Just wondering what it is that makes you believe Christianity is correct and all other religions must be false?
To be very simple and to the point using, facts,logic and reason Jesus was who he said he was, he proved it and its documented, and the Bible is the only book to have ZERO contradictions and everything ever found archeology wise has lined up with the Bible 100%. No one ever in history has been able to come up with hard evidence that one thing in the Bible was false, because lets face it if they did the Bible would hold no weight and I would not be able to trust one thing in it if there was ever evidence found that proved something to be proven false. Do you Ryan have anything regarding archeology wise that u think the Bible is wrong about? Since I know archeology is one of your interests.
Thanks for taking the time to answer, well im sure we are going to have differing opinions on this one haha. I think the bible contradicts itself quite a bit,one can look at the differing accounts of the gospels for an example. As far as archeology is concerned yes some of what the bible says is backed by archeology because those places historically existed and some of the events occurred as well. (although they were written after the fact)However there are numerous cases where findings(or a lack of) and what is written in the bible dont match up as well. There are no findings or recordings of the parting of the red sea,of the plagues/tower of babel or of the mass exodus out of Egypt.There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support the more fantastic claims of the bible.
@Ryan - There is strong evidence for the red sea crossingshttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19382Also, the tower of babelhttp://www.unmuseum.org/babel.htmBack to your question though, can you present us with a religion that is NOT based off of the Bible that has solid evidence to support it? Catholic, Christian, Islam, Mormon, etc. are all Bible based.
None of the Abrahamic religions, or any of the other religions (Hinduism etc) really have any evidence to suggest that they are more factually based then any other. With your sources we must remember that just because its on a webpage doesn't make it true. In both cases neither site supports its claims with links to other archeological sites or other archeological institutions. There is no information to collaborate with what is being said as factual other then to take the word of the person writing it and for me that just isint evidence.
Yeah I didnt expect you to agree with me lol But actually in the gospel accounts there are no contradictions I see I actually see strong proof of how accurate each writers account is, I could go into further detail to why I believe this if you want me to. As far as archeological findings I dont think we will ever find everything recorded, but everything so far found hasnt proved anything in the bible to be wrong, if you know of anything that has been found that the bible is wrong about could you show me a link or something so I can check it out i am interested.
You can try to prove things in history wrong all you want, but you can't tell someone that their own experiences are false. My friend had a brain tumor. It no longer exists. Its been gone for two years after the mri came back clean on monday. Now you can say that he was cured by medicine, but his tumor disappeared months before the medicine would have wiped it out, and his doctors were astonished. Personally, I haven't had anything that "miraculous" except the fact that i haven't had to face such difficulties in my life. But I have been in situations where I have felt overwhelming joy and peace when I was at a place that was completely opposite.So if you want to think the Bible is false, alright. But you would be foolish to try and tell me that my own experience and testimony is false.
=) i believe you're starting off with the wrong mindset. When we look at all the religions of the world, it's no big surprise that they all look alike and kinda goofy (including Christianity). But when you set your heart and your mind on the path to find Truth (not to find the 'correct religion' or to prove thy your religion was the right one...but an honest, open hearted search for Truth) it is my experience that I've found the Truth of what I learned to be a lot like what I was taught 'christianity' was when I was younger. For me, it was like Chesterton said "I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
The links I posted had as much scientific data as yours; you're just in denial. And you just listed a bunch of religions without anything to support your claims that they predate ours. I know for a fact that Buddhism started way later since Buddha himself was only born around 500 or 600 BC. Seeing that you were wrong about one off hand, you probably are on the others as well and once again, you offer NOTHING to back your claims.As for the god Tammuz, just because it is mentioned in Ezekiel does not mean it predates our Bible and God's teachings. The prophecies of Jesus' death are found throughout the Old Testament and also, before the book of Ezekiel. Just because someone was weeping for a false god in the Bible does not mean that god predates Him.You attack every ounce of evidence we have on lack of "scientific data" and whatnot when none of your claims have anything backing them up. You can question and attack Christianity all you want but until you have faith and submit to God rather than reject Him, you'll never understand Truth. You have so many opportunities to turn yourself over to Him and since you are not, it is proof of your denial. All these little arguments mean nothing if you do not apply them. Our God is the true God, believe it or not. If you do believe it, your life will be given meaning and you will go to heaven for eternity with us, if not, you will stay as you are: purposeless and condemned.
Wow this thread took off quick, str8 to the point what makes the Gospels even more believable is the fact that they were all written by different people many years apart in which none of them read what the previous ones written yet all give the same detailed account with no contradictions. More evidence that shows the accounts are accurate is that they tell the same story but not word for word if the Gospels was a hoax don't you think all the writers would have sat down and made sure everything was word for word. For example if we both witnessed a robbery and saw a man escape in a red truck and police both interviewed us and we had the same story word for word the cops would be suspicious right? But if we gave the cops the interview telling what happened and I said the car was red but you said it was maroon that doesn't take away the fact there was a reddish truck much like the Gospels they give an account of things that took place historically but used different words to explain it, now because the stories are written slightly different does not take away from the fact that the events really took place just like we seen a red Ruck but u called it maroon during the robbery it still took place and by these small differences in the Gospels that makes it even more proof that they are accurate and true and still with not one single contradiction.
Ill have to disagree on the gospels, biblical scholars know that the gospel accounts are based off of Mark.For example these contradictions also occur because each subsequent author was not satisfied with Mark's simple account of a young man telling the women that Jesus was risen. Resurrection appearances were needed but, with no guidance from Mark, the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote quite different accounts. The account in John begins as an elaboration of Luke's account, on which it was based. Much later, the 'Long Ending' (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark, to provide it with resurrection appearances. The redactor of Mark's Long Ending was familiar with the other gospel accounts of the resurrection, and made a good effort to harmonize his account with parts of the other gospel accounts.We also must take into account that none of the gospel authors ever met Jesus,they were all "historic" recordings.The earliest of the gospels "mark" being written around 37-100AD, we must also take the names of the gospels with a grain of salt as they were all written anonymously,although it was common practice at the time to use pseudo-pigraphical attribution of authorship especially with religious texts. Some other contradictions from the gospels are...Who guarded the tomb?Matthew 27:62-66 - A guard is stationed outside the tomb the day after Jesus’ burialMark, Luke, John - No guard is mentioned. In Mark and Luke, the women who approach the tomb do not appear to expect to see any guards Who visited the tomb?Mark 16:1 - Three women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, a second Mary, and SalomeMatthew 28:1 - Two women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene and another MaryLuke 24:10 - At least five women visit Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and “other women.”John 20:1 - One woman visits Jesus’ tomb: Mary Magdalene. She later fetches Peter and another disciple Who greets the women?Mark 16:5 - The women enter the tomb and meet one young man in thereMatthew 28:2 - An angel arrives during an earthquake, rolls away the stone, and sits on it outside. Pilate’s guards are also thereLuke 24:2-4 - The women enter the tomb and two men suddenly appear — it’s not clear if they are inside or outsideJohn 20:12 - The women do not enter the tomb, but there are two angels sitting inside Theres more but this wall of text is enough haha,As for the Bible, archaeological evidence for the Bible is somewhat slim. For example, using genealogies contained within the Bible, the "Flood" would have occurred around 2400 B.C.E., yet scribes in Egypt and Mesopotamia, writing their daily records throughout don't seem to have noticed, or been interrupted by, a massive worldwide flood which covered the tops of the tallest mountains. There is no archaeological evidence for the "Flood".As for the Bible Gospels, the massacre of baby boys ordered by Herod (Matthew 2) is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, or by any outside historians, some of whom describe Herod in great detail. The Star of Bethlehem (Matthew 2) is also mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, and historical evidence contradicts the generally accepted birth date for Jesus as 4 BC. Finally, how could Jesus (according to Luke) be born at a time when a census was ordered by Caesar Augustus, when Quirinius governed Syria and Herod ruled the Jews? Historical evidence says that Herod's rule ended in 4 BC and the census did not occur until 6 AD when Quirinius was governing Syria.I know of no archeological data that shows the bible says x happened but we know that y happened instead. But as I have mentioned above their is data or a lack there of which puts serious doubts as to whether some of the more spectacular events occurred or not. I might be able to find some sites that would say certain findings contradict the bible but I wouldnt be able to check how authentic they would be so its best not to throw misinformation out there.Just saw how long that got haha I apologize and to anyone who reads it all you get a gold star :p
Whys a tome being guarded and visited? =P
Christianity is the only "religion" where God died for us. If such a belief system has that as its central tenet the least I could do is consider it. I would be inconsiderate otherwise.
@ Alpha, who knows maybe it was like the CT DOT workers where 6 people have to change a road sign, back then people had to guard a rock ;)@ George the concept of a dying God is ancient. In Egyptian pantheons you have Osiris who was killed and brought back for the fertility of the land. You have Khephra who took the sun at night and renewed it every morning. The concept of birth, sacrificial death and rebirth is literally as old as the hills. It doesn't make the messages less valid, it just means that they are not original.
Ohhhhh you mean tomb!! =P
haha you are correct ughhh I didnt even realize it....its late:p
@Ryan - I love how you throw those links away and act like they don't matter at all when in our other post you gave me a ton of similar links. Hypocrisy in a debate is never good. You also say that the sacrificial death and rebirth is not original; can you prove that the Bible is not the first religion? While there is a lot of evidence for and against Christianity, the entire faith is based on FAITH. Once you have an ounce of faith, God will reveal Himself to you as He did to me and many others. Arguing whether it's valid or not is pointless as there is no definite proof on either side.
The difference between the links I use are that they are backed by scientific data, where as yours are not.I didnt use links that I could have when talking about archeology because I could not find anything to back up the claims that they made. Previous religions to Christianity would be Paganism,Zoroastrianism, Celtic religions, Ancient Roman, Greek, Egyptian polytheistic religions,Hinduism,Buddhism,etc.As far as other gods rising again from the dead (before christ)...Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra,etc. One reference to this is in the Bible itself. Ezekiel the prophet referred to women whom he saw weeping for Tammuz at the gate of Jehovah's house (Ez. 8:14), an obvious reference to the springtime ritual of mourning the death of this pagan savior who, according to the myth that had fostered the religion, had later risen to life again.
And all those contradictions you say that are in the Bible I have to disagree those are not contradictions at all Just because something is left out in one account and told in another does not make it a contradiction. Lets go back to us giving our account of witnessing a robbery to police in your account you might have said the robber had a green bag in his hand but in my account doesn't mention a green bag because I didnt notice it, does that mean the robber didn't have a green bag or our stories contradict eachother? Absolutely not....just like some of the things you pointed out that one Gospel account mentions guards at the tomb and some don't, does that mean that there wasn't any guards at the tomb or the stories are contradicting? Again absolutely not.These small things that are left out or explained slightly different does not take away the fact that all these accounts didn't happen it actually gives the accounts more credit and shows you they can be trusted and are accurate.
And thanks for taking the time to post all the archaeological stuff, things such as the flood we are both going to disagree on evidence there obviously lol now the time lines I am going to have to look further into such as the decree etc because I want to make sure what I post is accurate..but everytime I turn on the news or they find new cities or tombs of famous past rulers they always line up in the Bible and what it has to say, but your right many things the Bible claims has yet to be found and lets face it probably never will but in my opinion doesn't mean they never happened or was there(places). Still I argue the fact that no evidence archeology wise has been discovered that proves something in the Bible was wrong about that has so hard evidence that anyone had no choice but to say the Bible was wrong in this particular finding. But what I do see is more findings that line up with the Bible as opposed to archaeologists can't find hard evidence for great eventstold in the Bible. As someone who is interested in archeology and seems to know a lot about it like yourself even has to admit when it comes to discoveries such as ancient cities and rulers the Bible has been dead accurate with those two categories am I right? Lol
Lots to reply to lol,this could take some time...@Alpha I think whenever one is looking for whats real or not we must take emotion out of the equation.When someone is emotionally invested in something it can have an effect on whatever results one may find. If someone wants Christianity to be true or Islam or whatever then it will be. Im sure not many Christians would argue that there isint much evidence for the Islam faith or the Scientology faith,although those of that faith would argue just the opposite ;) Although Scientology is well lets just say interesting.... lol. So we must look and see are they arguing based off of facts and reasoned discussion or is it based off of faith and emotion. When I argue against Christianity and other religion I dont argue because I want it to be wrong or I need it to be wrong to promote atheism but because it just doesnt add up for me, there are to many fantastic stories which I think is where religion in general shoots itself in the foot. Every modern religion must have an all powerful god and one amazing story after the other to compete with every other religion that has the same. I think of it as the arms race of religion and what we ended up with are the religions we have today.@Jordan The websites I use are backed by universities and museums, the evidence I give for contradictions in the bible come from not only my religious comparison classes but from Bart D. Ehrman the head of religious studies at UNC who is a well respected biblical scholar. Im not just saying that I must be right because of what ive learned,im just saying that I have reasoning to say that there are events and passages in the bible that dont add up to scrutiny(which is the whole reason for apologetic's). I also dont understand how people can have the frame of mind that this life is meaningless unless we are to receive another one. My life has enormous meaning to me partly because its the only one that I know I am guaranteed to have so I want to make the most out of it.I didnt exist before I was born and I dont expect anything more then that when I die.@PHBOI The gospels all basically have the same info because the other 3 authors used marks gospel as a starting point, none of the gospel authors ever met jesus personally,their accounts were all based off of his.The entire new testament is written after the death of Jesus. Theres a 40 - 80 year time frame that is most likely correct. Reputable New Testament scholars generally agree that Mark was written around 70 CE, Mathew & Luke in the 80's, and John in the 90's. They all underwent revision and may not have reached their present form until about 150 CE. None of the original authors had ever met Jesus (if he existed, which most scholars believe he did) since he died ca. 30 CE.Paul never wrote a single gospel (he did write several letters though, many of which have been included in the New Testament). As we also know paul changed many things after the death of jesus (such as circumcision,etc)You will find archeological evidence that is in line with the bible because those places existed and some of those events happened I agree. What im saying tho is that I think its a big stretch to say well there's archeological evidence for x town existing or y event happening so then the story of the virgin birth must be true or Noahs ark if that makes sense. :)I know I missed some stuff but that was alot to read lol.