irenaeus:
I, for one, am convinced that the Christian scriptures are God's Word and am so for two reasons: first, the Holy Spirit has, through the books themselves, given me this conviction; and second, my reason has examined the books and found them to be truthful, historic, trusthworthy, etc...

Using your criteria, one could convince himself of anything.

rodahi

irenaeus:
I might add that there are two better reasons why biblical critics find 'contradictions' in the bible: first, they 'read' into the bible all kinds of presuppositions (eg. the Magi are assumed to visit Jesus in Bethlehem); and second, they want to find 'contradictions' in the bible.

A careful, thoughtful reading of the JC Bible turns up numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities. Christians and non-Chritians readily admit this fact. You are incorrect to assert that only those with presuppositions and a desire to find contradictions actually find them. As just one example, Why would Christians be looking for contradictions? What presuppostions would they have?

irenaeus: How else could this author miss the obvious fact in Genesis that the rains of the flood lasted 40 days while the flood itself lasted much longer?

The ancient writers were not interested in logical consisteny. They were story tellers.

irenaeus:
My advice? Feel free to reject the biblical accounts in your free thinking, just don't assert the existence of contradictions which in actuality do not exist.

Who has asked for advice, irenaeus? It is perfectly reasonable to point out all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities that are contained in the JC Bible. If they weren't there, no one would have ever noticed them.

rodahi

Great, now since Kate posted up the link I gave her, I will put my 2cents in.
I reject the Bible as the word of God because you have to keep in mind that it was hand written by men. Men can lie, embellish, and add to things. I am not saying that none of it is from God but I really cannot believe that God is a vengeful, hateful,nitpicky,favoritistic being. If he were, we would all be dead.
Also, like the Commandments, These are common sense laws!! Like we dont know to respect our parents? Come on!
I could go on and on but the main thing is, there are not just contradictions in one Bible but there are contradictions between the different versions of the Bible which should tell you something as far as man playing and altering what was said in it.
Why would God want things written in a book? For people to reject it or accept it? Come on, I think God speaks to us when we need it or ask for it, other than this, I find no significant need for the Bible. I know where I stand, I have changed my ways with my life and I do ask God questions that do undoubtedly always get answered. That is all I need to know.
I have never believed Jesus being God. There is a difference. Jesus was God's son just like we are all his children. Jesus was sent here to teach how we should behave to the masses, when the leaders thought they were gonna lose control over the people, they crucified him. What an atrocity, how many other people have crusaded have been murdered? Martin Luther King Jr., Kennedy, Malcom X and many others. People do not like or accept change or truth very well so they would rather kill off the person trying to speak about it.

Where do these numbers (20 boys, 2000 peasants) come from?

Thanks.

Pardon me for butting in, but the Slaughter of the
Innocent Children is a favorite. I read in pesher
and render a slightly different conclusion to the
same story.

This event took place in 4 b.c.e. and about a week
or so before the death of king Herod the Great. I
went to The Wars of the Jews, ISBN 0-913573-86-8,
© 1987, Henrickson Publishers, Inc. ,pp595/97.

There were two men, Judas and Mathias, fired up a
crowd of crowd at the temple in Jerusalem for this
reason, "]Now the king had laid up a golden eagle
over the great gate of the temple,".

Now, as a pesher I do not know for sure which Jerusalem
he is talking about because there are two locations.
I would imagine this event would be taking place at
Qumran because a gathering would be pretty difficult
to orchestrate in the daylight in the ideal Jerusalem
because the Herodians and their soldiers would be present.
Qumran, OTOH, would be desolate and a gang of future
zealots could make a gathering there.

Josephus remarks, "... a great body of soldiers, and caught
about forty of the young men, and brought them to the
king."

King Herod is quite ill and it is implied that they were told
that Herod was already dead. Apparently the men that had
cut down the golden eagle, Judas and Matthias, were burnt
alive. However, the remaining conspirators were sentenced
to death. In reading Josephus, you can not pin him down,
that is, Josephus only implies that the rest of the
perpetrators were executed. This is a cute trick used by
the authors using pesher.

On p.596 you discover the kind act king Herod's sister
performed; "Salome and her husband came out and dismissed
those that were in bonds" (eerie, it is verse 666!).

The Herod family was very religious and were lovers of
the cult referred to as the "All". Heli and Herod were
acquainted and had worked together. The young men placed
in bonds could also be referred to as "innocent children"
because they were not yet ordained. Jesus was about
two years of age and his daddy, Joseph, could very well
have been involved in this altercation, and, thus fled
to Egypt. Of course, being at Qumran, he would already be
in Egypt, Nazareth, and Galilee. ALL (pun) three
names describe this area in the wilderness. The reason
I called Joseph "daddy" was because "father" represents
the chief priest.

thanks, offa

Iren says the reason for his acceptance of the Bible as God's Holy Word are:

Yes, he has...just like the The Holy Spirit of Allah has given the same conviction to Muslims; the Holy Spirit of the Old Testiment God has given the same conviction to Jews; the Holy Spirit of Joseph Smith has given the same conviction to Mormons; the Holy Spirit of whatever God/s the Hindus worship has given the same convictions to Hindus; etc.
Sorry, but your "personal testimony of faith" (which is basically what your using as an arguement) is sorely lacking in any significant value of proving your religion, since most other major religions can use it as well.

Truthful, trustworthy...HISTORIC? They are truly full of the most untrustworthy accounts of history, if thats what you mean. The Bible is replete with historic flaws from cover to cover - be it the total lack of any evidence for the global flood described in Genesis, or the total lack of evidence for the Eclipse described in The Gospels (that supposedly happened after Jesus expired), or tons of stuff in between (like the way theres no evidence for the plagues on Egypt); the Bible shows itself to be "historically accurate" only to the most blind and ignorant individuals on the face of the Earth.

I will, because
A-There is a rational explanation for it ( a self-reinforcing dellusion based on succesfull brainwashing techniques and wishful thinking)
B-Most other religions make similar claims, and since they all cannot be true, their experiences are certainly not "proof" for any religion in particular.

Reasonable for a freethinker who has drank a gallon of Vodka or is heavily intoxicated in some form; as he'd have to be in order to be ignorant and gullible enough to think of the Bible as "historically accurate".

Individual, Secular Web Visitor, snipped because
although I may be in agreement, I do not want
freethinkers misled (OFFA)

Individual wrote, "or the total lack of evidence
for the Eclipse described in The Gospels (that supposedly
happened after Jesus expired),"

Offa in reply:

It does not say that there was an eclipse. St. Matthew
writes, Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour
there was darkness over all the land.

The crucifixion took place on Friday, March 20, AD 33.
The timekeeper (cockcrowing), at 3a had to do a double
shift.

Mark 13:35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when
the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight,
or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

The times are 9p, 12a, 3a, and 6a.


Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto
thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock
crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

The cock had a double duty and a six hour shift. They are
moving their clocks back 3 hours and the cock has double
duty. This is the opposite our daylight savings time. Their
necessity was having the sun at a more precise angle when
the window above the priest was opened when he begins
his sermon. The audience below will be blinded (like Saul
of Tarsus) when the sermon begins. The priest (angel) will
have a halo.

Acts 09:03 And as he journeyed, he came near
Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a
light from heaven:

Acts 09:04 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice
saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?


Jesus was the priest here in AD 37 and Saul discovers
that Jesus has survived the crucifixion. This Damascus
is Qumran and, at this time, Simon Magus is still a
good guy. The gospel of John has already been written
even though it will have spurious additions in the
following years. Simon Magus is a focal point because
he will soon become an enemy to the new mission taken
over by St. Paul. It's history folks, do not get
caught up in dogma, that is, debating evangelists in
their ideal language.

thanks,
offa

You skeptics fell down on the job! Luke and Matthew DO contradict each other in the Egypt/Nazareth thing.

• Luke says that after the shepards/angels scene, they waited eight days, circumcised the babe, then Mary was purified, then they went to Jerusalem, made sacrifices, and went to Nazareth.
• Matthew says that right after the wise men left, an angel appeared to Joseph with a warning and the holy family went to egypt the next day. After the sojourn in Egypt, they then went to Nazareth.

So, either Mary was purified and then they went to Nazareth right away -- in Jesus infancy, or they went to egypt for two years. Can't have both.

Michael

I'll ask my ubiquitous question again: If an alien came to earth, knowing nothing about any earth customs, and was given and read ONLY the OLD TESTAMENT, would that alien know about:
1. Jesus?
2. The Holy Spirit? (as known in Christianity)
3. The Trinity?
4. The way to salvation thru Jesus?
5. That the laws of the OT were somehow removed (by Jesus' sacrifice)?
6. That the God of the OT was loving and merciful, or angry and destructive?
7. In eternal punishment by fire?

What would the alien expect, if anything, about a Messiah? Would the Alien recognize Jesus as Messiah??

Please answer honestly.

Teutonic,

I have read the Tanakh, and I will give you my opinion. The answers to all but the final question would be NOTHING. The answer to the final question would be NO.

By the way, don't hold your breath waiting for a Christian to answer.

rodahi