Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> One Big Fairytale, The most well known book to man, the Bible
Resurrection
post Jan 12 2008, 08:28 PM
Post #101



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



Strobel's book indeed isn't extremely convincing of the divinity of Christ, but it does make some very interesting points. The chapter on the medical evidence was fascinating. For example, it explained that it is actually possible to sweat blood like the Gospel says Jesus did in the garden of Gethsemane. It's called hematidrosis and it has something to do with psychological stress...Jesus was obviously under a lot because he knew he would be crucified the next day. It doesn't seem like it was made up because medical knowledge back then wasn't exactly up to par with today's, so Luke wouldn't have even known that such a thing was possible. There are other little details like that in the Gospels that are correct, and it just makes them more credible because of such meticulous accuracy.

http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?q...amp;x=0&y=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Jan 12 2008, 09:07 PM
Post #102



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



So the argument that makes the gospels more credible is that Jesus was observed to have sweated blood. And things of this nature which were the work of God at the time, but now we understand them scientifically.

I find it hard to reiterate this enough...

If we determine a gospel "credible", then we must claim the historical events it claims happened actually did. All of them. If it is NOT credible, then the word of the gospel cannot be trusted and the fact that it got certain events right could just be a one off when the writers did a bit of research.

The whole story surrounding the virgin birth (crappy dates, possible mistranslations, highly likely borrowings) puts doubt on the credibility of the gospels. Your argument is that the gospel writers/followers of Jesus observing a naturally occuring phenomenon (as scientifically explainable as walking or breathing) gives it credibility?

No. It could only be credible if its facts were consistent, or if there was corresponding historical evidence that those phenomenon that science cannot explain occured.

"He made up one thing but didn't make up another" does not give something credibility. That's like saying "I held a convenience store at gunpoint the other day. This week I went into a different convenience store at didn't rob them. Therefore I am not a criminal."


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Jan 12 2008, 10:38 PM
Post #103



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



QUOTE(Fox @ Jan 12 2008, 04:07 PM) *

So the argument that makes the gospels more credible is that Jesus was observed to have sweated blood.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that if one part is shown to be credible, the other parts are more likely to be credible. I am not basing the credibility of the Gospels on this one thing.

QUOTE(Fox @ Jan 12 2008, 04:07 PM) *

"He made up one thing but didn't make up another" does not give something credibility.

Well, I'm not convinced that the writers made anything up in the first place. So that's not what I'm saying either.

Can you give me a source referencing those "crappy dates" you're talking about?


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Jan 12 2008, 11:35 PM
Post #104



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric.../quirinius.html

There's a good one, its the article I referenced a few posts back. Basically questions the gospels of Luke and Matthew. Heres a very very brief overview of the flaws that have been found by free thinking historians:

Luke: The Census under the governer he claims was in control at the time was a local cencus in 6 A.D

Matthew: King Herod died around 3 B.C.

Obviously if either of these dates are after or before "0" respectivly then the gospels are wrong. Whether purposefully or not is another point - but if they are wrong about simple facts like this, they are not infallible and everything esle they say should be treated with similar suspiscion.

It should also be noted that Matthew claims that Joseph and Mary had always lived in Bethlehem, Luke claims they travelled there from Nazereth.

At the very very least, one of those Gospels is not a credible source. And I don't buy: "if one part is shown to be credible, the other parts are more likely to be credible". If a convicted murderer lies (or is mistaken) about some things ("I didnt kill no-one!!") but is shown to be telling the truth about others (He really does like pancakes) does not generally make you trust him in future.

OK, it's a pretty extreme example but I hope you see where I'm coming from on that.


On quite an unrelated matter: I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". Obviously it is a convincing book because of the way it is written. What astounded me were the theistic rebuttles I read (including an in-depth review by Alvin Plantinga), which were so weak even I was able to point out how they didn't work!!! Imagine what people like Dawkins himself must have done.


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Jan 13 2008, 12:36 AM
Post #105



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



I didn't read that entire link but after browsing it it seems to rely on the fact that Josephus dates the census to 6 AD. So how do we know that Josephus was right and the evangelists were wrong?


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Jan 13 2008, 01:10 AM
Post #106



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



I can't say... other then the study carrier links to that suggests Luke used Josephus as a source. The are various citations throughout implying mroe in-depth evidence but most are just to chapters in books I don't own, meaning - irritatingly - I can't give you any more evidence personally.

What is interesting is that a large number of biblical scholars held the opinion that the gospels were wrong here, I wish I knew what other sources there were besides Josephus but it seems almost without question that those dates are accurate. Not a single one of the arguments from religious scholars I've read has said "What of Josephus was wrong?"

Still, this is something I may look into more in-depth to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

6 Pages V « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th June 2018 - 04:57 AM


Copyright 2003-2007 FFXII.Net - All Rights Reserved - Disclaimer
Final Fantasy XII, FFXII & FF12 are registered trademarks of Square Enix Co., Ltd.