A challenge to christianity.

[naebo_s]

Hello again all

It's an interesting discussion.

On the point of the gospels being written at different times but are similar: three gospels are similar John is quite different. Of the 3 that are similar they would appear to been scourced in the same way. the language, and phraseology is too similar for them to be completely independent. However the difference is the writers perspective and what he tries to portray. Bear in mind the writers were not trying to portray accurate history but rather there perspective on their saviour and hence is historically innaccurate (i.e. different gospels pout events in different orders etc.)

On the old T prophesies ( I donot attack the idea the Christ is the prophesied messiah) but rather ask if one can, with intelectual integrity say that it was not possible for those who believed Christ to be the messiah to evolve these facts about the life of Christ?

[annamac]

Naebo_You wrote: ". . .if one can, with intelectual integrity say that it was not possible for those who believed Christ to be the messiah to evolve these facts about the life of Christ? "

What is the basis for this and what are you suggesting?

Is it so difficult to believe that God could make a prediction through human agents or even nations, and then bring them to pass years later? Such a feat is incredibly simple for an omnipotent, omniscient God. The reaseon so many continue to challange and resist really good evidence is because they have a deep need to keep their Creator at a distance. Hiding behind such lofty vitrtues as "intellectual honesty," "academic integrity," "free thinking," they insulate themselves from ever comprehending the truth and wisdom of the Almighty.

I am not saying this observation necessarily describes you naebo_ , but if you look closely, these individuals are everywhere.

[ANDY-J]

Annamac.
Why disparage such ideas as intellectual honesty and free thinking.Is it wrong for people to employ empirical observation and reasoning to unravel life's mysteries rather than automatically accept the existence of some abstract concept of God.Many people have religious beliefs which stem from simple superstition and are often illogical.
With regard to the veracity of the gospels.It is my understanding that Mark's gospel is the source of much material contained in the two other synoptic gospels.The last twelve verses of chapter 16 are a later edition.There are various inconsistencies which must place doubt upon the truthfulness of the gospels.
For the first two centuries AD,there was no conception of a new testament canon.Various apocryphal materials were also widely used by early christians.Numerous doctrines which are no longer regarded as part of christianity,such as reincarnation were preached by the early church.The idea of a canon of new testament scripture only arose through various heretical movements in the second century AD.Furthermore were it not for the fact that the emperor Constantine felt it to be politically expedient to establish christianity as Rome's religion it would have remained no more than a rather obscure sect.

[annamac]

Andy writes: "Why disparage such ideas as intellectual honesty and free thinking.Is it wrong for people to employ empirical observation and reasoning to unravel life's mysteries rather than automatically accept the existence of some abstract concept of God."

I do not disparage these ideas, I disparage using them to deceive ones self into thinking they are being "Intellectually honest" by rejecting the overwhelming evidences furnished by the bible and the faith.

You continue: "There are various inconsistencies which must place doubt"

Really, I disagree. These seemingly strong inconsistencies should encourage one to get more information, to see if a plausible explanation is out there, one that can reasonably settle the matter. But for you andy-j, scriptures "apparent" inconsistancies cause doubt, which causes me to respectfully question your objectivity and willingness to look for the truth. I too was a skeptic, but not one so hard as to resist reasonable explanations at every turn. Using such ideas as intellectual honesty and free thinking, the evidence in Christianity was powerful and it demanded a verdict. With no ax to grind for or againt Christiany, I had complete intellectual sobriety when weighing the facts, and, Christianity proved itself truthful and worthy of ones loyalty.

You wrote: "Various apocryphal materials were also widely used by early christians.Numerous doctrines which are no longer regarded as part of christianity,such as reincarnation were preached by the early church."

Your evidence for this is . . .

You wrote: "The idea of a canon of new testament scripture only arose through various heretical movements in the second century AD"

Your evidence for this is . . .

You conclude: "Constantine felt it to be politically expedient to establish christianity as Rome's religion it would have remained no more than a rather obscure sect."

This is what I am talking about. Statements like these show how far you are willing to undermind Christianity; you are willing to make up a damning senerios, something that never was, in an attempt to bolster the skepticism against Christianity. I hope this is not what you mean by intellectual honesty and free thinking. Your accusation is not valid because such a claim is an appeal to "what if's." Such statements establishe nothing, but it reaveals much about the one who preaches it.

Conclusion, by being freethinking, you jump through many of the hoops I jumped through before yeilding to Christ. Healty inquiry ceases being healthy when it crosses over into baggering reasonable explanations, which I am not accusing you of Andy-j. But be careful friend, for we all have an Achilles' Heel.

[ANDY-J]

Annamac.
With reference to the point about Constantine.He established christianity as the state religion and yet refused to be baptised until he was on his deathbed.It is then questionable whether he in fact had any genuine religious conviction.The likelihood is that he deliberately promoted a religion which advocated pacifism as an ideal vehichle for extending his political control.(Gibbon.The rise and fall of the Roman empire).
Reincarnation was certainly a doctrine of the early christian church,and that numerous apocryphal texts were adhered to by early christians is not in doubt.'The apostolic fathers of the early church often quoted sayings of Jesus in a form unrelated to any of the four canonical gospels.Not all of the four gospels were known to all the fathers and there was also various apocryphal material in use.The writings of paul seem to have been well known and highly valued,but not thought of as scriptural.'(Bible facts.London.1990)

"The idea of a canon of new testament scripture only arose through various heretical movements in the second century AD."
A schism occured within the church in the second century AD.A teacher called Marcius rejected the old testament and advocated the need for an authoratative scripture.By the end of the century the four gospels were regarded as authorative.Certain books were regarded as spurious,for example James,Jude,2and3John.Hebrews and revelation were also disputed.

How do you reconcile prophesy with free will? If certain events are pre-ordained by God, where is free will?

[annamac]

Andy-j dear, my only reply is the acceptance of a wayward premises can only yield a wayward conclusion. You have chosen sand on which to build your personal, intellectual empire, while forgetting sacred scripture is high tide. There is still time to seek for yourself higher ground on which to rebuild, for even the most sturdy building supplies can not survive when a tsunami confronts beach- front philosophy. It is clear that you have submitted to liberal theologians who feel compelled to undo established history, and so much so they are willing to dismiss historically good evidences. Instead they embrace tabloid historisity, they are a laughingstock. These paper historians paint a very confused portrait of church AND secular history, and paint with a broad, sweeping brush, and in such a crude way that attracts many "sophmores" inclined to novelty. Like a moth to the flame, like a lamb to the slaughter, you Andy-j, have bought the farm.


Neil_Caple asks the penetrating question: "How do you reconcile prophesy with free will? If certain events are pre-ordained by God, where is free will? "

This topic is very cool, and even though the discussion carries with it the potential to raise more questions than it answers (because of human limitations of course), it is an incredibly stimulating concept, which begs many lofty questions.

Before I get started, I was recently introduced to a Theologian by the name of R.C. Sproul, Thd., PhD. a man who has dedicated his entire life to the examination these very issues - predestination, election, freewill, and God's foreknowledge. Clearly Sproul is THE authority concerning this particular theological issue, therefore, I recommend that you visit his website at:

http://www.ligonier.org

I will try to answer some of your question now Neil_. I too have given your question some serious thought in my 32 years, and have come to realize that God's foreknowledge and our actions are not dependent upon each other for success, although in some instances they seem to be. Let me explain. If a hungry child who's favorite food is peanut butter and jelly has not eaten all day, and is offered a PB&J sandwich, does my knowledge of her response in anyway interfere with her choice? I know that she is very hungry and I know that PB&J is her most cherished meal. I know what she likes and what she will do if I put this sandwhich in her hands. It seems to me that my knowledge should not be a consideration when she decides to do what I foreknew she would. I cannot see how my knowing interferes with her response.

Likewise if she hates - HATES sardines, and sardines are given to her, what will she do? She will spit them out. How is the connection between me knowing what she will do interfere with her doing it? It seems to me that my knowledge in no way is a factor for her. She will freely act, as I knew she would. There is no reason to assume that my knowledge interfered with her response.


The fact that the Creator knows what and how we will choose does not necessarily imply an intrusion upon the creatures' choice . . . does it?



[Edited by annamac on 6th April 2001 at 05:23]