A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[FiredUp4jesus]

Well, you discount the actual evidence we have discovered with conflicting evidence we haven't discovered.

I do? That's news to me...

It seems that you would prefer to believe that the conflicting evidence exists, but simply hasn't been discovered yet.

I don't "prefer" anything.

If I tried too argue that Alexander the Great didn't actually exist, that he was a myth, and there might be compelling evidence out there that would prove this, I don't think you would view that as a very good argument.

Of course not. Am I trying to argue that Jesus of Nazareth didn't actually exist? Again, that would be news to me.

How convenient it must be for you to already know what I think and then be able provide rebuttals to arguments that I haven't even made!

1.

Lotan Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easyrider wrote:
Better & overwhelming historical evidence & accounts to the contrary.

How do you know that it wasn't destroyed on both occasions?

This is the post I was reffering to. If I have misinterpreted your point please correct my understanding.

[Lotan]

This is the post I was reffering to. If I have misinterpreted your point please correct my understanding.

It's hard to say what you might have misinterpreted since you haven't clearly stated your objection(s).
If you think that I am trying to say that Jerusalem was, in fact, destroyed in 4 AD then yes, you have misinterpreted. My question to Easyrider was why he would consider a document that said as much to be illegitimate; to find out what criteria he considers to be evidence of legitimacy.
Would you like to answer for him as well?

[FiredUp4jesus]

This is the post I was reffering to. If I have misinterpreted your point please correct my understanding.

It's hard to say what you might have misinterpreted since you haven't clearly stated your objection(s).
If you think that I am trying to say that Jerusalem was, in fact, destroyed in 4 AD then yes, you have misinterpreted. My question to Easyrider was why he would consider a document that said as much to be illegitimate; to find out what criteria he considers to be evidence of legitimacy.
Would you like to answer for him as well?

I thought that we we simply using that (Jerusalem in 4ad) as an example.Sorry if I got us off track. Now, are you aking me what I consider to be a legitimate historical document? Or asking what I think Easyrider's idea of legitimacy is?

[Lotan]

Now, are you aking me what I consider to be a legitimate historical document? Or asking what I think Easyrider's idea of legitimacy is?

I am asking what criteria Easyrider considers to be evidence of legitimacy; documentwise.
If you would like to give your own answer, that would be fine. I really don't care to know what you think Easyrider would have to say.

[Goat]

Why would you rather believe it was?

I never said that I would, so why would you ask?

Well, you discount the actual evidence we have discovered with conflicting evidence we haven't discovered. It seems that you would prefer to believe that the conflicting evidence exists, but simply hasn't been discovered yet. If I tried too argue that Alexander the Great didn't actually exist, that he was a myth, and there might be compelling evidence out there that would prove this, I don't think you would view that as a very good argument.

One thing I find about a lot of people is that many times evidence is often blown out of proportion , or proclaimed to be evidence of something it is not to booster a strongly held belief. THis evidence, when looked at objectively , is not the evidence the some believe it to be.

We have records of Alexander the Great that date from his
lifetime. The stories in the Gospels describe a lot of amazing events that one would think WOULD have been recorded by contemporary people if it actually happened as described. However, there is no evidence that it did.

[FiredUp4jesus]

One thing I find about a lot of people is that many times evidence is often blown out of proportion , or proclaimed to be evidence of something it is not to booster a strongly held belief. THis evidence, when looked at objectively , is not the evidence the some believe it to be.

We have records of Alexander the Great that date from his
lifetime. The stories in the Gospels describe a lot of amazing events that one would think WOULD have been recorded by contemporary people if it actually happened as described. However, there is no evidence that it did.

I'm jumping into something I don't know the answer to in advance, but what evidence of Alexander are you comparing to the Gospels and the New Testament (which are independent works by the way).

[Goat]

One thing I find about a lot of people is that many times evidence is often blown out of proportion , or proclaimed to be evidence of something it is not to booster a strongly held belief. THis evidence, when looked at objectively , is not the evidence the some believe it to be.

We have records of Alexander the Great that date from his
lifetime. The stories in the Gospels describe a lot of amazing events that one would think WOULD have been recorded by contemporary people if it actually happened as described. However, there is no evidence that it did.

I'm jumping into something I don't know the answer to in advance, but what evidence of Alexander are you comparing to the Gospels and the New Testament (which are independent works by the way).

Well, let's look at first, primary sources. Most primary sources of Alexander are lost, however, we do have the
astronomical diaries, texts from ancient babylonian where astrological and political events were recorded. It said
[qs]
That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: barley [lacuna] kur; mustard, 3 kur, at the end of the month [lacuna]; sesame, 1 pân, 5 minas.
At that time, Jupiter was in Scorpio; Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo; Saturn was in Pisces; Mercury and Mars, which had set, were not visible.
That month, the river level was [lacuna].
On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world [Alexander] erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius] he [Alexander] inflicted. The king [Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.
[/qs]

The diary had no political or theological agenda to promote. This is a record of something Alexander did in his lifetime that was recorded in his lifetime.

Except for some inscriptions, and a passing remark by Aeschines, that is pretty much the only 'primary source' that is extant. There are a number of secondary sources, all in greek of course.

[Cathar1950]

I'm jumping into something I don't know the answer to in advance, but what evidence of Alexander are you comparing to the Gospels and the New Testament (which are independent works by the way).

\
Only the most apologetic of the scholars agree that they are not independent. Mark seems to be first and Both Matthew and Luke are dependent. John seems too be independent but from a line of traditions that the others did not know. I get this feeling sometimes that many American bible-believing evangelicals hear something when they are kids in Sunday school and spend the rest of their lives reading apologist scholars that agree with what they were taught claiming everyone else is deceived and attributing all kinds of maladies on those that disagree with the Sunday School bible stories.
As a Christian I always was bothered by bible worship. If Paul said Jesus had a tail they would require the belief to get into heaven. The bible is used like an oracle with each sentence taken out of context becomes a true proposition. I have no problem with faith or tradition. Each of us grows with our own sets of sensitivities and needs for conformations. We should always questions our absolutes.

[FiredUp4jesus]

I'm jumping into something I don't know the answer to in advance, but what evidence of Alexander are you comparing to the Gospels and the New Testament (which are independent works by the way).

\
Only the most apologetic of the scholars agree that they are not independent. Mark seems to be first and Both Matthew and Luke are dependent. John seems too be independent but from a line of traditions that the others did not know. I get this feeling sometimes that many American bible-believing evangelicals hear something when they are kids in Sunday school and spend the rest of their lives reading apologist scholars that agree with what they were taught claiming everyone else is deceived and attributing all kinds of maladies on those that disagree with the Sunday School bible stories.
As a Christian I always was bothered by bible worship. If Paul said Jesus had a tail they would require the belief to get into heaven. The bible is used like an oracle with each sentence taken out of context becomes a true proposition. I have no problem with faith or tradition. Each of us grows with our own sets of sensitivities and needs for conformations. We should always questions our absolutes.

I should clarify that by independent I meant that most of the books of the bible were written by different authors. I was trying to point out that it is a collection of books assembled over a long period of time. In addition, as a Christian, I have a huge problem when people take the bible out of context and twist it's meaning to suit their own desires. I see a lot of that going on with people's signatures in this forum. However, it doesn't make me want to throw God out of my life. Instead, it prompted me to do some independent study. I get real frustrated by the guys who won't read anything but the KJV. I think those are the ones you are referring to as bible worshipers. Another good name would be translation worshipers.

[Goat]

I should clarify that by independent I meant that most of the books of the bible were written by different authors. I was trying to point out that it is a collection of books assembled over a long period of time. In addition, as a Christian, I have a huge problem when people take the bible out of context and twist it's meaning to suit their own desires. I see a lot of that going on with people's signatures in this forum. However, it doesn't make me want to throw God out of my life. Instead, it prompted me to do some independent study. I get real frustrated by the guys who won't read anything but the KJV. I think those are the ones you are referring to as bible worshipers. Another good name would be translation worshipers.

Independant research is good. It is certainly better than coping volumns of web pages without any real understanding about what is said ON those web pages!