scientology
Out of context: Reply #68
- Started
- Last post
- 117 Responses
- scarabin0
The Bible is a historical document. If you subject it to the same tests and textual criticism that you subject other historical documents (documents which you accept without question) to, you’ll discover that the Bible proves itself to be far superior to any other ancient writing - of the New Testament alone, there are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies. Just as amazing is the fact that the earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. This is tremendous when you consider that only 7 of Plato’s manuscripts are in existence today — and there’s a 1,300-year gap which separates the earliest copy from the original writing! The New Testament has been virtually unaltered. This has been demonstrated by scholars who have compared the earliest written manuscripts with manuscripts written centuries later. And remember, the accounts in the New Testament were recorded directly by eyewitnesses.
You see, there are legitimate reasons why millions worldwide, including scholars, theologians, and scientists, believe that God has both inspired and preserved his word.
--
all this says is that the new testament is really old and there are many copies of it. just because something is repeated, doesn't make it true. there are a million copies of harry potter in the world and they are still fiction, and continue to be so despite the 'eyewitness' claims of young harry that the events he describes are actually happening.
--
'As briefly demonstrated above, the Bible IS in fact a historical document. And more reliable than most documents that are accepted without question.'
--
no, all it proved was that the new testament is old, not that the events in the bible aren't fiction.
--
'Of the variety of evidence we have available, none is more compelling than the fact that over five hundred individuals saw Jesus (1 Cor. 15:6) during a 40-day period following His death and burial (Acts 1:3). In fact, the Apostles appealed to Christ’s resurrection as proof for the truth of the gospel (Acts 17:18, 31). The historical evidence for the resurrection is so compelling that the famed Harvard law professor, Simon Greenleaf, concluded that any cross-examination of the eyewitness testimonies recorded in Scripture will result in “an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”'
--
you can't seriously be using that as an argument. again, this is like saying that the harry potter books are all true because a character inside the book said they were.
what you're trying to use here is called a self-supporting argument. it's like in those cartoons where a character grabs the collar of his own shirt and lifts himself off the ground. it just doesn't work.--
'And even as we consider alternative explanations about Christ's resurrection, reason drives us back to the conclusion that Christ rose from the dead - we know that the Romans had no intentions of stealing Christ’s body because the last thing they wanted was any turmoil that was sure to follow such an event. The Jewish religious leaders would also have no motive in stealing the body since that would only stir up the very movement they tried to crush. And certainly, the disciples could not have stolen the body; after all, would anyone really suffer and die for a cause that they knew to be a lie? They were terrified and scattered at this time. It is conceivable that someone may die for the truth, but inconceivable that hundred’s of his follower’s would, in fact, be willing to die for what they knew to be a lie. It's a historical event which divides and transforms to this day, my friend.'
--
um, no. nobody fucking rose from the grave. i don't care how many people have argued about it. there is still no proof. the bible is still not proof.
--
'I meant that is successfully accounts for, not that it "attempts" to account for such metaphysical realities. Christianity is the only belief system that coherently explains and connects issues like the problem of evil, true self-sacrificing love and lasting contentment. World religions fail to provide sactisfactory and cohesive elucidation here.'
--
because religion is bullshit. and you're wrong in the first place- scientology, which is also bullshit, also explains and interconnects the problem of evil, contentment, etc, and all in a completely satisfactory manner. it's still fiction.