Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirac_Delta

There's no such thing as "free will" in the first place. Every conceivable event must be either caused or random what leaves no space to the cherished concept of "free will" (it's concept void of significance like soul or god, etc.)

No one has ever answered the philosophical question of the existence of evil. The Bible seems to indicate that we really do have a free will and also that God is sovereign at the same time. How can they both be true? I don't know. Free will just shifts the problem. How can God make something to act other than how he has made it? Nevertheless, the Bible seems to answer the problem of evil by saying somehow God was able to pull off a true free will. This also appears to agree with experience. I don't imagine that you think you are only a fancy rock and that your thoughts are meaningless electrical currents. I imagine that you really think that there is a you. Since no one has answered the problem of evil, this is not an arguement against Christianity. Christianity just seems to give the most reasonable answer.

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

This is backwards. One can't use one's theory to start "finding" examples of that theory actualized. Here, the theory is that "liberal scholars always deny the accuracy of the Bible's mention of things until they are strictly proved." This theory is "creating the fact" that "the liberal scholars" believed that the Hittites did not exist. But, reason demands that we start with the fact that some scholar believed that the Hittites did not exist and only then form our theory. All that this requires is a citation of the articles or books (with page numbers) in the eighteenth or nineteenth century that declare the Hittites non-existent. (To prove the opposite would require more work: one would have to show that one did a reasonably thorough search of the available materials to establish, for a surety, that there was no such claim.) The fact that Hittite material culture has been found does not do this. That is entirely consistent with a theory that 0% of scholars decided before that discovery that the Hittites did not exist. (And, of course, it makes a difference whether there were 0-1% of scholars denying or 10% or some more significant figure.) To repeat my point, though, the statement quoted above puts the cart before the horse in fabricating data to fit prejudices. It is like the high school student who knows what the chemical reaction should come out as and makes up the numbers in conformance to an existing theory...except that the theory here isn't known to be true.

best,
Peter Kirby

The point Archer was making was that the existence of the Hittites, Sargon II, Belshazzar, etc. was denied by liberal critics. He doesn't quote the denials, but since he has worked in the field for a long time I assume that he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't say they just didn't know about it, but that they denied the Biblical references could be correct when they mentioned these people. Archaelogy proved them wrong and the Bible right.

ex-preacher · 02-06-2005, 05:06 PM

Dear Achristian,

Please cite the specific passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke where they claim to be eyewitnesses.

Thanks,
ex-preacher

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 05:34 PM

I found a few of quotes from W. F. Albright, considered one of the great archaeologists.

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." The Archaeology of Palestine Pelican Books

"Eminent names among scholars can be cited for regarding every item of Gen. 11-50 as reflecting late invention, or at least retrojection of events and conditions under the Monarchy into the remote past..."

"Archaeological discoveries since 1925 have changed all this. Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition."
The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. Harper

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-06-2005, 05:36 PM

Albright found some cities that were mentioned in Acts. That's it. he verified some place names, just like Schliemann verified Troy. It means nothing.

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ex-preacher

Dear Achristian,

Please cite the specific passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke where they claim to be eyewitnesses.

Thanks,
ex-preacher

Matthew is known from church history to be the author of Matthew. He is listed as one of the 12 apostles and Mark 2:13,14 tell of his call to be a follower of Jesus.
Mark was Barnabus' cousin and was probably an early disciple (maybe the one who ran from the garden naked?) or at least got his info from Peter according to the accounts we have.
Luke doesn't claim to be an eyewitness, but to have collected the eyewitness stories (Luke 1:1-4). He was a companion of Paul and thus an eyewitness to the early church history (the famous 'we' passages).
You are welcome.

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Albright found some cities that were mentioned in Acts. That's it. he verified some place names, just like Schliemann verified Troy. It means nothing.

You are confusing Albright with Ramsey, another good archaeologist. Ramsey started out trained in the liberal scholars school and the evidence in the New Testament world convinced him that what he was taught was wrong. Albright on the other hand is considered one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, focusing on the land of Israel and the Old Testament, not the New Testament like Ramsey.

rlogan · 02-06-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

Your comments about 1 John 1:1-4 don't make sense. It is obvious from the passage that he (along with the rest of the early disciples) is claiming to have seen, touched, heard, etc. the one who claimed to be the Almighty God who was from the beginning.

No, it isn't obvious. You are just asserting. And I am looking for eyewitness testimony to specific events, not just vague "we have seen the light" gibberish.

Here are the passages:

Quote:

1: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2: For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;
3: That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4: And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Show me where it says in there that anyone at all saw Jesus. We have "word of life", and "eternal life" as the things they have seen. They are going to shew that very same thing to others.

So did they parade Jesus around in a glass box or something? Ooops - I forgot. There is no body.

Sorry, but this is just metaphorical poppycock.

You can't "interpret" them to be talking about Jesus, the physical being that they "saw" and then not be talking about Jesus, the physical being, when they are "shewing" it to others. It is one or the other.

The only time jesus is actually referenced here is not for eyewitness assurance. it is merely to say that the "fellowship" is with him.

Next...

aChristian · 02-06-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johntheapostate

And how do we know if god was telling the truth?

2 Chronicles 18:18-23 " I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, Who will entice Ahab king of Israel into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there? One suggested this and another that. Finally a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, I will entice him. By what means? the Lord asked. I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets, he said. You will succeed in enticing him, said the Lord. Go and do it. so now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.

Maybe Jesus was actually a lying spirit sent to deceive the gullible.

I know him and from personal experience in how he works in my life, he is good. You can read his character in the pages of the Bible. Yeah, it could all be a big trick by God, but there is so much pure good in his acts that I see in the Bible and in his acts in the world today, I doubt he is trying to trick anyone. Someone that devilish, couldn't stand to allow all the good to occur as part of his ultimate evil plan. I've seen how Satan destroys people's lives and I seen how God redeems and brings joy to those who turn to him. I know that joy myself.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-06-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aChristian

You are confusing Albright with Ramsey, another good archaeologist. Ramsey started out trained in the liberal scholars school and the evidence in the New Testament world convinced him that what he was taught was wrong. Albright on the other hand is considered one of the greatest archaeologists of all time, focusing on the land of Israel and the Old Testament, not the New Testament like Ramsey.

Ramsay, not Ramsey.

But you're right, I confused the two. Albright actually confirmed nothing in the Bible at all. His claim to fame is that he authenticated the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2005, 05:06 PM	#93
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	Dear Achristian, Please cite the specific passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke where they claim to be eyewitnesses. Thanks, ex-preacher

02-06-2005, 05:34 PM	#94
aChristian Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 631	I found a few of quotes from W. F. Albright, considered one of the great archaeologists. "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." The Archaeology of Palestine Pelican Books "Eminent names among scholars can be cited for regarding every item of Gen. 11-50 as reflecting late invention, or at least retrojection of events and conditions under the Monarchy into the remote past..." "Archaeological discoveries since 1925 have changed all this. Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition." The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. Harper

02-06-2005, 05:36 PM	#95
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Albright found some cities that were mentioned in Acts. That's it. he verified some place names, just like Schliemann verified Troy. It means nothing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.