Benjamin Franklin

Hi Polycarp

English is my first language although not my mother tongue (hard to understand unless you know the Singapore education policy and a bit of my family history). As I said I really should check my spelling but then again I really cannot afford to miss my job application deadlines before my student visa expires and I have to go back to Singapore where people are much less interested in discussing such issues.

Anyway I did not realise patience is a virtue associated with atheism just as morality and religion are two diffent issues .At least that is what my agnostic friends thinks. I have not really thought about this matter

Tjun Kiat

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: If I answered this question I might turn this into a personal forum(I hope the moderators might comment on this becuse we seem to be digressing a lot from the main topic) of why I am not a Christian but I do have a question for both of you and Nomad to answer if you look at the versus John 3:16-18, 2 Corinthians 6:14 and Mark 16:16 and some other verses of the bibe, it seems to me that the people who wrote this verses seem to imply that God would send people like Ghandi and Buddha to hell if they have heard about Jesus but refused to accept his divinity/resurrection. So how should one deal with this verses 1 ignore them 2 treat them as not divinely inspired but written by falliable men who put words into Jesus mouth or pretend that God inspired them to say that in an overzealous attempt to advocate the Christian faith. 3. treat them as divinely inspired but since they contradict common sense and the goodness of God, assume, that me as an finite being have interepret the scripture wrongly since a finite being cannot fully understand a infinite being.

A few comments on your bible references… First, Mark 16:16 is not canonical. It was added to the end of Mark, along with all of verses 9-20, by a later writer. So I’ll skip that one based on the fact I don’t consider it to be authoritative.

John 3:16-18. I’d like to add verses 19-21 in order to make John’s meaning more clear as he finishes his thought on this topic. John is referring to people who are not looking for the truth (verse 20-21). Why? Well, I think it’s related to what I said in a previous post. Many people don’t want to worship or follow a god that is going to require them to live in a way other than what they themselves want to live. In other words, the only god many will worship is the god of “self”. Any god that expects them to change isn’t worth following.

This passage does not imply that the name of “Jesus” is some sort of magic formula or secret password that allows one to gain access to heaven. It’s NOT as if we get to the pearly gates and God asks us for the code, and if we say “Jesus” then we’re in. Nothing could be further from the truth. Check out Matthew 7:21-23 to see what I’m talking about.

2 Corinthians 6:14. I don’t understand why you referred to this verse. There is no reference to salvation or hell. Paul is simply telling the Corinthians not to marry unbelievers.

I don’t think anything in these three verses contradicts what I said earlier.

Quote:

But to answer your question who I think Jesus is . Human, the main reason being I am an atheist with regards to the the type of God who is omnipotent, benevolent and going to solve all our problems for us after we die. There are other reasons like the difficulties with of the idea incranation, the idea of someone dying for our sins . And I agree with Thomas Seehan, who Jesus is ultimately is irrelvant to Christain faith. Even if as Nomad says, the evidence of resurrection of Christ is good, I reject it as a criteria for salvation for the same reason Thomas Paine reject divine revleation, for such issuses as personal slavation, I refuse to be treated as a second class citizen who has to trust the testimony of other people. I want to have the same evidence as other people who saw Jesus resurrect. I also have a practical reason for rejecting the resurrection but I will save it for another time.

You’ve named several good reasons for your rejection of Christianity. I agree that belief in the resurrection is not the basis of salvation. What makes you think Christianity teaches that it is?

I don’t think a person is a second class citizen if they trust the testimony of other people. You and I believe plenty of things of which we do not have first hand knowledge. Why should religion be any different?


Peace,

Polycarp

P.S. You said you didn't want to turn this into a personal forum. Send me an e-mail message if you want to talk about any of this privately. I'd contact you, but I don't see an address for you.

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

NOGO

Here is one place where the NIV attempts to translate away a contradiction in the Bible.

NIV Jer 7:22
For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices,

NASB Jer 7:22
For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

KJV Jer 7:22
For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

Note the work "just" in the NIV trasnaltion which effectively illiminates the contradiction.
Obviously Jeremiah never read the first five books of the Bible. They probably did not exit in his days.

... yes, errors and contradiction in the Bible do invalidate Christianity. perhaps this should be another thread. Unless one exists already.

doink-chan

When I was a Catholic I had an NIV for Catholics, and it had the same BS, plus "Why Witchcraft is Evil" and "Why MTV and Rock Music are Evil", in the same package ^_^ <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

CX

On the other hand using the name Polycarp is pretty damned arrogant unless that is actually his name (which seems unlikely) Why didn't he just call himself Saul of Tarsus or Jesus for that matter? (mostly tongue in cheek ).

CX

A couple points...

Firstly GMk 16:9-20 is most definitely canonical in both major branches of the church (western from which derives catholicism and protestanism) and Eastern (from which derives most sects of eastern orthodox faiths). That it is disputed as a late interpolation is a different issue. I happen to agree. It seems evident it was added because GMk's original ending is a difficult reading which was probably applicable to AMk's time but just a confusing problem later on (when looking at all three synoptics in parallel).

I know what makes me think it; most of Pauline theology. The biggie, of course, is 1 Cor 15. Surely you aren't suggesting that there isn't biblical support for this dogma? If so I'd like you to elaborate to establish this position.

CX

Are you familiar with Koine Greek? If so I recommend looking at the differences in the Byzantine family of Manuscripts versus the Alexandrian. There are many differences between the two. I don't have time to check right now but I can if need be. KJV used the Byzantine family whereas NIV basically used the Westcott-Hort GNT which derives from the Alexandrian. The Alexandrian are considered by most to be more reliable because they are earlier and retain both more primitive theology and a greater number of difficult readings. There is, of course, transalational bias in any work not originally written in English. The bible is no different, but more often than not differences between translations are related to differences in the Greek manuscripts not redaction on the part of the translators. If anything evangelicals prefer translations based on the Byzantine manuscripts, because they generally provide a more conservative theology.

CX

Please mostly disregard...

I realize now the passages referred to are in the OT. I wasn't paying attention. I am completely unfamiliar with the OT and cannot read Hebrew. Probably, though, the assessment still applies. I could ask my Greek instructor if need be. He also teaches biblical Hebrew.

Benjamin Franklin

Hi CowboyX

Can you enlighten me on the religuous significance the name Polycarp. Also Polycarp,I was talking to my friend the other day and I just realised that there is another verse that indicates salvation depends on belief in the resurrection of Christ, Romas 10:9. Of course there is this debate whether this means a spirtual resurrection. But for my purpose what matters there are groups of Christians who believe that this indicates a bodily resurrection. As mentioned before, my main interest in this forum is to show that there is no overwhelming evidence for the resurrection of Christ and my conservative Christian friends is not justified in saying that people like Ghandi would go to hell for rejecting the resurrection of Christ

I know that 2 Corithins 6:14 is meant as believers cannot marry non-believers.(I have gone after Christian girls before as an atheist and when I was a Christian, my sunday school teacher used to tell me I cannot have a non-Christian girlfriend.) But in the same verse, Paul categorises non-believers as unjust people and I find in hard to believe that God would allow unjust people to go to heaven. My understanding of Paul's theology is not very good but I believe that when he says non-believers, he means people who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ. As I told my friend, while there might not be a single verse in the bible the explicitly damns people who do not believe in the resurrection of Christ, I think one can build a strong cumulative case based on inference of certain verses in the bible

Tjun Kiat

PS- I just found out, one can edit one's post after one posted it. Now I have no excuse for spelling errors.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: TJUN KIAT TEO ]

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: TJUN KIAT TEO ]</p>

CX

Saint Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna (69-155 C.E.) Polycarp was one of the earliest Catholic church fathers and Xian martyr. He figures very prominently in the history of the early church as a link to the original apostles whom he allegedly knew and heard preach. He is born at the beginning of what is called the "sub-Apostolic Age" in the Catholic church, which is to say after the death of the last original follower of Jesus, namely Peter and the death of Paul. At that point noone then living had any direct connection to Jesus so the doctrine of apostolic succession was established and considered extremely important to the authority and weight of the orthodox church and its sanctioned documents. Basically Polycarp is a major big wig in the catholic church and picking that for a screen name is like calling yourself MotherTeresa only Polycarp was bigger than MT.

[editorial note] Errata: the sub-Apostolic age is not really the death of Jesus' last follower because John son of Zebedee is thought to have lived into the 80's or 90's and tradition holds that Polycarp was one of his followers. Obviously Polycarp was only 2 or so when Peter and Paul died so he didn't know them.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: CowboyX ]

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>