Is the Charleston church shooting making anyone doubt their Faith?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
So what makes you think the choice God had was to give us free will or make us "Worshipful robots?" I never heard that anywhere, but I doubt I've read as many theology books as you have. But from what I've seen, God seems to have made some people pretty clueless -- sort of too dumb to use free will or to be a worshipful robot. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
As a published researcher, certainly you understand that you should examine multiple sources around an event. Aside from the insignificant accounts from Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus, what other evidence proves the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels? One would think that if a man turned water into wine - one of the lesser miracles imo - it would certainly be captured by many others. |
Anonymous
Historians are not in the business of verifying miracles because they can only study that which happens within the natural environment, and miracles are supernatural. What historians could verify would be if anyone was talking about the miracles that Jesus was doing and apparently, they were not. |
Anonymous
I realize that. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. And that's why I mentioned examining multiple sources as a way to document these miracles. Again, if these miracles did take place, they would have been so wondrous that many others would have noted them. odd that this wasn't the case . . . |
Anonymous
Just because people didn't note them doesn't mean they didn't happen. Most people were illiterate then and of course, transportation was very slow, so it may not be so strange that word didn't get around. Looks at the Exodus -- that made big news eventually. It changed the course of the world! But there's no record of people knowing about it when it was happening, and 20th century Jewish archaeologists found nothing in the desert to indicate that anyone spent 40 years crossing it. This is where faith comes in. It's a fool's errand to try to prove anything in the Bible. Historians and archeologists have failed over and over again and literature and mythology experts have traced biblical stories to other similar ancient stories that no one thinks are factual. But faith and empirical knowledge are two different things and should not be confused. You can be very intelligent and have faith that allows you to disregard science and history and literature. Not so much to disregard it, really, but to compartmentalize it - to place it in a different realm that does not interfere with the gift of faith. Not everyone can do it. It takes intelligence and determination, as well as the grace of God. |
Anonymous
You must know about oral tradition, yes? Look at the Greek and Roman myths that were passed down orally. Again, if these miracles did indeed occur, we would have witnesses - however many people removed from the actual events. sorry - I prefer fact over faith. |
Anonymous
Many people prefer fact over faith. They just can't disregard common sense and so much scientific knowledge. Our predecessors in faith had a much easier time of it -- so much less was known in times past that even if some of the miracle stories seemed far fetched, they were easier to accept in the absence of archeological findings and academic biblical historical studies. These days, you really have to suspend your disbelief to persevere, but some very intelligent people are still able to do it. Others, irrespective of their intelligence, are blessed with a simple faith that allows them to believe unimpeded by fact or logic. Still others, don't give it much thought. They've believed since they were children and they intend to keep on believing. It's quite comfortable and the idea of heaven, however vague, is still appealing. |
Anonymous
1 John 1:1-4 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete." Luke's gospel begins thus: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." Matthew was a follower of Christ and first-hand witness of the events he recounts. It seems odd that one would reject the Gospels as not being eyewitness accounts just because there weren't MORE eyewitness accounts than the ones we have. |
Anonymous
The idea is to corroborate what's said in the Bible with an outside source. Just the Bible (or any story book) saying that it's a true story doesn't make it true. It could just be a trick for the gullible. But that doesn't matter to people who believe everything in the Bible just because its the Bible |
Anonymous
The idea is to corroborate what's said in the Bible with an outside source. Just the Bible (or any story book) saying that it's a true story doesn't make it true. It could just be a trick for the gullible. But that doesn't matter to people who believe everything in the Bible just because its the Bible First PP is the one making sense here. There ARE multiple contemporaneous sources, that the gospels consolidated. The ARE outside sources (the aforementioned Tacitus, et cetera) who don't mention the miracles because, you know, these are outside sources, which means they weren't part of the community of believers and either hadn't personally witnesssed the miracles, or were generally writing from the Roman perspective, or both. Also, lots of documents from that era were lost, which should be so obvious it doesn't need to be stated, but perhaps it does need to be stated here. Where the gospels are concerned, there's a theory that there was a Q source, for example, but we don't have that earlier source. Anyway, thanks second PP, for reminding me that banalities for the sake of just continuing to argue are why I try to stay off this forum. |
Anonymous
First PP is the one making sense here. There ARE multiple contemporaneous sources, that the gospels consolidated. The ARE outside sources (the aforementioned Tacitus, et cetera) who don't mention the miracles because, you know, these are outside sources, which means they weren't part of the community of believers and either hadn't personally witnesssed the miracles, or were generally writing from the Roman perspective, or both. Also, lots of documents from that era were lost, which should be so obvious it doesn't need to be stated, but perhaps it does need to be stated here. Where the gospels are concerned, there's a theory that there was a Q source, for example, but we don't have that earlier source. Anyway, thanks second PP, for reminding me that banalities for the sake of just continuing to argue are why I try to stay off this forum. Also, an "outside source" who heard of the miracles and believed in them is by definition no longer an "outside source," s/he is now a "believer." At the risk of stating the obvious. |
Anonymous
Really? If somebody told me orally about the Declaration of Independence, I shouldn't believe them until I go to the National Archives and see the document for myself? So if my friend or DH told me orally about 9/11, I shouldn't believe it until I visit the WTC site, even if it requires time travel back to 2001? If somebody tells me orally about something but I can't find a piece of paper to prove it, I should assume they made it up? Is this how you operate when somebody tells you something? The gospels are exactly the witnesses you say you are looking for. In your own words, they are "witnesses, however many people removed from the actual events." So then you say you want non-Christian sources who write about the miracles as if they actually happened. But by definition, non-Christians don't believe in the miracles, so they aren't going to write about them. So basically, you've set up this "gotcha" list of demands that's non-sensical as well as self-contradictory. Do you understand that, or is this just what you do for fun because you have nothing else to do? |
Anonymous
I'm not the PP but have you studied Gospels side by side instead of just one right after the other? There are plenty examples where one gospel might leave out, add, or even contradict something said by another about the very same topic. For instance compare the birth narrative of Jesus in John, Luke, Matthew, and Mark. There are striking differences in each. Does this mean that they're ALL wrong? No. But it does beg the question as to why those differences exist in the first place. My guess is that each author is trying to make a theological point and NOT simply factually retell a story. Not exactly the best reference material. Even if these were "just the facts", "eyewitness stories" (and they're not - on either point), that's still a terrible source of evidence. Do we convict murderers on just eyewitness testimony? Of course not. It's certainly can be powerful but people get the actual account wrong all the time. I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a historical text. |
Anonymous
I posted at 15:43 on 7/9/2015. Would you please tell me where "Matthew" makes the claim in Matthew that this is an eye witness account? I don't believe he does so. |