I probably should have added that those contradictions are usually related to the person and work of Jesus. The Bible's historicity and translational accuracy has long been defended and established. Those sayings and works attributed to Jesus by the Gospels are well established and confirmed by the physical resurrection. Hence, the grounds for rejecting those sayings and works attributed to him that are out of known character.
I am vaguely familiar with the Logia Fragments. Regarding the "contradictions," and I am assuming you mean the contradictions between the fragments and the Bible, I see no need to "reconcile" them. It is possible that other ancient documents contradict the Bible without being a threat to the Bible's content. Many extra-biblical material contradicts Scripture. The apocrypha, for example, is not part of the Bible, the "Protestant" versions, that is. The Gnostic gospels are not part of the accepted canon either, but the fact that contradiction exists between those other ancient documents and the 66 books we call the Bible does no harm to the conservative view of the Bible. Contradiction between what those documents say and what the Bible says, is not a real problem.
Not sure if I understood your question perfectly, but I hope this helps.
Just thought I would respond to your allegations above.
Buddhism and Hinduism just as "realistic" and "useful"?
If by "realistic" you mean equally true, then, perhaps you should study the three, Christianity included, but the fact is that all contradict one another at the most foundational level. Hence, the idea that B. and H. are "just as realistic" strikes at the heart of logic itself, the law of non-contradiction specifically.
They cannot be equally "realistic" unless you mean that they are all absolutely false. That is probably what you mean, but just stating it offers no evidence for your position.
As for the translational work, the accuracy rate is around 99.9 percent per the comparisons made over the years involving older and numerous discoveries. If I'm not mistaking there are over 6000 manuscripts by which to measure the translational accuracy - document and pieces of documents found in different places and from various ancient time periods, in fact. No other work of antiquity can come close to this volume of evidence nor its consistency.
As for the idea that "It wasn't too many years ago when many Christians were claiming the world was flat (Daniel 4:11)," there are a couple of issues.
a. First, what Christian's believe may not accurately reflect the voice of Scripture. Second, and more importantly, the text you cite does not deal with what "Christians" actually believe, but reflect your opinion that Scripture itself errs on its perception of reality - an idea easily answered with the consideration of the context.
b. the statement was not an ipso facto statement about reality but a metaphor indicative of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, power, and fall. The kingdom was a great world power with great influence.
c. while Daniel 4:11 was not a statement about reality that missed its mark, Isaiah 40:22 is a statement that hit the proverbial "bull's-eye." This passage says, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
I would hope that you investigate the issue personally rather than don the typical arguments of the skeptic.
I guess it depends on the way you voted, doesn't it?
I consider the Amendment One results a "good news" report.
It is good to maintain a paradigm that has the divine trademark and stamp of approval, ie Jesus in his affirmation and confirmation of the divine design in his physical resurrection.
Not Selective Reading but rather sound Reading determines that Gay marriage is more akin to spiritual rebellion than anything else.
It's simple.
Divorce doesn't tamper with the very paradigm originally and divinely established. After all, and normally, divorced men and women go on to marry another man or woman. Actually, Jesus said divorce was allowed, because "of the hardness of your hearts." divorce for no reaason is SIN and divorce for a "good" reason, is usually the result of some blatant SIN in the life of either husban or wife. So sin still enters the picture, doesn't it?
Second, Just because one group refuses to honor their marriage vows doesn't give another group the right to change the standard.
Third, it is indeed a shame and a sin that so many professing Christians treat marriage as a mere "social agreement" rather than the will of God and picture, said the Apostle Paul, of Christ and his Church. It reveals a vast exodus from Scriptural authority, the very message preached by a growing secular world and gobbled up by even many Christians.
You said, "We saw your article in Journalism class and we had a class discussion. All of us are against the amendment. I had one friend in the class make fun of your article like this kid." (Oh look, I gave you credit for your own words, lol)
I'd be interested to know what the jounrnalism class had to say, gnereally speaking that is.
Have each on who doesnt mind doing so, throw me an email or response via this thread, if they have any questions about Christ or any of the above info. It would be a pleasure to interact with them some.
Oh, by the way, he didn't address any of the facts I presented.
My point, no matter his intent, was that he used my entire column almost word for word, with a few additions and subtractions here and there, and didn't give credit. He plagerized, plain and simple. As for "actuallity" of the "religion", I am more concerned with the true one. My point is that the physical resurrection confirms christianity's truth claims.
I just want people to know that if your column looks well written, then it was becasue I wrote it, at least the majority of it. I should get the credit for your plagiaristic spoof of my original column. Too bad you couldn't really answer based on the actual column. Give me a few days and I will provide another one that you can claim as your own without informing your readers that you "borrowed" the vast majority of it from me.
Your column sounds a little plagiaristic, don't you think? Particularly since you didn’t tell the readers that is was a take on my original column. Using almost everything from my column for your "atheistic, skeptical" twist.
I do have a few questions about the "flying spaghetti monster," though.
He did rise from the dead and leave us with a confirmable historical trail in the process, right?
He did die due to the rigors or crucifixion - was buried - cause his disciples to doubt and despair because His death challenged their hopes - leave the tomb in which he was buried empty just a few days later - cause the disciples to have real experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen FSM - then historically transform the disciples enough to make them willing to die for the truth of these events - make the resurrection the very center of preaching in the early church - proclaim this gospel, including the resurrection, in Jerusalem, the very city where he died - establish the church based on these disciples - change the primary day of worship to Sunday, the very day he was reported to have risen - cause the conversion of his previously skeptical brother, James, - then cause the eventual conversion of Paul, a leader in the persecution of the church by a real experience that he believed was of the risen FSM???? All of this is accredited to the FSM, right?
Oh wait, Jesus rose and left this historic trail, didn't he. The FSM must be a plagiarist also.
(Twelve Historical Fact were presented by Gary Habermas at Southern Evangelical Seminary)
Also, In your "well written" spoof, you malign the theological basis for the civil rights movement that MLK himself noted. Whether or not you believe in the God to which MLK referred and upon whom he admittedly reasoned, does not matter. The fact of the matter is, King and his movement were, according to him, soundly grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. You may not like it, but true it is still true.
NOTE TO READERS: My column, the original version from which above said "writer" "BORROWED" without giving credit can be read at the following link in The Pilot: http://www.thepilot.com/weblogs/link2...
Do you maintain the same on abortion; namely that the constitution gives teh woman the "right" to abort her child?
Who decides what it ultimately wrong? God? The Constitution? What some deem "constitutional" may still be extremely out of sync with what the Bible says, you know.
Perhaps that is what's wrong with modern Christianity. We either place other documents alongside or above the very document, The Bible, we say is God's word. Voting against an amendment that attempts to honor and protect the marital divine paradigm is equivalent to favoring gay marriage.
"If I stand for every biblical truth except that one which is currently under attack, I must be deemed a coward." Can't remember who said it, but it applies to all believers of all times who claim submission to the Bible.
link2eternity 11 months, 1 week ago
Jesus, Give Back the Wheel!
SH59,
I probably should have added that those contradictions are usually related to the person and work of Jesus. The Bible's historicity and translational accuracy has long been defended and established. Those sayings and works attributed to Jesus by the Gospels are well established and confirmed by the physical resurrection. Hence, the grounds for rejecting those sayings and works attributed to him that are out of known character.
Hope this clarifies some.
Tony
link2eternity 11 months, 1 week ago
Jesus, Give Back the Wheel!
Hello SH59,
I am vaguely familiar with the Logia Fragments. Regarding the "contradictions," and I am assuming you mean the contradictions between the fragments and the Bible, I see no need to "reconcile" them. It is possible that other ancient documents contradict the Bible without being a threat to the Bible's content. Many extra-biblical material contradicts Scripture. The apocrypha, for example, is not part of the Bible, the "Protestant" versions, that is. The Gnostic gospels are not part of the accepted canon either, but the fact that contradiction exists between those other ancient documents and the 66 books we call the Bible does no harm to the conservative view of the Bible. Contradiction between what those documents say and what the Bible says, is not a real problem. Not sure if I understood your question perfectly, but I hope this helps.
Tony
link2eternity 11 months, 1 week ago
Jesus, Give Back the Wheel!
Hello Easygoing,
Just thought I would respond to your allegations above.
Buddhism and Hinduism just as "realistic" and "useful"? If by "realistic" you mean equally true, then, perhaps you should study the three, Christianity included, but the fact is that all contradict one another at the most foundational level. Hence, the idea that B. and H. are "just as realistic" strikes at the heart of logic itself, the law of non-contradiction specifically. They cannot be equally "realistic" unless you mean that they are all absolutely false. That is probably what you mean, but just stating it offers no evidence for your position.
As for the translational work, the accuracy rate is around 99.9 percent per the comparisons made over the years involving older and numerous discoveries. If I'm not mistaking there are over 6000 manuscripts by which to measure the translational accuracy - document and pieces of documents found in different places and from various ancient time periods, in fact. No other work of antiquity can come close to this volume of evidence nor its consistency.
As for the idea that "It wasn't too many years ago when many Christians were claiming the world was flat (Daniel 4:11)," there are a couple of issues.
a. First, what Christian's believe may not accurately reflect the voice of Scripture. Second, and more importantly, the text you cite does not deal with what "Christians" actually believe, but reflect your opinion that Scripture itself errs on its perception of reality - an idea easily answered with the consideration of the context.
b. the statement was not an ipso facto statement about reality but a metaphor indicative of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, power, and fall. The kingdom was a great world power with great influence.
c. while Daniel 4:11 was not a statement about reality that missed its mark, Isaiah 40:22 is a statement that hit the proverbial "bull's-eye." This passage says, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
I would hope that you investigate the issue personally rather than don the typical arguments of the skeptic.
Tony
link2eternity 12 months ago
Carolina Blues...not the basketball kind
I guess it depends on the way you voted, doesn't it?
I consider the Amendment One results a "good news" report.
It is good to maintain a paradigm that has the divine trademark and stamp of approval, ie Jesus in his affirmation and confirmation of the divine design in his physical resurrection.
Tony
link2eternity 12 months ago
A Bible Quote They Often Forget
Not Selective Reading but rather sound Reading determines that Gay marriage is more akin to spiritual rebellion than anything else.
It's simple.
Divorce doesn't tamper with the very paradigm originally and divinely established. After all, and normally, divorced men and women go on to marry another man or woman. Actually, Jesus said divorce was allowed, because "of the hardness of your hearts." divorce for no reaason is SIN and divorce for a "good" reason, is usually the result of some blatant SIN in the life of either husban or wife. So sin still enters the picture, doesn't it?
Second, Just because one group refuses to honor their marriage vows doesn't give another group the right to change the standard.
Third, it is indeed a shame and a sin that so many professing Christians treat marriage as a mere "social agreement" rather than the will of God and picture, said the Apostle Paul, of Christ and his Church. It reveals a vast exodus from Scriptural authority, the very message preached by a growing secular world and gobbled up by even many Christians.
link2eternity 1 year ago
Amendment One: The Wrong Thing
Hello again, TheDevilWearsParadaBitch
You said, "We saw your article in Journalism class and we had a class discussion. All of us are against the amendment. I had one friend in the class make fun of your article like this kid." (Oh look, I gave you credit for your own words, lol)
I'd be interested to know what the jounrnalism class had to say, gnereally speaking that is.
Have each on who doesnt mind doing so, throw me an email or response via this thread, if they have any questions about Christ or any of the above info. It would be a pleasure to interact with them some.
Oh, by the way, he didn't address any of the facts I presented.
Tony
link2eternity 1 year ago
Amendment One: The Wrong Thing
TheDevilWearsParadaBitch,
My point, no matter his intent, was that he used my entire column almost word for word, with a few additions and subtractions here and there, and didn't give credit. He plagerized, plain and simple. As for "actuallity" of the "religion", I am more concerned with the true one. My point is that the physical resurrection confirms christianity's truth claims.
Tony
link2eternity 1 year ago
Amendment One: The Wrong Thing
Hello There sk8rlawy3r,
I just want people to know that if your column looks well written, then it was becasue I wrote it, at least the majority of it. I should get the credit for your plagiaristic spoof of my original column. Too bad you couldn't really answer based on the actual column. Give me a few days and I will provide another one that you can claim as your own without informing your readers that you "borrowed" the vast majority of it from me.
Your column sounds a little plagiaristic, don't you think? Particularly since you didn’t tell the readers that is was a take on my original column. Using almost everything from my column for your "atheistic, skeptical" twist.
I do have a few questions about the "flying spaghetti monster," though.
He did rise from the dead and leave us with a confirmable historical trail in the process, right?
He did die due to the rigors or crucifixion - was buried - cause his disciples to doubt and despair because His death challenged their hopes - leave the tomb in which he was buried empty just a few days later - cause the disciples to have real experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen FSM - then historically transform the disciples enough to make them willing to die for the truth of these events - make the resurrection the very center of preaching in the early church - proclaim this gospel, including the resurrection, in Jerusalem, the very city where he died - establish the church based on these disciples - change the primary day of worship to Sunday, the very day he was reported to have risen - cause the conversion of his previously skeptical brother, James, - then cause the eventual conversion of Paul, a leader in the persecution of the church by a real experience that he believed was of the risen FSM???? All of this is accredited to the FSM, right?
Oh wait, Jesus rose and left this historic trail, didn't he. The FSM must be a plagiarist also.
(Twelve Historical Fact were presented by Gary Habermas at Southern Evangelical Seminary)
Also, In your "well written" spoof, you malign the theological basis for the civil rights movement that MLK himself noted. Whether or not you believe in the God to which MLK referred and upon whom he admittedly reasoned, does not matter. The fact of the matter is, King and his movement were, according to him, soundly grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. You may not like it, but true it is still true.
NOTE TO READERS: My column, the original version from which above said "writer" "BORROWED" without giving credit can be read at the following link in The Pilot: http://www.thepilot.com/weblogs/link2...
link2eternity 1 year ago
Amendment: A Tool for Intolerants
Just wondering...Is intolerance always wrong?
Tony
link2eternity 1 year ago
Same Means of Salvation
Hello GoldenDreams,
Just a few questions and thoughts.
Do you maintain the same on abortion; namely that the constitution gives teh woman the "right" to abort her child?
Who decides what it ultimately wrong? God? The Constitution? What some deem "constitutional" may still be extremely out of sync with what the Bible says, you know.
Perhaps that is what's wrong with modern Christianity. We either place other documents alongside or above the very document, The Bible, we say is God's word. Voting against an amendment that attempts to honor and protect the marital divine paradigm is equivalent to favoring gay marriage.
"If I stand for every biblical truth except that one which is currently under attack, I must be deemed a coward." Can't remember who said it, but it applies to all believers of all times who claim submission to the Bible.
Tony (link2eternity)