New Testament...

Did you not read my original post? I said that there are two kinds of proofs: scientific, and "legal" (testimonial). You can't always test something scientifically but you can always look for reasons (outside of science) to believe why a person would lie.

I never said anything about data.

nbtrap1212

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Because if a story doesn't have evidence, the story itself is presumed to be nonsence?xaos

That's not technically true. One need only to look at court to see stories are accepted as truth.

And that brings up another point. If you can find no reason why the authors and witnesses of the New Testament would lie (and risk martyrdom for doing so - please, find me eleven other people in history who died for a lie knowing it was a lie), then that leaves two possibilities:

1. They're telling the truth.

2. They're insane.

The latter is inconsistent with what we know about the morality of their lives and the things they taught. Plus, how is it that they all saw the same things?

apocrypha - ficticious, made-up, untrue

Are you suggesting that eleven of the twelve apostles died for a lie knowing it was a lie? Like I said, find for me eleven other people in history who died for the same lie all knowing it was a lie.

And no, consistency isn't silly. It's what you look for while internally testing an historical document (in order to determine if it is accurate and reliable).

Anyway, I gotta go to cl@ss. I'll try to catch up later.

Did you not read my original post? I said that there are two kinds of proofs: scientific, and "legal" (testimonial). You can't always test something scientifically but you can always look for reasons (outside of science) to believe why a person would lie.

I never said anything about data.

nbtrap1212

Testimony isn't proof - Legally, competeing testimonies on their own would not provide proof on either side.

Scientific proof includes observation, deduction, experiment, peer review. Scientific proof is founded on scepticism. Legal proof is based on rationality and science. Third party testimony is rejected in a court as heresay.

Your original post discusses the "validity" of the NT. What sort of validity are you trying to justify? All of the history (some accurate and some innacurate) or the miracles?

Is the conversion of someone enough reason to believe? Waht about the testaments ommited from the bible?

I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's testimony.

nbtrap1212

Testimony isn't proof

diz360

As you see, I've already made the distinction between testimony and proof.

Testimony is evidence. Witnesses are evidence. Men dying for something they thought was true is evidence.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's testimony.

nbtrap1212

Testimony isn't proof

diz360

As you see, I've already made the distinction between testimony and proof.

Testimony is evidence. Witnesses are evidence. Men dying for something they thought was true is evidence.

So the Qu'ran has quite a bit of evidence going for it, seeing as plenty of people blew themselves up in its name.

Edit: Nevermind, I see what you meant. I don't agree with your opinion that testimony is evidence, but what I wrote above has nothing to do with what you said.

Your original post discusses the "validity" of the NT. What sort of validity are you trying to justify? All of the history (some accurate and some innacurate) or the miracles?

diz360

The validity of it is the facts that the text has been altered very little if none since it was originally written, that the authors were themselves witnesses or had likely interviewed witnesses, that the latest book in the New Testament was written no later than fifty years after Christ's death (too little time, historians believe, to allow for anything more than minor changes in the oral tradition from which the text would have been recorded - and I know I originally said 70 years, but that is out-dated), and that men truly believed and claimed to have seen Christ resurrected and were willing to die (and did) for that belief.

In other words, Christianity isn't a bunch of BS someone made-up so that he might be remembered.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's testimony.

Zagrius

Testimony isn't proof

diz360

As you see, I've already made the distinction between testimony and proof.

Testimony is evidence. Witnesses are evidence. Men dying for something they thought was true is evidence.

So the Qu'ran has quite a bit of evidence going for it, seeing as plenty of people blew themselves up in its name.

Of course many people have died for a lie not knowing it was a lie. The difference with the New Testament is that it is very hard to explain how the apostles would have been misled (i.e. did they all hallucinate and happen to see the exact same things?).

I don't agree with your opinion that testimony is evidence

Zagrius

So why, in court, is nearly all evidence almost always testimonial?

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's testimony.

nbtrap1212

Testimony isn't proof

diz360

As you see, I've already made the distinction between testimony and proof.

Testimony is evidence. Witnesses are evidence. Men dying for something they thought was true is evidence.

So the Qu'ran has quite a bit of evidence going for it, seeing as plenty of people blew themselves up in its name.

Of course many people have died for a lie not knowing it was a lie. The difference with the New Testament is that it is very hard to explain how the apostles would have been misled (i.e. did they all hallucinate and happen to see the exact same things?).

Considering that people around there believed in quite a bit of irrational things and were desperate for a messiah, I'd say it wouldn't be difficult for them to make themselves believe that Jesus resurrected and appeared in front of them (thus robbing them of free will, since it was undeniable proof that God is real, and so they couldn't just believe in it by faith).

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]

I don't agree with your opinion that testimony is evidence

nbtrap1212

So why, in court, is nearly all evidence almost always testimonial?

Because a courtroom doesn't use the scientific approach, perhaps?

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Zagrius"]

I don't agree with your opinion that testimony is evidence

Zagrius

So why, in court, is nearly all evidence almost always testimonial?

Because a courtroom doesn't use the scientific approach, perhaps?

There's a reason I specifically mentioned that scientific evidence and testimonial evidence are different and both useful.

The only science that belongs in this thread is archaeology.

Plus, your response still doesn't explain why testimony isn't evidence.

I'd say it wouldn't be difficult for them to make themselves believe that Jesus resurrected and appeared in front of them

Zagrius

So they just all sub-consciously decided to make themselves believe that they had seen Christ resurrected?

That is inconsistent with the text, there is no evidence for it, and it is absurd.

because most of the events can't be proved, except by eyewitness evidence. and if you go by that, there's an equal chance of everything you find in the tabloids being real.Hewkii

No events in history can be unconditionally proved. Everything is based off of documents - and therefore "eyewitness evidence." That is why prehistory is defined as the period before written records.

And seriously, I refuse to believe that the only reason 80%+ of the posters on OT unquestionably turn a blind eye to the New Testament is because it "can't be proved."

"It's a bunch of BS written by phychos 2000 years ago" is a better argument than "it can't be proved" (and, sadly, also an argument that I've had to refute already in this topic). Yeah...very "scientific"...

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.nbtrap1212

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

While Aristotle was a great thinker, you cannot quote him as undisputible truth. If you believe everything Aristotle said then you believe in a God is not ominibenevolent, omnipotent or omniscient, it is merely an infinite being that started the cycle of motion and who thinks of nothing but itself.

Why do you think the New Testiment is any more reliable and factual than the Qur'an? They can't both be true and as far as I can see the only reasonin you have for the New Testament being more truthful than the Qur'an is because you were brought up Christian and not Muslim and so people around you told you to believe that.Outbreak191

I don't know very much about the Qur'an, but I do know that it contains a lot of stories from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). And correct me if I am wrong, but was not Muhammad his only witness when he supposedly received word from God?

Personally, I believe in Christ and not Muhammad because Muhammad lived by the sword and was not (religion aside) one of the greatest men to have ever lived (in terms of his teachings, not his influence). Of course that's an opinion, but I don't think anyone will deny that Christ lived a very holy life and Muhammad a very violent one.

Other than that, I don't really know. Feel free to argue specific reasons why I should believe in the Qur'an and not the Bible.

Also, the fact that I was born into a Christian family has nothing to do with the validity of the New Testament - and neither, for that matter, do your questions about the Qur'an.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

[QUOTE="Mumbles527"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"] but scholars have a very hard time finding reason to discredit the testimony of the New Testament writers and therefore the stories they tell.Outbreak191

Wrong. "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." - Aristotle.

In other words, you give the document the benefit of the doubt, and you don't challenge its validity without a reason to do so.

While Aristotle was a great thinker, you cannot quote him as undisputible truth. If you believe everything Aristotle said then you believe in a God is not ominibenevolent, omnipotent or omniscient, it is merely an infinite being that started the cycle of motion and who thinks of nothing but itself.

Good point. I agree.

Regardless, I've quoted other reliable sources (i.e. some archaeologists), and I've mentioned academically accepted ways to examine historical documents for validity (internal and external evidence tests). And I don't think any other person has yet made a non-uninformed claim and backed it with a source (in other words, there is a lot more evidence for the validity of the NT than against it in this thread anyway).

Even by legal standards, if you went into a courtroom claiming that Jesus has been resurrected and brought the NT as evidence, or even the disciples themselves, I don't believe that the court would rule in your favor because of lack of evidence.

Yes, people can be lead to believe in many things. For instance, hypothetically, one disciple claims that he saw Jesus three days after his death to sound important, or because Jesus told him to. The other disciples, thinking perhaps that they should also have seen Jesus seeing as they were also his disciples, also claim to have seen him. After repeating this claim to others for days, weeks, months, whatever, they finally convince themselves that they really did see Jesus and talked to him.

Even by legal standards, if you went into a courtroom claiming that Jesus has been resurrected and brought the NT as evidence, or even the disciples themselves, I don't believe that the court would rule in your favor because of lack of evidence.

Yes, people can be lead to believe in many things. For instance, hypothetically, one disciple claims that he saw Jesus three days after his death to sound important, or because Jesus told him to. The other disciples, thinking perhaps that they should also have seen Jesus seeing as they were also his disciples, also claim to have seen him. After repeating this claim to others for days, weeks, months, whatever, they finally convince themselves that they really did see Jesus and talked to him.

Zagrius

I still think that is a very absurd claim. Sure it's possible, but you're making it on the basis of nothing. Plus, it still doesn't explain why they would have been willing to risk death for something they knew was not true. Is that what you really believe, or are you just trying to argue my point?

By the way, where are the other Christians in here? I know you're out there somewhere (however few of you). Whatever...I don't think I need any help here. This entire thread is a great example of how many posters make foolish, uneducated claims with no source.

Edit: And I'm not talking about you, Zagrius. I would say you're speculating, not necessarily claiming something is true, though I could be wrong...

[QUOTE="Outbreak191"]Why do you think the New Testiment is any more reliable and factual than the Qur'an? They can't both be true and as far as I can see the only reasonin you have for the New Testament being more truthful than the Qur'an is because you were brought up Christian and not Muslim and so people around you told you to believe that.nbtrap1212

I don't know very much about the Qur'an, but I do know that it contains a lot of stories from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). And correct me if I am wrong, but was not Muhammad his only witness when he supposedly received word from God?

Personally, I believe in Christ and not Muhammad because Muhammad lived by the sword and was not (religion aside) one of the greatest men to have ever lived (in terms of his teachings, not his influence). Of course that's an opinion, but I don't think anyone will deny that Christ lived a very holy life and Muhammad a very violent one.

Other than that, I don't really know. Feel free to argue specific reasons why I should believe in the Qur'an and not the Bible.

Also, the fact that I was born into a Christian family has nothing to do with the validity of the New Testament - and neither, for that matter, do your questions about the Qur'an.

So you think everyone should believe the New Testament and all Muslims should convert to Christianity, because it is your opinion that Jesus was a better person than Muhammad? Judging bythat post, the only reason you have for believing the New Testament over theQur'an is because of your own opinion, and based on thatand your first postyou are saying we should all believe you over Muslims, whileyou are not giving any reason for why your logic is any better than theirs.

I would like to point out that miracles happen in the Qur'an as well as the Bible.

By the way, where are the other Christians in here? I know you're out there somewhere (however few of you). Whatever...I don't think I need any help here. This entire thread is a great example of how many posters make foolish, uneducated claims with no source.

Edit: And I'm not talking about you, Zagrius. I would say you're speculating, not necessarily claiming something is true, though I could be wrong...

nbtrap1212

Oh, I'm just trying to explain why testimonies aren't very reliable. As for why, if indeed they only made themselves believe that they saw the resurrected Jesus, they kept claiming so even when put to death, I'll give a couple of ideas: Perhaps they would rather die than admit to themselves that they lied, or maybe they figured that they'll be killed anyway, might as well die as martyrs rather than as known frauds.

I think I'll go read the New Testament, seeing as I have quite a bit of free time at the moment. Just need to see if I can find that site where I found a Hebrew version of the texts.

So you think everyone should believe the New Testament and all Muslims should convert to Christianity, because it is your opinion that Jesus was a better person than Muhammad?

Outbreak191

No, I don't remember saying that.

Judging bythat post, the only reason you have for believing the New Testament over theQur'an is because of your own opinion,

Outbreak191

Yes. I specifally said that it was only my opinion...

and based on thatand your first postyou are saying we should all believe you over Muslims, whileyou are not giving any reason for why your logic is any better than theirs.

Outbreak191

Again, I don't remember saying (or implying) that. May I remind you that this thread is about the validity of the New Testament, and I'm waiting for someone to tell me why it's BS. You asked me why I should believe in the Bible over the Qur'an. I told you I don't know much on that topic. So your job then should be to argue why I should believe one over the other, and cite your claims, not point out that the fact that I am ignorant of Islam - something you have not yet shown to be relevant to the topic - should refute Christianity and any claims I've made.

I would like to point out that miracles happen in the Qur'an as well as the Bible.

Outbreak191

I'm sure they did.

I'm going to dinner and probably won't respond again until tomorrow. Until then, goodnight.

Well, as I'm reading it, I can't but notice elements that I've seen in many fantasy stories, but I suppose that perhaps they were taken originally from the bible itself.

But still, a few problems I found with the scriptures: Apparently Jesus wasn't of the line of David? It says that Joseph was, but nothing about Mary. Isn't the messiah supposed to be of the line of David?

Also, the devil goes to Jesus and makes some pretty odd statements that make it seem pretty stupid. If Jesus is the son of God and God itself, why bother offering the whole world to him (Jesus), when it is already his? In fact, wouldn't the devil inherently know that Jesus is or isn't what he claims to be? Why test him at all? Seems rather pointless.

In Mathew 5:17 Jesus claims that he isn't changing or refuting the Old Testament, only adding to it. So why do Christians ignore the Old Testament, saying that it's out-dated? Also, in 5:22 he seems to say that one who calls his brother a villain will go to hell? In his words before he makes sure to mention that it's only if the words are a lie, but in this last one it seems as if even if the brother truely is a villain, the brother who made the claim goes to hell.

5:34 says that you may not swear by anything?

That's about where I've gotten to by now.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. So give me some other proof that shows everything from the New Testament happened, please. Jesus and his disciples were very poorly documented, so I'm almost sure you can't.slinky6

Read all posts please. This is about the fourth time I've had to say that there is evidence and not proof. This topic is about the people who deny that evidence.

No events in history can be unconditionally proved. Everything is based off of documents - and therefore "eyewitness evidence." That is why prehistory is defined as the period before written records.

nbtrap1212

the bible is fiction.makaveli2344

Statement without evidence....

Well, as I'm reading it, I can't but notice elements that I've seen in many fantasy stories, but I suppose that perhaps they were taken originally from the bible itself.

But still, a few problems I found with the scriptures: Apparently Jesus wasn't of the line of David? It says that Joseph was, but nothing about Mary. Isn't the messiah supposed to be of the line of David?

Also, the devil goes to Jesus and makes some pretty odd statements that make it seem pretty stupid. If Jesus is the son of God and God itself, why bother offering the whole world to him (Jesus), when it is already his? In fact, wouldn't the devil inherently know that Jesus is or isn't what he claims to be? Why test him at all? Seems rather pointless.

In Mathew 5:17 Jesus claims that he isn't changing or refuting the Old Testament, only adding to it. So why do Christians ignore the Old Testament, saying that it's out-dated? Also, in 5:22 he seems to say that one who calls his brother a villain will go to hell? In his words before he makes sure to mention that it's only if the words are a lie, but in this last one it seems as if even if the brother truely is a villain, the brother who made the claim goes to hell.

5:34 says that you may not swear by anything?

That's about where I've gotten to by now.

Zagrius

I don't know the answer to many of your questions. I am no theologist or philosopher, but I'll try my best to answer the questions that I can, at least with the common thought.

Jesus answers your first question in Mark 12:35. "How do the scribes claim that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the holy Spirit, said: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet."' David himself calls him 'lord'; so how is he his son?"

Here is the foot-note from my Bible:

"Jesus questions the claim of the scribes about the Davidic descent of the Messiah, not to deny it, but to imply that he is more that this. His superiority derives from his transcendent origin, to which David himself attested when he spoke of the Messiah with the name "Lord".

In other words, Jesus is basically saying, "Why would anyone call his own son 'lord'?"

There is also a very similar passage in Matthew, and probably in Luke and John as well.

The Old Testament still is and always has been part of the Christian Bible. They usually read from it at least once in a Catholic Mass.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

No events in history can be unconditionally proved. Everything is based off of documents - and therefore "eyewitness evidence." That is why prehistory is defined as the period before written records.

Hewkii

No, you can't prove that an atomic bomb exploded there just by looking at the soil. You can hypothesize that perhaps an atomic bomb exploded there, and if no one can come up with a better explanation, then it usually becomes a scientific theory.

Edit: But please, no more science. We're talking about history that can't be tested with the physical sciences.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

By the way, where are the other Christians in here? I know you're out there somewhere (however few of you). Whatever...I don't think I need any help here. This entire thread is a great example of how many posters make foolish, uneducated claims with no source.

Edit: And I'm not talking about you, Zagrius. I would say you're speculating, not necessarily claiming something is true, though I could be wrong...

Zagrius

Oh, I'm just trying to explain why testimonies aren't very reliable. As for why, if indeed they only made themselves believe that they saw the resurrected Jesus, they kept claiming so even when put to death, I'll give a couple of ideas: Perhaps they would rather die than admit to themselves that they lied, or maybe they figured that they'll be killed anyway, might as well die as martyrs rather than as known frauds.

I think I'll go read the New Testament, seeing as I have quite a bit of free time at the moment. Just need to see if I can find that site where I found a Hebrew version of the texts.

Well is that not the same as the question I initially asked? "Is this testimony reliable?" That's exactly what we're debating. In the court of law, the mere possibility that someone is lying (consciously or not) - which is always there - is never reason enough to discredit that person. There has to be reason to believe otherwise. The same is true here.

[QUOTE="makaveli2344"]the bible is fiction.LJS9502_basic

Statement without evidence....

the definition of religious faith.

[QUOTE="makaveli2344"]the bible is fiction.LJS9502_basic

Statement without evidence....

Would you let us know your opinion? (if you have one)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="makaveli2344"]the bible is fiction.mark4091

Statement without evidence....

the definition of religious faith.

That's what we're discussing. Why don't you go through the topic and compare the amount of evidence for the NT vs. evidence against it.

I don't know the answer to many of your questions. I am no theologist or philosopher, but I'll try my best to answer the questions that I can, at least with the common thought.

Jesus answers your first question in Mark 12:35. "How do the scribes claim that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the holy Spirit, said: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet."' David himself calls him 'lord'; so how is he his son?"

Here is the foot-note from my Bible:

"Jesus questions the claim of the scribes about the Davidic descent of the Messiah, not to deny it, but to imply that he is more that this. His superiority derives from his transcendent origin, to which David himself attested when he spoke of the Messiah with the name "Lord".

In other words, Jesus is basically saying, "Why would anyone call his own son 'lord'?"

There is also a very similar passage in Matthew, and probably in Luke and John as well.

The Old Testament still is and always has been part of the Christian Bible. They usually read from it at least once in a Catholic Mass.

nbtrap1212

I don't know, the Hebrew word for 'my lord' is 'adoni' (note, not 'adonai'), which can refer to a person you respect, not just your superior. And yet, wouldn't the messiah be superior? Wouldn't he at least deserve quite a bit of respect, even from his grand*13(or 14) father? I'll drop this line of questioning though, since I don't recall where in the OT they say that the messiah must be of the line of David.

Still, I see many odd things, like Jesus telling his disciples to spread his word, and telling them to say loudly what he whispers to them and such, which seems kind of cowardly to me. Also, he seems to tell them to go resurrect people who are dead. Really weird stuff. I'm going to continue reading, but it's really confusing to me, and I don't think that I'll end up seeing it as the word of God.

Oh, a question though. Is there a chance that I'm reading a bad translation instead of a copy of the original text? It's just that I found (still in Matthew) 10:34-36 to be rather disquieting, and doesn't really seem to go at all with Jesus' message. He talks of bringing strife instead of peace, of putting a wedge between children and their parents, brides and their mothers-in-law, etc'... To make a man's family his enemy... It kind of sounds fishy, which is why I ask.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

By the way, where are the other Christians in here? I know you're out there somewhere (however few of you). Whatever...I don't think I need any help here. This entire thread is a great example of how many posters make foolish, uneducated claims with no source.

Edit: And I'm not talking about you, Zagrius. I would say you're speculating, not necessarily claiming something is true, though I could be wrong...

nbtrap1212

Oh, I'm just trying to explain why testimonies aren't very reliable. As for why, if indeed they only made themselves believe that they saw the resurrected Jesus, they kept claiming so even when put to death, I'll give a couple of ideas: Perhaps they would rather die than admit to themselves that they lied, or maybe they figured that they'll be killed anyway, might as well die as martyrs rather than as known frauds.

I think I'll go read the New Testament, seeing as I have quite a bit of free time at the moment. Just need to see if I can find that site where I found a Hebrew version of the texts.

Well is that not the same as the question I initially asked? "Is this testimony reliable?" That's exactly what we're debating. In the court of law, the mere possibility that someone is lying (consciously or not) - which is always there - is never reason enough to discredit that person. There has to be reason to believe otherwise. The same is true here.

But then, you could get people who have been there and who didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah, or even thought him to be the devil to bring contradictory testimony. What would you do then? It's one word against the other.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="makaveli2344"]the bible is fiction.mark4091

Statement without evidence....

the definition of religious faith.

Nope...there is evidence. You just choose not to believe it. ;)

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

I don't know the answer to many of your questions. I am no theologist or philosopher, but I'll try my best to answer the questions that I can, at least with the common thought.

Jesus answers your first question in Mark 12:35. "How do the scribes claim that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the holy Spirit, said: 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet."' David himself calls him 'lord'; so how is he his son?"

Here is the foot-note from my Bible:

"Jesus questions the claim of the scribes about the Davidic descent of the Messiah, not to deny it, but to imply that he is more that this. His superiority derives from his transcendent origin, to which David himself attested when he spoke of the Messiah with the name "Lord".

In other words, Jesus is basically saying, "Why would anyone call his own son 'lord'?"

There is also a very similar passage in Matthew, and probably in Luke and John as well.

The Old Testament still is and always has been part of the Christian Bible. They usually read from it at least once in a Catholic Mass.

Zagrius

I don't know, the Hebrew word for 'my lord' is 'adoni' (note, not 'adonai'), which can refer to a person you respect, not just your superior. And yet, wouldn't the messiah be superior? Wouldn't he at least deserve quite a bit of respect, even from his grand*13(or 14) father? I'll drop this line of questioning though, since I don't recall where in the OT they say that the messiah must be of the line of David.

Still, I see many odd things, like Jesus telling his disciples to spread his word, and telling them to say loudly what he whispers to them and such, which seems kind of cowardly to me. Also, he seems to tell them to go resurrect people who are dead. Really weird stuff. I'm going to continue reading, but it's really confusing to me, and I don't think that I'll end up seeing it as the word of God.

Oh, a question though. Is there a chance that I'm reading a bad translation instead of a copy of the original text? It's just that I found (still in Matthew) 10:34-36 to be rather disquieting, and doesn't really seem to go at all with Jesus' message. He talks of bringing strife instead of peace, of putting a wedge between children and their parents, brides and their mothers-in-law, etc'... To make a man's family his enemy... It kind of sounds fishy, which is why I ask.

No that's correct, and Jesus meant it. Think about it though. He came to bring division (I think in one gospel he says he came to bring the sword). But is that not exactly what has happened? The believers vs. the non believers, the faithful vs. the unfaithful, the Jews who are still awaiting the Messiah vs. the Christians, the Catholic church vs. the Greek Orthodox church vs. the Protestant churches, the crusades, and on, and on and on and on.

[QUOTE="nbtrap1212"][QUOTE="Zagrius"][QUOTE="nbtrap1212"]

By the way, where are the other Christians in here? I know you're out there somewhere (however few of you). Whatever...I don't think I need any help here. This entire thread is a great example of how many posters make foolish, uneducated claims with no source.

Edit: And I'm not talking about you, Zagrius. I would say you're speculating, not necessarily claiming something is true, though I could be wrong...

Zagrius

Oh, I'm just trying to explain why testimonies aren't very reliable. As for why, if indeed they only made themselves believe that they saw the resurrected Jesus, they kept claiming so even when put to death, I'll give a couple of ideas: Perhaps they would rather die than admit to themselves that they lied, or maybe they figured that they'll be killed anyway, might as well die as martyrs rather than as known frauds.

I think I'll go read the New Testament, seeing as I have quite a bit of free time at the moment. Just need to see if I can find that site where I found a Hebrew version of the texts.

Well is that not the same as the question I initially asked? "Is this testimony reliable?" That's exactly what we're debating. In the court of law, the mere possibility that someone is lying (consciously or not) - which is always there - is never reason enough to discredit that person. There has to be reason to believe otherwise. The same is true here.

But then, you could get people who have been there and who didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah, or even thought him to be the devil to bring contradictory testimony. What would you do then? It's one word against the other.

That's also true. The Pharisees who saw him healing people attributed them to Satan (but they didn't deny them).

I think that strife is a better translation than sword there. But okay, then I guess I'm not reading some anti-Christian version of the NT. And while you're right that he did accomplished what he said he'd do, it doesn't really seem to sit well with what I understand the messiah is all about. I'm not going to expect you to explain this, since again I don't recall where it is in the OT, but from what I remember he was supposed to unite world Jewry and rebuild the temble.

Anyway, so I can still assume that I'm reading a good copy, so I don't need to look for another site yet. All I needed to know.

I think that strife is a better translation than sword there. But okay, then I guess I'm not reading some anti-Christian version of the NT. And while you're right that he did accomplished what he said he'd do, it doesn't really seem to sit well with what I understand the messiah is all about. I'm not going to expect you to explain this, since again I don't recall where it is in the OT, but from what I remember he was supposed to unite world Jewry and rebuild the temble.

Anyway, so I can still assume that I'm reading a good copy, so I don't need to look for another site yet. All I needed to know.

Zagrius

Well each of the four gospels tells a little bit of a different story. In one of them, I believe it says 'sword'.

And that is the common Jewish belief, and I'm pretty sure Jesus addresses it directly, saying that he has come for the salvation of all nations, not just Israel.

I think that strife is a better translation than sword there. But okay, then I guess I'm not reading some anti-Christian version of the NT. And while you're right that he did accomplished what he said he'd do, it doesn't really seem to sit well with what I understand the messiah is all about. I'm not going to expect you to explain this, since again I don't recall where it is in the OT, but from what I remember he was supposed to unite world Jewry and rebuild the temble.

Anyway, so I can still assume that I'm reading a good copy, so I don't need to look for another site yet. All I needed to know.

Zagrius

You're misunderstanding the text. He didn't come to specifically divide....however, he knew some would accept Him and some would not.

[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="makaveli2344"]the bible is fiction.LJS9502_basic

Statement without evidence....

the definition of religious faith.

Nope...there is evidence. You just choose not to believe it. ;)

But it says, from me loosely translating: "Do not think that I came to bring peace to the land I did not come to bring peace but strife". He isn't saying that it will be the result, he's saying that that is what he is planning to do.Zagrius

That's because not everyone would accept Him or His teachings. It's like a matter of fact statement....