Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

[g8terh8ter_eric]

1. No it means that that information gets put into question more than if they had written it down immediately. You wont hear me arguing I know for a fact jesus didn't do what it says in the bible. I don't think he did those things, but do i know 100%. of course not.

2. can you give me an example?

Basically anything that has to do with the United States history, and the accounts during the wars within it's borders. They learn more and more about things in our history, as times go on.

 

[droski]

He questions my belief system, yet can't tell me what Jesus told his disciples to do after he was gone. If he knew what he told them to do, he might have a clue as to why they didn't spend the next few years or more writing everything down.

you are arguing based on the assumption that jesus told them to do anything. you realize you are using the same book we are questioning as evidence that we shouldn't question it. it's circular logic.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Skepticism is the highest form of civilization.

There's nothing wrong with questioning things, and I do everyday as a believer. I think that's what makes my faith, different from the other faiths in the world, the ability to question what is before me.

 

[droski]

Basically anything that has to do with the United States history, and the accounts during the wars within it's borders. They learn more and more about things in our history, as times go on.

generally that is because they find written evidence afterwords (sometimes because the US doesn't release that info until years later). not sure i see a valid comparison here.

 

[MG1968]

Basically anything that has to do with the United States history, and the accounts during the wars within it's borders. They learn more and more about things in our history, as times go on.

but there has never been an account of George Washington walking on water, nor of Abraham Lincoln shooting laser beams out of his arse.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

you are arguing based on the assumption that jesus told them to do anything. you realize you are using the same book we are questioning as evidence that we shouldn't question it. it's circular logic.

Jesus told them to go teach to the Jews first, then go to the Gentiles and teach. He said nothing about writing anything do at first, which is why it was done over time, and it took quite a few years before the Gospels were done.

 

[droski]

Jesus told them to go teach to the Jews first, then go to the Gentiles and teach. He said nothing about writing anything do at first, which is why it was done over time, and it took quite a few years before the Gospels were done.

you don't think writing something down is an effective way to teach people?

 

[therealUT]

Jesus told them to go teach to the Jews first, then go to the Gentiles and teach. He said nothing about writing anything do at first, which is why it was done over time, and it took quite a few years before the Gospels were done.

One can never teach and write at the same time. This is a lesson university professors should learn.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

but there has never been an account of George Washington walking on water, nor of Abraham Lincoln shooting laser beams out of his arse.

Would you question it if there was?? I would, and I would want someone to give me some proof. My proof for Jesus is what he does for me. He helps me deal with many things that used to torment me, like anxiety and being depressed. He helps me be a better husband and father figure. He lets me know that I am not alone. That's what he does for me, and yet I can't prove it to anyone, except by how I am, and even then the absence of physical evidence causes people not to believe. That's what drives non-believers crazy, is that they can't touch it, feel it, taste, hear it, or smell it, so therefore it must not be real.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

you don't think writing something down is an effective way to teach people?

Yet, if you were teaching a class of illiterates, would you throw up the projector, or speak to them in a way they understand you??

 

[MG1968]

Would you question it if there was?? I would, and I would want someone to give me some proof. My proof for Jesus is what he does for me. He helps me deal with many things that used to torment me, like anxiety and being depressed. He helps me be a better husband and father figure. He lets me know that I am not alone. That's what he does for me, and yet I can't prove it to anyone, except by how I am, and even then the absence of physical evidence causes people not to believe. That's what drives non-believers crazy, is that they can't touch it, feel it, taste, hear it, or smell it, so therefore it must not be real.

Muslims find that same comfort in Muhammad, are you saying that they're wrong?

 

[droski]

Yet, if you were teaching a class of illiterates, would you throw up the projector, or speak to them in a way they understand you??

I'd think handing the bible to other literate people to teach the illiterates would be far more effective than doing it yourself.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Muslims find that same comfort in Muhammad, are you saying that they're wrong?

My Lord says they are, so sure their wrong. Everything that Jesus did, and God did, was inherently good. A lot of the things Muhammad did were bad, including killing Christians and Jews, which they still do today.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I'd think handing the bible to other literate people to teach the illiterates would be far more effective than doing it yourself.

Yet, in those times, just having one copy of the Old Testament, was something that a lot of towns had. Some people had to walk a day's walk, just to see an Old Testament.

 

[therealUT]

My Lord says they are, so sure their wrong. Everything that Jesus did, and God did, was inherently good. A lot of the things Muhammad did were bad, including killing Christians and Jews, which they still do today.

God killed Assyrians. That is inherently good?

Might be one thing to argue that the consequences of such an atrocious genocidal act were good; however, to state that it was inherently good (i.e., the act was good in itself, regardless of consequences) it outlandish, despicable, and revolting.

 

[Gramps]

I'm saying that the writer wasn't the witness, and that stories change over time. Memories change over time as well.

So a story about a memory, even if directly from a witness who never blinked... still changes over time.

Many bibical scholars say otherwise.

Memories do change over time. Stories always change over time. Five people can see the exact same thing and each one give a different account as to what they saw.

The Bible says it is the inspired word of God.
I Corinthians 2: 12-13
2 Timothy 3: 16-17
2 Peter 1:21

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

God killed Assyrians. That is inherently good?

Might be one thing to argue that the consequences of such an atrocious genocidal act were good; however, to state that it was inherently good (i.e., the act was good in itself, regardless of consequences) it outlandish, despicable, and revolting.

God is judge and jury, therefore, I say that his decisions are inherently good for his people. People may not agree with them, but did you agree with the some of the punishments your father gave you, even the most severe??

 

[droski]

Yet, in those times, just having one copy of the Old Testament, was something that a lot of towns had. Some people had to walk a day's walk, just to see an Old Testament.

then why write down teh old testament? waste of time right?

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

then why write down teh old testament? waste of time right?

It was done over time, not in one sitting. Just think how it would have been received if someone sits a book down in front of an adult who has no clue how to read it. God knew that they would write it down over time, and over time more people would become educated enough to read it. Back then, that's why people would go to church, because they didn't have a Bible to teach them in the house, so they relied on sharp memories.

 

[therealUT]

God is judge and jury, therefore, I say that his decisions are inherently good for his people. People may not agree with them, but did you agree with the some of the punishments your father gave you, even the most severe??

Not as inherently good.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Not as inherently good.

Yet, the punishments led to learning, and the learning led to better judgment or a more perfect understanding of how things are supposed to work. Therefore, inherently good.

 

[MG1968]

My Lord says they are, so sure their wrong. Everything that Jesus did, and God did, was inherently good. A lot of the things Muhammad did were bad, including killing Christians and Jews, which they still do today.

so God ordering Moses to kill all those Jews who were worshiping the Golden Calf was an inherently good thing to do?

also, there are deep theological divides between Jews and Christians. Jews think that Jesus was little more than just another prophet, and yet there you are placing them on equal footing with Christians.

Sorry if I'm confused here. But if Christianity is the one true faith, then there is simply no way you can stomach Judaism continuing to be practiced.

 

[droski]

It was done over time, not in one sitting. Just think how it would have been received if someone sits a book down in front of an adult who has no clue how to read it. God knew that they would write it down over time, and over time more people would become educated enough to read it. Back then, that's why people would go to church, because they didn't have a Bible to teach them in the house, so they relied on sharp memories.

but if in those times you were far better off spreading the word verbally than surely it was a waste of time to write down the old testament? god of all people must have known this and told as much to moses who wrote the old testament. moses disobeyed god?

 

[therealUT]

Yet, the punishments led to learning, and the learning led to better judgment or a more perfect understanding of how things are supposed to work. Therefore, inherently good.

No. Therefore, good only on account of the results.

This is an "ends justify the means" outlook.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

so God ordering Moses to kill all those Jews who were worshiping the Golden Calf was an inherently good thing to do?

also, there are deep theological divides between Jews and Christians. Jews think that Jesus was little more than just another prophet, and yet there you are placing them on equal footing with Christians.

Sorry if I'm confused here. But if Christianity is the one true faith, then there is simply no way you can stomach Judaism continuing to be practiced.

Jesus fulfilled the Law, because the wages of the Law was sin, and the wages of sin were death. Jesus was the last sacrifice of the law, according to God, and it actually should have brought the Jews and Gentiles together, but the Jews were hard headed, and decided to kill one of their own, and still not believe. That's why you have the divide of Jews and Christians.