Hey Fred

0

 

I agree with you 100% that sincerity -- even to the point of being willing to give up one's own life -- doesn't equal truth.

But I would submit to you that the martyrs you mentioned (along with countless suicide bombers and jihadists) died painlessly and instantaneously for the most part. To willingly be tortured to death rather than recant what they know to be true and reportedly saw with their own eyes, however, is another level of commitment you must admit.

Gitmo is chock full of jihadists who are undergoing far less than torture and flipping like crazy.

 

I acquired an NIV Study Bible and read the commentary of how it was compiled and translated from the original texts, thereby eliminating the multiple translation argument. I've also watched every documentary I could find on the authors, and read several books showcasing the evidence that supports their credibility. I've studied archeology that verifies much of the history of the Bible, and I have yet to find anything in the secular world that uncompromisingly disproves anything in it. And I'm still looking.

Probably the best material I've found on the integrity of the Bible is the NIV's prologue and the works of Lee Strobel. So far, everything I've seen fits and compliments each other and the Bible's accounts.

Then I started reading the Bible itself to find and try to reconcile the contradictions I've always heard about. I've read the whole thing through at least twice, and several parts of it many times over, and I have yet to find a contradiction that could not be explained or reconciled in some way. Admittedly sometimes it takes a lot of digging, though, to find some obscure or premise that seems to tie it all together. I've also learned that different doesn't always equate to contradictory.

Once I got pretty comfortable with the Bible's case for itself, I began to research other major belief systems. So far, none I've found even come close to measuring up to the Bible's integrity. None. Most are the ideas of a few, with little or no objective evidence to back up the promises made within. Of course, I'm no expert on world religions, and I'm still doing research.

Believe it or not, I'm still open to finding the "smoking gun" that will either make Christianity less believable than another belief system, or discredit it altogether. As I've said many times, I'm not interested in a fairy tale to make me feel better -- I'm interested in truth. Anything else is a waste of precious time, to me. So far I've seen enough evidence to put my trust in what the Bible says, but I haven't seen enough to stop looking.

I wonder how many who disagree with what the Bible has to say have done as much research into what they believe as I have, or maybe more. :huh:

 

Take a look at history and the different Heresies that were put down by the Church. From the Cathars on down the line, torture and pain were used. Yes some broke, as I imagine many early Christians did, but many refused to give in and die for their beliefs. Using the Disciples willingness to die is a weak argument for the actual fact that Jesus literally died and was resurrected.

 

I too tire of the "It's a translation of a translation" argument. It holds little to no merit in regards to modern Biblical scholarship, particularly in regards to the NT. The Old Testament is more problematic since some appears to be a collection of oral histories and other parts were, at the time, 'modern' accounts of past actions as a result some minor anachronisms are introduced.

The NT is quite interesting in its on regard. Some thought is that Mark was the first of the canonical gospels to be written and that Matthew and then Luke were written using Mark as a guide. Best estimates place Mark as being written around 40 years after Jesus' death. As sly has pointed out, some of Jesus' contemporaries could well have been living at this time.

If the latter Gospels used Mark as a reference, would that cloud the picture? Did they embellish and add to fulfill the legend that had grown around Jesus?

I will never claim to have studied the Bible as much as you have, HB, but my studies come from a more critical viewpoint. We each may look for the things that validate our own views and most than likely have a habit of only reading that which reinforces our own notions.

 

I don't think I'd say I disagree with ALL that the Bible has to say; perhaps just that I question some central conclusions drawn from it.

And I may not have done as much research into belief systems as you have, HB, but I probably come fairly close. I spent years in intensive study of the Bible, praying for guidance, & trying to make sense of it all. And as you apparently do also, I didn't limit myself to the Christian Bible--I studied other belief systems as well.

Nor have I neglected science. Science has never been a strength of mine, but I have tried to study & understand scientific principles in at least a general way.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, HB, because I think your words & actions make clear your sincere belief, your true faith, & your honest desire for TRUTH. And you are obviously a man of intelligence, as well.

At the same time, I know others--& I include myself among those others--who have been just as sincere in their seeking, & have reached different conclusions as to the path that was right for them.

My deepest sincere belief about God is that, if s/he exists as a truly supreme, creative being, such a deity would surely answer the prayers of those seeking truth. And if the answers differ, then the different answers must all be of SOME value.

If there IS no God, then all of this is just mental masturbation. But if there is . . . then there is something beyond the surface crap of many world religions that ties them together, that we can all learn from. Therefore, I try to keep an open mind without losing all ability to ferret out BS.

I hope this makes some kind of sense. It's very difficult to put into words.

 

Let me rephrase my argument. I think there's a significant difference between groups of people who willingly sacrifice their lives for a cause or ideal, and a group of people who choose torturous death over mercy because of an event they actually saw with their own eyes. Every one of the remaining eleven went to their deaths claiming unanimously and unwaveringly to have had a personal encounter with the resurrected Christ.

If that was all there was, you're right -- it still would be far from bulletproof. But there are several other historical, scientific and psychological factors to take into account as well -- the missing body, the simultaneous and drastic change in nearly all the disciples, the consistencies of both the Gospels and the epistles, just to name a few.

Here's a link to some decent evidence.

 

True, the OT doesn't have as much hard evidence to support it, and most of it is centuries older than the NT. But the thing that strikes me as relevant is how many ties, references, and consistencies it has to the NT. Jesus and the apostles referred to it all the time.

Actually, according to the NIV, Mark was written in the late 60's to 70 A.D., placing it less than 30 years after the crucifixion. Only one (Stephen), or at the most two (Paul), had been crucified by that time.


The other apostles using Mark's Gospel as a reference wouldn't have clouded the picture, it would have clarified it. Though each Gospel account has its own unique perspective, they still all describe the same events with remarkable consistency.


And as far as embellishment goes, the only one who might be indictable on that charge would be John. His is by far the most 'colorful' of the Gospels, you might say. But even so, his assertions are largely backed up by OT philosophy and prophecy, along with the teachings of Jesus Himself.


Not only that, but embellishment would likely have been called out very quickly by the other apostles. They kept each other accountable, especially Peter and Paul. More than once they butted heads on what Jesus changed and didn't change, as documented in the book of Acts and other epistles of the NT.

Generally speaking, and regarding humanity as a whole, I'd agree with you. But we're not talking about the leanings of humanity here. We're talking about our own personal findings and research -- yours and mine. And I'm pretty sure both of us have broken out of the "personal beliefs friendly only" box. I know I have, and continue to do so.

 

Such as?

I'd be very interested to hear those conclusions and how they were reached -- specifically where the integrity of the Bible broke down, and why some other premise was found to be more credible. As you mentioned, I'm interested in truth. If there's something more believable than Biblical Christianity out there, my ears, eyes, and mind are definitely open.

I would agree that a benevolent God would certainly wish to reveal himself/herself. But to assume that there is only one supernatural influence in the universe seems a little unfounded. IMHO, the history of conflicting and wildly varying experiences of supernatural encounters recorded by humanity would seem to suggest there are many types of supernatural entities out there, with very different agendas. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Agreed. And not only that, but a tremendous number of people have wasted significant portions of their lives, if God doesn't exist.

Just out of curiosity, after having studied several of the world's religions and seeing that their core doctrines are so vastly different, what would lead you to believe there's something that "ties them together"?

A good practice to keep -- I try to do that myself. The hard part is trying to determine with an open mind what is BS and what isn't.