The only difference (and its a big one) between the Iliad and the Bible is that billions of people don't live their lives based on the words in the Iliad. Obviously the compilation has been compromised, but in reality, nobody is devoting their life to say "The Iliad is the only truth in this world, all others are wrong."

Can't you see how ridiculous it is? Further, how can you believe in one ridiculous set of "miraculous" occurances (resurrection of Christ) and reject any others occurrences in other religions such as hindi, buddhism, muslim, or daoism? Each of their stories based on creation are STRIKINGLY similar in content and order. Having studied world religions in college, its nearly impossible not to see that all these religions are simply copies of the same story... and if you can accept one, how can you reject any of the others?

 

So how do you know they weren't talking about Mohammed? :hsugh:

 

that's actually a relatively new tangent on the faith that came about in the 13th century.

 

True, they had to settle on what scriptures would be included in the canon. I guess that took a little while. I do believe that both the writings and the compilation of the writings are divinely inspired and thus, the Word of God. The Bible geeks who put the thing together were not likely to rely on their own ideas, but would have actively sought God's guidance in compiling the scriptures.

Sola scriptura.

 

At one time, in the time of Babylon, all of the people spoke the same language and were able to build miraculous things. God had told them previously to spread out and populate the world and God was ignored. So he scattered the people about and confused their languages.

The only true record of the scriptures at that point stayed with the Israelites, so someone's recollection of the scripture could have been completely different without having it to reference. Also, there was also pagan worship in those times that were off-shoots of the original scriptures, you have to take that into account as well.

Ryan, I am sure we are going to differ on this for as long as we both live, but you calling me close minded because I think that I am part of a bigger picture and purpose along with a divine power exists and has a role in my life, is well close minded.


Was Mohammed born in Bethlehem? Scripture directly says that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem out of King David's lineage.

The odds of Jesus not being who he was astounding, around 1 in 300 billion or some crazy number like that because all of the factors that went into his birth set forth in the Old Testament.

 

took 1300 years to "settle" on something absolute?

to quote Sagan, again:

"it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. "

 

You're not close minded for thinking life has a purpose, you're close minded for thinking others who don't agree with your view of the world are wrong, and as such, will burn in your definition of hell.


Scripture, written by followers, who are fallable human beings. What makes Christian scripture any more correct than Hebrew scripture? or Muslim scripture?

 

Having faith is believing in something you know isn't true.

 

My latest installment


Lee, if you claimed yourself to be God today without any evidence then yes, you would be deemed a lunatic. Christianity is based on a Christ who proved His deity by many indubitable and infallible proofs. Since the resurrection of Jesus (which is the greatest evidence of His deity), many skeptics have tried to explain away how Jesus was able to survive a Roman crucifixion. Some have posited the "Swoon Theory" which basically states that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. Roman soldiers were in on the plot and gave him medicine before He died and then the disciples later revived Him. Another theory is the disciples stole away the body. Yet another theory is that someone who looked like Jesus died in his place. I can name more theories, but that isn't necessary. All of these theories fail in light of historical context.

I do not blindly follow Christianity. In fact, Christianity could not even exist if Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead. I can explain this if necessary. The fact that Christianity exists is evidence of Jesus' resurrection.

Remember Lee, the Bible is as much as historical document as it is a theological one. So quoting the Bible should be as valid as quoting any other historical document (except no historical document in history is backed with evidence as the Bible). The Bible tells us about certain historical cities (Judea, Philipi, Ephesus), rulers (Nero, Justus, Herod, etc), events (the destruction of the temple in 70A.D., the life of Jesus, wars, the proliferation of Christianity, etc). So when I quote the Bible I am quoting a legitimate piece of history.

Could you explain to me why you believe Jesus was a good teacher and why you accept his moral philosophy, but not His claims to divinity? What criteria do you use to distinguish what areas of Scripture are to be considered true?

One last comment. Yes, the Bible is the source of Truth Lee. It's important to realize that every man and woman have their own presuppositions for their worldview. If you believe the Bible is false, you do so based upon what you presuppose about the nature of truth, not because you have exhausted your efforts in studying it. If the Bible is not true, what is? What is the meaning of life? Where did we come from and where are we going? However you choose to answer this, you must be able to defend your epistemology. The Bible gives the best explanation of man's existence, the problem of evil, the triumph of evil in the person of Jesus Christ, and the heart's longing for immortality. Nobody wants to die. We are all built with an innate desire to live, and to live eternally. I enjoy life and I want to live, but the reality is I must die someday.