When does a religious argument simply become a fight between "truths"? Last night, and too far into the morning, I spent my time arguing with vegan atheists over the validity of the Bible, and how someone could believe in magic.
Vegan atheists are a different kind of fervent, jealous, and cut to the bone types who have chosen to be zealots of another creed. Many of the things that I learn while talking to these individuals, get lost between the trading of statements.
I try and keep my composure, but there is a point when it all comes to bear that the other person really isn't interested in talking about religion, or God, but holding me accountable for the Bible. This accountability isn't reversed or reciprocated because an atheist doesn't like to tell you what they believe. That's not up for discussion. They only want to tell you or prove how stupid you are for believing.
One of the things that I learned in this last "battle of the minds" was dug up in Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
http://bible.us/2Pet3.8.ESV
I had previously, understood the concept that God has longer days than is here on earth, but I hadn't been able to apply it as Biblical, only something represented by most Christian theologians. Well, now I am swayed this is easily something which accounts for Genesis, and the 6th day.
Many times I'll get into religious conversations, with an atheist who will want to prove without a shadow of a doubt right there in that conversation. They will tout their holding empirical proof that God doesn't exist, or that the Bible is infallible.
My new direction is to ask them what they actually believe. It's really easy to sit there and deconstruct any faith based notion, if you don't have a replacement set if values. Atheists like to claim science as their own. As if, "science" has come to the conclusion that God is dead. The science that they want to produce is unequivocally biased, because it eliminates Christian writers or scientists of faith. The data also chooses to selectively look at findings which are taken out of context and used in a fashion as to lean heavily on the calculations of physics or mathematics, not taking into account that God can bend space and time, mathematical structures, and this create miracles.
If you don't believe miracles are possible, trying to hold my deity to a constrained set of physics that you comprehend - (because they all seem to have this idea that they know better than everyone else) - to prove that the world has always worked one way or another reduces my God of His godlike nature. It strips him of His powers.
When I am willing to concede that Jesus Christ came down to show you what a God stripped of His powers looks like, and acts like, I am met with classic misunderstandings of the trinity. When discussing Noah's Arc, as this is one of the attack points of the "people of science" who claim that it is impossible for all the animals to survive on the arc. Well, for one, we didn't say that all the animals survived. And most importantly, when you put up these "biological" and "physics-based" tests against the Almighty Creator God, you are relieving Him of his ability to use his superpowers. You are eliminating the possibility of miracles, simply because, you don't want to believe in the supernatural. But i'm not willing to do that. This conversation revolves around the fact that God is all powerful, and that He could, if He choose to, feed the cheetah or sustain an environment where the Arc could withstand the environmental and biological effects of having a pair of each species onboard.
And so here we are, debating creationism. I'm not really a creationist. I believe that the Bible and evolution can coexist. There is nothing in the Bible that says that animals did not evolve, nor that humans lack the capacity for evolution. We do have Adam and Eve. And this throws off many evolutionists, because they would like to talk about Australopithecus Robustus, or any number of humanoids whose bones can somehow give us an indication that the Bible is in error. Problem is, the Bible didn't say that these didn't exist either. There are huge leaps in what the evolutionists say that the Bible claims, and what it actually claims.
The Bible doesn't talk about the Dinosaurs, unless we want to accept them as Nephilim, (which it isn't really talked about in depth either). What the Bible does cover is really interesting in regards to historical context and chronology of the most important character in the human & God story, Jesus Christ. We use science to try and prove the Bible wrong, while at the same time trying to claim a an unbiased eye. Much of what the evolutionists deem to be scientific are points which have been feed to them in their social and media channels on how they should attack people who have faith based religions. Rarely is it the actual scientist, and we don't hear how the science is disputed by numerous other organizations, and scientific channels.
Atheists like to use all kinds of sources which aren't the Bible, and in many cases they don't realize that those sources are affected by the Bible. The Bible itself is a historic document. It is a chronology of what has transpired in years when we don't have a lot of written text describing Jesus Christ, or of Christians in general. A lot of times, the Atheists will use other cultures, or other cultural findings to try and disprove Christian theology.
One of the things that science doesn't consider, is what it doesn't know. It claims to know, and that it can prove or disprove - because it's used to disproving and proving - because that's what it does. Science is the art of disproving and proving. But when I use science to prove God exists, you simply shrug and consider that the world that we live in. The world existed that way without God. When we look at the shores of a beach, or the structure of a leaf, even the beauty of something like physics or mathematics. The atheist would have me believe that these are all part of the obstacle course that is here for us that we are explaining. We can explain death on a cellular level.
But what we can't explain can fill countless libraries. We don't even know why we have to sleep. You still there, "science"? We don't know why we, as humans have to sleep. We get up, we go through our day, and at the end, we aren't sure why the body has to power down and recharge. Why can't it just refuel along the way? We don't know.
There is an interesting thing which occurs with the fallacies of logic as well. We will look into what they consider to be hypothetical situations, but without applying the superpowers that God has to manipulate said situation. Science always wants you to side with real world figures, and real world physics, but when you are talking about God, you introduce the concept that physics can be manipulated.
Is the New Testament Reliable? is a presentation given by Dr. Bart Ehrman and debated Craig Evans on March 31, 2010. The issue here, is that again, you are trying to take the Bible, and subdue it's power by removing God from the equation. The fact that God has preserved the Bible along the way through the sheer amount of Bible's purchased, the printing press, The Gideons International, scrolls and passing on the religion through rituals.
The Bible was delicately preserved by monks and people of faith who were impressed with honoring God. Any document that tries to affirm anything otherwise was not preserved nearly as well as the Bible. There was a process that was undertaken for determining what is and was considered conical, and much thought and consideration, even science, went into determining what scripture was included in what we deem the Bible itself.
Is The Bible God’s Word?There are some who flatly assert that the Bible is nothing more than a human book, and that the traditional view of the Bible as the infallible Word of God simply must be abandoned. Others tell us that the Bible is the Word of God, but they assert that we cannot trust all of its statements, that it is a trustworthy guide for spiritual matters but in questions of practical knowledge, it contains its share of errors.If the Bible is like every other book, in that it is merely a human production, it follows that there is no point in turning to the Bible to hear the voice of the living God. And if the Bible is trustworthy only in matters of faith but not in historical points, then the question immediately arises, “Who is to decide what is a matter of faith and what is a matter of life?”In writing to Timothy, the apostle Paul speaks of all Scripture as being inspired and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul used the Greek word “theopneustos,” the rendering of which translates into, “God-breathed.” What Paul meant was that all Scripture was spoken by God.There are those who claim that we who accept the Bible believe in a “dictation” theory of inspiration. But the Bible itself makes it clear that the human writers whom God chose were not treated as typewriters.In the writing of the Bible, God used their own personalities and characteristics, so that in a very real sense, different portions of the Bible may be attributed to them. The style of Paul’s writings is certainly unique, as is the style of the writings of John.We do God a grave injustice if we refuse to believe His words. It follows that if God has spoken a word, that word must be true. To assert otherwise is to fall into the grossest kind of idolatry. It is to exalt the opinion of the creature above the truth of the Creator.The Bible is infallible. If the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ rose from the dead (John 20), we may believe that truth and not fear that we would later have to abandon it.The Bible is also inerrant. If Scriptures tell us that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin (I Peter 1:19), we may rest assured that this is true and that later investigations of men will not prove the contrary.Christians may place their confidence in the words of the Bible. We need not be dismayed by the many attacks that are being made upon it today. If the Bible is the Word of God – and because of the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, the Christian is compelled to believe that it is – then it follows that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and that we may repose our confidence not merely in some, but in all of its wondrous declarations. For it is truly the Holy Scripture which is able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[read more: http://www.gideons.org/News/InternationalNews.aspx ]
The Bible was delicately preserved by monks and people of faith who were impressed with honoring God. Any document that tries to affirm anything otherwise was not preserved nearly as well as the Bible. There was a process that was undertaken for determining what is and was considered conical, and much thought and consideration, even science, went into determining what scripture was included in what we deem the Bible itself.
Are there any documents proving Jesus' existence?
Yes. They are called the New Testament, which has been repeatedly confirmed as historically reliable in details which can be checked.
Outside the Bible there are a number of documents which demonstrate Jesus existence. Tacitus the Roman Historian refers to Him, as does Phlegon in reference to the darkness at the time of the crucifixion. Josephus, the Jewish historian also refers to a number of Gospel details and certainly assumes the existence of Jesus himself.
The fact is that the skeptical scholarship of the late 19th and early 20th century has been swept aside by the tide of evidence, even though it is unfortunately still quoted as if true and irrefutable by persons with anti-Biblical presuppositions. Modern scholars also accept that the New Testament itself was written much earlier than previously thought. Even such liberals as J.A.T. Robinson in his epochal work 'Redating the New Testament' explains his conviction that the entire New Testament was written before AD70.
These are significant conclusions as they reinforce the claims of the New Testament itself to be the work of either eyewitnesses or of those who knew them. Thus making it, as a historical document, of first-rate importance.
In addition to these, there are many other non-canonical gospels that confirm Jesus' existence. Also we have the writings of Irenaeus and others who learned of Jesus from their own teachers (Polycarp in the case of Irenaeus). Polycarp was a pupil of Jiohn the apostle.
To deny the validity of the gospels as historical evidence is as foolish and bigoted as denying the validity of documentation 'proving' that other great figures existed such as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or even William Shakespeare for that matter. For there are many times more ancient references to the existence of Jesus Christ, that have better providence, than Julius Carear, Alexander the Great and Shakespeare all put together, but sadly it seems trendy these days for pseudo-intellectuals claiming that Jesus never existed, presumably because they know better than the countless learned figures who have written about this carpenter from Nazareth over the last 2000 years.
Evidence from a 'Hostile Witness'
Julian 'the apostate' born in 331 AD was so called since, even though he was raised as a Christian, he renounced and became an enemy of Christianity when he came to the imperial throne as Emperor in the year 361. As Emperor he had access to all the imperial records and so wrote in a defiant tone when speaking of the enrolment of Mary and Joseph at Bethlehem, as it is mentioned in the census referred to in Luke 2.
"There is absolutely no known record of evidence that Jesus was "enrolled as one of Caesar's subjects," unless it was at the time which Julian affirms. He says : "Jesus, whom you celebrate, was one of Caesar's subjects. If you dispute it, I will prove it.....for yourselves allow that he was enrolled by his father and mother at the time of Cyrenius." (Lardner, Works, 7:626-27) as quoted from Merril F Unger, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody, Chicago 1988. p. 231.
This document is hardly in favor of Christianity, but in fact is from a fierce opponent, who would have been all too keen to disprove Jesus' existence. Quite possibly, the point of Julian's argument is that Jesus was only a man and not God. This is obviously a matter of faith, whereas Jesus' earthly existence is merely a matter of fact, as evidenced by the reference cited by Julian.
Evidence from Patristic Sources
The references to the works of Justin Martyr and Tertullian below are relevant in that they appeal to the records of the Romans. Such were evidently still extant at the time they wrote, and so could have and would have been gladly used by the opponents of Christianity at the time.
Justin Martyr (born 105 AD) says: "Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registries of the taxing under Quirinius your first procurator in Judea." (First Apology, chapter 34.)
The context was Justin defending the Christians from persecution by the government. He is most unlikely to appeal to their own records if they did not exist or contradicted his account and so thus giving them a further reason for accusation against the Christians.
Tertullian (born 160 AD) in similar context of defense also appeals to the Romans own records. In referring to the same enrolment event Tertullian says:
"There is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ." (Marcion 4.19).
With respect to Luke's reference, it must be pointed out that Luke refers to the timing of the census, not who carried it out. Although, of course, it is likely that Quirinius was involved in the census where he had jurisdiction.
Answer
The Bible is the only textual-direct reference to the existence of Jesus. Any outside documents that reference Jesus were only made after Christianity became a major cult movement thus inferring that the references of Jesus in the Roman texts are not independent but from outside sources i.e. Christianity. Regardless of current writings-the Bible was still written many years after the death of Jesus and his Disciples, which one must conclude there may be some exaggerations.
Regardless of other documents that mention Christ-One must keep in mind the impact Christianity was having on the world even around 105 AD and that there was not a direct source of the knowledge of Christ; yet, a past down story. So consequentially, the Bible is the only direct source at the time of Christ to prove existence.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_any_documents_proving_Jesus'_existence#ixzz1xheVAuls
Comments
Post a Comment