That is hardly "speculating wildly." In fact, I am very surprised that Herod allowed the news of his dastardly deed to get out.

JanH

aChristian,

That being the case, it is very likely that Herod ordered that his killing of John not be publicized.
That is hardly "speculating wildly." In fact, I am very surprised that Herod allowed the news of his dastardly deed to get out.

Since it is a matter of historical record, in Josephus, that it did become widely known, it is wild speculation from your part. And it is false.

- Jan
--

sunstarr

But it should not be like that when you investigate a subject.

Perhaps I was mistaken in assuming that the discussion between yourself and aChristian was more of a debate than an investigation. If so, disregard my statement.

That aChristian engage in massive intellectual dishonesty is a matter of record in this very thread. That is actually separate from the issue of him being right or wrong. He speculated wildly to save a preconceived position, before having done any research on the topic.

My intent for quoting you on that phrase was not to determine aChristian's intellectual honesty or dishonesty. Again, I was under the assumption that this discussion had taken the course of a debate. Therefore, my intent was to show that each side in a debate perceives as though they are correct unless proven otherwise.

Your "argument" is the same the GB and JW apologsist like Rofl Furuli uses to support the 607 date for Jerusalem's destruction. Sure, they admit, thousands of known documents from the Neo-Babylonian era fail to mention the "missing 20 years". But they take comfort from the fact that thousands of known documents are still not translated, and hope some will turn up supporting their chronology. DO I really have to point out to you the folly of this reasoning?

Believe me, I have no desire to rely on the idea that something is correct only because evidence proving so has not yet been discovered. Rather, my point is that, when discussing an issue that involves faith (which clearly indicates lack of evidence), some speculation may be necessary. Also, since we don't know what evidence may turn up in the future, one can merely speculate based on all that is present. I guess I'd boil that one down to: How many things in life are for certain?

Again, apologies if this is an investigation vs. a debate.

JanH

sunstarr,

Rather, my point is that, when discussing an issue that involves faith (which clearly indicates lack of evidence), some speculation may be necessary.

If that is your point, then I agree totally. I responded to exactly the assertion that there is evidence supporting Christian historical claims.

Naturally, to say you believe "on faith" is to say you believe because you believe. Now, that is a rejection of a rational approach to reality, as I see it. And this is precisely why many exJWs reject Christianity.

- Jan
--

sunstarr

Naturally, to say you believe "on faith" is to say you believe because you believe... And this is precisely why many exJWs reject Christianity.

Can't argue with you there. Thanks for the clarification.

-sunstarr

seven006

<<<You asked: Are you saying that all religions teach good and moral things?
For the most part, certainly. I know few Christians who would say otherwise.
You wrote: If so, why did you choose Christianity? Geographical location? Familiarity with basic concept?
Those things certainly facilitated my conversion. But I refused to believe the Bible was the word of God until a thorough study of science and history convinced me that it was.>>>

aChristian,

You are somewhat unique among evangelizing discussion board Christians that I have had the pleasure to know. My intent is not to try and disrupt your faith but only question what I saw as consistencies in some Christians.

I respect your open mindedness on the questions I asked you and the honest way in which you answered them.

I will not challenge the authenticity of your own words but will give you the due respect unless I see contradictions.

Thanks for your reply,

Take care,

Dave

GWEEDO

Achristian

...until I found what I considered to be compelling evidence that the story of scripture is true.

Gotta ask.

What convinced you?

aChristian

Gweedo,

You asked: What convinced you?

Several things which I do not have time to debate with all the Bible critics on this board. You may E mail me privately if you like.

Quality of this Forum

Share this