The Neverending Thread (was SATAN DECEIVES YOU)

[Nick]

Here's another link that people may want to explore regarding the book The Rock of Truth. This website also lists other books by the same author (Athur Findlay) , as well as some other interesting books and authors also. You may want to have a look:

http://www.psychic-press.sageweb.co.uk/



Very best,

[Adrian]

Greetings Nick,

Thanks very much indeed for this link.

The book is out of print on Amazon.com, but is available from Amazon.co.uk on a 4-6 week lead time.

Here is the information from the website:

To quote Arthur Findlay' "I am one of the first to admire the unselfish social work of many clergy in the slums and elsewhere, but these activities are quite apart from those with which this book is concerned. Many others besides the clergy of the orthodox faith are engaged in missions to the poor. It is not the social side of the Church's work that this book attacks, but orthodox Christianity as preached from nearly every pulpit in Christendom, and it is this which affects the great majority of the people." "If I were not able to put before the people a better religion, a truer religion, and a greater religion for them to observe and follow, I would not trouble to attack what is false, as it gives a certain measure of comfort to many. Spiritualism, however, is an infinitely greater help to us in our lives and also in our deaths than the old faiths which satisfied our ancestors. My wish is not to knock down and destroy. My aim is to build a nobler edifice, but before this edifice can be built decaying rubbish about its foundations must be cleared away." So says Arthur Findlay in his masterly "The rock of truth." Subtitled "Spiritualism, the coming World Religion," the author examines such far reaching points as "What did Jesus really teach?" "Spiritualism, and what it stands for," "The Philosophy of Spiritualism" and all important points. This superb book investigates - and indicts - orthodoxy, and can rightly be regarded as a classic in the annals of psychic literature

Incidentally, Arthur Findlay wrote another famous book entitled "On the Edge of the Etheric".

With best regards,

Adrian.

[chill]

quote:Originally posted by Adrian
Another significant position is by referring to Jesus as the son of God, when in fact the original teachings, notably the word of John in the Essenes, Rosicrucian etc. records clearly teaches the truth that we are all sons and daughters of God.

When you say 'teaches the truth', do you mean that you, Adrian, believe that we are all sons and daughters of God ? Fair enough. But that's just playing with words. If Jesus is the son of God, and not just a particularly enlightened one (or crazy one), then we would need to prove his resurrection. Although that proof might not imply that he was indeed the son of God, it might become a compelling case for Christianity. Unfortunately, I don't think that a proof has been provided that the historical Jesus rose from the dead. Hence, he might not be the son of God, but just one among all sons and daughters of God. If God exists.

Still, the Gospels might provide some interesting clues on the nature of Evil. Now I will probably lose you, as the word 'Evil', or worst 'Satan', are really not part of any New Age Dogma vocabulary. Let me explain for the benefits of others.

From the earliest days of Christianity, the Gospels' resemblance to certain myths has been used as an argument against Christian faith.

When you look at it, the death and resurrection of Jesus does not seem to differ in any significant way from the myths of Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, etc.

« Beginning with some violent cosmic or social crisis, and culminating in the suffering of a mysterious victim (often at the hands of a furious mob), all these myths conclude with the triumphal return of the sufferer, thereby revealed as a divinity. » (René Girard).

There is an a theory though by René Girard according to which the world's myths do not reveal a way to interpret the Gospels, but exactly the reverse: the Gospels reveal to us the way to interpret myth. Of course, the Gospels - the written words - are used here, for what they are : a story.

That theory is worth while because you can easily take the 'religious aspect' out of it, and as an atheist, or muslim, or buddhist, you can use that theory to explain violence, to understand the nature of Evil, to understand the true nature of Satan.

Yes, I can easily live with the fact that Satan exists, that 'Evil' exists, without having the need for a God to exist. Satan might not be a 'being'. There's a possibilty that God exists, without Satan existing as a 'being', or that God exists WITH the existence of Satan as a being, mind you. Nowadays, I would say that I am an atheist, ex-strugling-catholic who believes in the existence of 'Evil'. Maybe I should use a better word, as this is a provoking one.

Now back to the Gospels : Peter spectacularly illustrates the mimetic contagion around Jesus - which will lead to his crucifixion. When surrounded by people hostile to Jesus, he imitates their hostility. Maybe hoes this out of fear for himself. In any case, he does not stand up for Jesus. He obeys the same mimetic force, ultimately, as Pilate and Herod. Even the thieves crucified with Jesus obey that force and feel compelled to join the crowd. The theory is that the Gospels do not seek to stigmatize Peter, or the thieves, or the crowd as a whole, or the Jews as a people, but to reveal the enormous power of mimetic contagion, a revelation valid for the entire chain of murders depicted in the OT and in myths.

The Greek skandalondesignates an unavoidable obstacle that somehow becomes more attractive (as well as repulsive) each time we stumble against it. The first time Jesus predicts his violent death (Matthew 16:21-23), his resignation appalls Peter, who tries to instill some worldly ambition in Jesus. Sensing the danger, Jesus vehemently interrupts Peter: "Get behind me, Satan, you are a skandalon to me." Skandalon ? Satan ? WHAT ?

Satan is skandalon personified, as Jesus makes explicit in his rebuke of Peter.

Since most human beings do not follow Jesus, scandals must happen (Matthew 18:7). Mimetic desire, rivalry, envy, jalousy. I think we all understand the terrifying power of escalating mimetic desire. And yet, though many societies perished, new societies managed to be born, and most established societies today manage to find ways to survive or regenerate. Some counterforce must be at work, not powerful enough to terminate 'scandals' once and for all, and yet sufficient to moderate their impact and keep them under some control.

This counterforce is, René Girard believes, the mythological scapegoat, the sacrificial victim of myth : « When scandals proliferate, human beings become so obsessed with their rivals that they lose sight of the objects for which they compete and begin to focus angrily on one another. As the borrowing of the model's object shifts to the borrowing of the rival's hatred, acquisitive mimesis turns into a mimesis of antagonists. More and more individuals polarize against fewer and fewer enemies until, in the end, only one is left. Because everyone believes in the guilt of the last victim, they all turn against him-and since that victim is now isolated and helpless, they can do so with no danger of retaliation. As a result, no enemy remains for anybody in the community. Scandals evaporate and peace returns - for a while. »

Society's preservation against the unlimited violence of scandals lies in the mimetic coalition against the single victim and its ensuing limited violence. Or a group of people - still victims. This group is satanized, by people.

Back to the Gospels : « The violent death of Jesus is, humanly speaking, an example of this strange process. Before it begins, Jesus warns his disciples (and especially Peter) that they will be "scandalized" by him (Mark 14:27). »

« In preventing a riot and dispersing a crowd, the Crucifixion is an example of cathartic victimization. A fascinating detail in the gospel makes clear the cathartic effects of the mimetic murder, and allows us to distinguish them from the Crucifixion's Christian effects. At the end of his Passion account, Luke writes, "And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other" (23:12). This reconciliation outwardly resembles Christian communion-since it originates in Jesus' death, and yet it has nothing to do with it. It is a cathartic effect rooted in the mimetic contagion. »

« Jesus' persecutors do not realize that they influence one another mimetically. Their ignorance does not cancel their responsibility, but it does lessen it: "Father, forgive them," Jesus cries, "for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). » There is a parallel statement in Acts 3:17 : « Peter ascribes to ignorance the behavior of the crowd and its leaders. His personal experience of the mimetic compulsion that possesses crowds prevents him from regarding himself immune to the violent contagion of victimization. »

The role of Satan, the personification of scandals, helps us to understand the mimetic conception of the Gospels. To the question How can Satan cast out Satan? (Mark 3:23), the answer is an unanimous victimization. Or 'satanization' - from the point of view of the 'crowd', that it is a confusing term, sorry.

Bottom line, on the one hand, Satan is the instigator of scandal, the force that disintegrates communities : he is rivalry. on the other hand, he is the resolution of scandal in unanimous victimization. This trick of last resort enables the 'prince of this world' to remain in power, so to speak. Being both a principle of disorder and a principle of order, Satan is truly divided against himself.

René giard says that : « even if they are not accused of any crime, mythical victims are still supposed to die for a good cause, and their innocence makes their deaths no less legitimate. In the Vedic myth of Purusha, for instance, no wrongdoing is mentioned-but the tearing apart of the victim is nonetheless a holy deed. The pieces of Purusha's body are needed to create the three great castes, the mainstay of Indian society. In myth, violent death is always justified. »

But the conclusion in the light of the Gospels can be that myths are the voice of communities that unanimously surrender to the mimetic contagion of victimization.

Now here is the big leap taken by René Girard : « We hear nowadays that, behind every text and every event, there are an infinite number of interpretations, all more or less equivalent. Mimetic victimization makes the absurdity of this view manifest. Only two possible reactions to the mimetic contagion exist, and they make an enormous difference. Either we surrender and join the persecuting crowd, or we resist and stand alone. The first way is the unanimous self-deception we call mythology. The second way is the road to the truth followed by the Bible. »

« Instead of blaming victimization on the victims, the Gospels blame it on the victimizers. What the myths systematically hide, the Bible reveals. This difference is not merely "moralistic" (as Nietzsche believed) or a matter of subjective choice; it is a question of truth. When the Bible and the Gospels say that the victims should have been spared, they do not merely "take pity" on them. They puncture the illusion of the unanimous victimization that foundational myths use as a crisis-solving and reordering device of human communities. »

(...) « So too the preponderance of "strangers": in all isolated groups, outsiders arouse a curiosity that may quickly turn to hostility during a panic. Mimetic violence is essentially disoriented; deprived of valid causes, it selects its victims according to minuscule signs and pseudo-causes that we may identify as preferential signs of victimization. »

« If unanimous victimization reconciles and reorders societies in direct proportion to its concealment, then it must lose its effectiveness in direct proportion to its revelation. When the mythical lie is publicly denounced, the polarization of scandals is no longer unanimous and the social catharsis weakens and disappears. Instead of reconciling the community, the victimization must intensify divisions and dissensions. »

There comes in another problem : anti-americanism. The only way, I think, that we can stop the violence, is to constantly remind ourselves that what goes in the world, instigated by American 'authorities' (for example) is not in the name of All Americans. Still, Americans should vote for a non-violent government. With violence, you can only exacerbate a problem. Because violence (hatred) is mimetic. We just can't kill one person (say : Saddham Hussein, Ben Laden, or even all the ramifications of an organized group of terrorists - if that would be possible, or declare war on a country because a group of people there 'protects' a terrorist), it just won't resolve the problem, because there will be an even stronger feeling of anti-americanism. Unless everyone at once all over the world understand mimetism, and the mechanism of the scapegoat, that is the all-against-one (one person, one group, one ethnicity, one religious group), we are just heading for a worldwide disaster.

René girard says : « Instead of concluding with the reassuring harmony of myths, the New Testament opens up apocalyptic perspectives, in the synoptic Gospels equally with the Book of Revelation. To reach "the peace that surpasseth all understanding," humanity must give up its old, partial peace founded on victimization, and a great deal of turmoil can be expected. The apocalyptic dimension is not an alien element that should be purged from the New Testament in order to "improve" Christianity, it is an integral part of revelation. »

About the Holy Spirit : « the Gospel of John calls the Spirit of God the Paraclete, a Greek word that simply means the lawyer for the defense, the defender of the accused before a tribunal. The Paraclete is, among other things, the counterpart of the Accuser. »

I don't know if any of this makes sense to any of you, but it sure does to me.

So there's one postive thing in the Gospel for me.

When I was a little kid I used to watch Zefirelli's movie on Jesus, 'religiously'. And it striked me time and again how EVERYONE suddenly 'ganged' up on Jesus, I just could not understand. Yet.. I would remember one instance when I was a passive-observer-turned-into-an-active-agressor when I was within a gang of other kids, so that in one instance I participated in the sexual humiliation of a little girl, and in another instance in the physical assault of a mentally handicapped boy (throwing rocks at him, if you can believe this !).

Also later on in my my life, I would be apphalled on how all of a sudden, some 'political' or 'public' figures would be bashed on, after some minor scandal. How, all of a sudden, a healthy criticism (founded criticism) of a person could so easily turn into a character assassination. Similarly, a group could lash upon a minority of people who would have expressed opposing views, or criticism, and sometimes the initiators of the 'scandal' (the critics) would turn into scapegoats themselves. It's just mimetic, if you see what I mean.

[Rob]

Hey!!

OK first

quote:I did not mean to make everyone so defensive.

LOL I do hope this was not aimed at me!! heh no siree. Anything which looks like that can be safely called "baiting"! Besides, I would be quite happy to believe all the things said, as I "love" to see orthodoxy crumble beneath sandled feet.

Hmm so, the earliest texts it has been stated that we possess are a "a few third century fingernail-size fragments of parchment that scientists 'think' may have come from an early hand written bible testament". And yet, after doing only a minimal amount of research I have read about:
The "Bodmer II Papyrii" which contains most of John, cardon dated to 150-200 A.D.
"John Rylands Manuscript" - part of John, from AD 130
"Chester Beatty Papyri" - Some of the old testament (Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Esther, and Ecclesiastes); and significant portions of the new testament; and Enoch.
Should these texts be real, and there is no huge church "conspiracy" to date them to an earlier point than they truly were, or to simply make up their existance, then I think that - considering the first church councils were 3rd century - this firmly invalidates your arguments.

Adrian! I agree with much of what you say, and would love to hear more about how you know evidence of reincarnation was stripped from the churches teachings. Presumably this comes from versions of the gospels from before C6?

quote:I think a very important consideration here is that it seems likely that no one actually documented the words of Jesus at the time

Its not "at the time", but the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri and the Nag Hammadi find...not sure date, no time left to research, gotta go eat.....mmmm) provides many quotes attributed to Jesus - some of which are in the bible, some of which are slightly different from those in the bible, but half of which are nowhere else.

[]

Rob

[Benja]

Oh this seems to be a hot issue in many minds - why would otherwise be there so many posts?

[Nerezza]

This website explores the notion that the Church changed the bible when it came to reincarnation:

http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation3.html

[chill]

quote:Originally posted by Adrian

Greetings Nick,

Thanks very much indeed for this link.

The book is out of print on Amazon.com.

It ships within 1-2 business days on amazon.com

Here is the link :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0902036076/qid=1062964365/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7059966-5724007?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[Adrian]

Greetings Chill,

quote:Originally posted by chill

quote:Originally posted by Adrian

Greetings Nick,

Thanks very much indeed for this link.

The book is out of print on Amazon.com.

It ships within 1-2 business days on amazon.com

Here is the link :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0902036076/qid=1062964365/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7059966-5724007?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I think you will find this refers to the used books.

There is no "add to shopping cart" button available to order it.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[Spirit_k9]

Just a question for anyone interested to ask themselves....

Does attacking and attempting to tear down another's religious beliefs or belief system in any way validate your own? If this is how you validate your own beliefs, perhaps you should re-evaluate your own belief system.  If your beliefs are secure in your own mind you shouldn't have a burning desire to destroy others beliefs, prove them wrong, or get all frothy mouthed preaching at them to convert.

If someone suggesting that there isn't any (or enough) physical proof to substantiate your religions' own claims inflames you out of your otherwise calm state, I suggest that you have problems with your own faith in your own belief system, time to center yourself and re-evaluate.

Just a thought....

[chill]

I am sorry Adrian. I think I owe you a ------ now. Oups, whenever I am having an indigestion (I woke at 4 AM and ate two nasty chocolatine pastries, then went immediately back to bed),  plus when I am 7 days or so after my periods, I have pornographic blurts. How old are you ? If you edit out my pornography, I won't be offended. I am french.

Anyway, yes Spirit_k9, I agree. This will probably prove (apparently, to most parties involved) useless at the end. But you striked a cord there with your comment. I was checking up something on amazon.com yesterday, and there was a suggestion there for me, or a book that was 'featured'..? Its title is : THE CASE FOR FAITH. And it was sooo interesting to read the customers reviews. The book is written by a journalist, his name is Lee Strobel (in english doesn't that sound exactly like Lee is trouble ?), and it is faith in Christianity that is the subject of this book (I thought I should mention that), and as it turns out, it might very well end up being a Case Against faith, since the answers given are so.. stupid. I read the commentaries, mind you, not the book. But I won't order it, from the excerpts given, throughout the reviews. But the commentaries alone are a worth-while read. And it's free to read.

The book asks those questions (and try to provide answers that will help shed the doubts) :

1) If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?
2) If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they're true?
3) If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?
4) If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn't believe the right things about him?
5) If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?
6) If God really created the universe, why does the evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?
7) If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?
If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?

It's tough to be a christian nowadays. I said back up there that I am an atheist nowadays. You just can't lose your faith overnight. Even when some dramatic event takes place. I think that faith is something not unlike a form of mental illness, you just can't shake out of it with sheer reasoning. On an intellectual level, you can destroy your own religion, whatever it is, BUT do you stop believing ? Faith is a very stubborn 'thing'. Per say, it's not a bad thing at all, mind you. I am sorry if it comes across like I say it's bad. It's probably bad for me now, but not for others. Anyway.

[Robert Bruce]

G'day Folks!

I'll do a little research and get back to you with some more accurate data on the dates I mentioned earlier.  My gist memory is not what it used to be.  

Note that I was specifically referring to the earliest physical evidence relating to the new testament.

Btw, If memory serves me, all but one part of the new testament was originally written in Greek, but Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.


Take care, Robert.

[Narrow Path]

You are are too old and too set in your ways.

Jesus Christ and the Power of His Perfect Word are only manifested in the hearts of those that heed His call.

You must be as little children before you can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Who are you going to call out too at the time of your death?
Who are you going to trust when you are too weak to go on?
Who is the One Person that has been told to you to lead a Perfect life and be the True Son of God?

No matter the evidence you think to be Right who claimed to raise from the dead?

Bacchus, Pan, Demeter, Artemis, Diana?
Buddha, Krishna, Kali, Quan Yin?
Isis, Osiris, Bast?

No none of these hold the keys of Salvation.

It is in One Name and One only......

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


Answer : JESUS CHRIST!!!!

[Narrow Path]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html

If the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, as it claims (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21), we would expect there to be some evidence supporting these claims. After all, just because something claims to be the word of God does not make it true. We will examine the testimony of historical evidence to ask, Does the evidence support or deny the internal claims of the Bible?

Three tests can be applied to the Bible to see if it exhibits characteristics of a divine book that is without error. First, external evidence should confirm the truthfulness of the Bible in areas we can investigate. Second, internal evidence should show that, in one way or another, the Bible is unique. While these tests can establish the reliability of the Bible and lend support to the Bible's claims, they cannot prove its inspiration. However, the third test, a brief overview of Bible prophecy, will actually serve to verify the claim of divine inspiration.

The Testimony of History
External evidence from both archaeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible--both Old and New Testaments--is a trustworthy historical document. Archaeologist Joseph Free has said that "Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which had been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contrary to known facts." [1] Renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Gluek confidently said that "It...may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." [2] Christian apologist Josh McDowell tells us that "After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy." [3]

Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archaeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.

The historical evidence clearly shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).

The Uniqueness of the Bible
The internal evidence test reveals the Bible's amazing consistency. The Bible was written by over 40 authors, in 3 languages, on 3 continents, over a span of 1,500 years, and covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, the authors all spoke with agreement; there are no contradictions. [5] From Genesis to Revelation, there is one unfolding story--God's redemption of mankind.

Bible Prophecy
The external and internal evidence tests do not prove the Bible's inspiration, but do reveal that the objective evidence is consistent with and supports the Bible's claims to be a divine book (because any book from God that claims to be inerrant should be reliable and consistent with itself). Bible prophecy, however, can only be explained by divine revelation and inspiration.

There are hundreds of specific prophecies in the Bible which have been literally fulfilled, in many cases centuries after the completion of the Bible. Any attempt to late-date these prophecies is impossible--there is a copy of every Old Testament book but one from before 150 BC, and hundreds of these prophecies were not fulfilled until centuries later. For a detailed discussion of this area, see Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Some prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are Micah 5:2, which revealed where He would be born; Isaiah 53 detailed His suffering, work at the cross, and resurrection; Psalm 22 is striking prophecy of the crucifixion.

Norman Geisler explains Ezekiel's prediction that the city of Tyre "would be destroyed and its ruins cast into the sea (26:2). This provoked scoffing because, when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre, he left the ruins right where they fell--on the land. But 200 years later, Alexander the Great attacked Tyre and the inhabitants withdrew to an island just off the coast for safety. In order to reach them, Alexander threw all of the debris, stones, timbers, dust, and everything else, into the sea to build a causeway that would reach the island." [6] If events so far in the future can be accurately predicted, certainly the events of the past have been accurately recorded!

Has the text of the Bible Been Altered Over the Centuries?
One last test investigates whether or not the Bible has been corrupted down through the ages in its transmission. If it has been significantly changed, then it would not be relevant to us since inspiration does not extend to any manuscript copy. How can we know whether or not the Bible we have today is the same as what was written?

This question is answered by the bibliographical test. This test looks at the number of existing manuscript copies there are, their agreement with each other concerning the text that they are copies of, and the time interval between these copies and the date of the original writing. All scholars agree that this test has conclusively established that the biblical text which we have now is nearly identical to what was originally recorded (for both Old and New Testaments).

Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was second to none in issuing statements about manuscripts, said this about the New Testament: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest existing evidence [i.e. the earliest copies we have] become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially has having been written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." [7] He further said that "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading."

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.

Conclusion
The historical evidence shows that the Bible can be trusted. The commonly held idea that the Bible is unreliable or "just a myth" is unfounded. The internal evidence reveals the uniqueness of the Bible, a uniqueness which would be difficult to explain if it was just a human book. These two tests give credibility to the Bible's internal claims to be the word of God. The testimony of predictive prophecy, however, takes us a step further and confirms the Bible's claims to be inspired by God. Finally, the Bible has not been changed through the ages. The evidence shows that there is good reason to believe in the Bible.


Notes
1. Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History (Wheaton, Illionis: Scripture Press, 1969), p. 1.
2. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (New York: Farar, Straus and Cudahy, 1959), p. 136.
3. Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter (Wheaton, Illionois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1977), p. 57.
4. Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), p. 43.
5. I have personally looked into the issue of alleged contradictions, and after thorough investigation, have never found one to hold. Norman Geisler, who has studied the Bible exhaustively for over forty years and been confronted with numerous dificulties, is of the same conclusion. A valuable resource for further investigation on this mater is Geisler's When Critics Ask.
6. Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990), p. 198.
7. Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper and Row, 1940), pp. 288, 289.

For further resources on this matter, consult I'm Glad You Asked by Ken Boa and Larry Moody or Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

[James S]

Hello Narrow Path, aka Ben, aka Allanon.

I see you have found it necessary to come back on to the board as an alternate identity. Your identity might be different, but you're still carrying the same condescending over-zealous closed minded attitude, and the exact same IP address!

Are you using a DSL router or cable modem? You seem to have a static IP address!

Makes it rather easy to spot!

Are we having fun yet?
James.

[exothen]

Well, this sure moved along...

Robert,

quote:Personal experiential evidence is rarely considered, and everything comes down to bible text interpretation.

By the same token, all you have is a very subjective personal experience with nothing outside of that to provide any grounding for that experience.  You also have greatly ignored Allanon's experience (or so it seems from the last couple pages - I just don't want to read the whole thread).  Obviously everyone who has debated with Allanon over the course of the last year sees the total change in his convictions.  It seems to bother many, but have any asked how this change happened, why it happened, or why such a drastic change?

quote:In fact, recourse to bible text is so deeply ingrained in that side of this arena that empirical knowledge, personal experience and other such recognizable evidence is often swept away if it is thought to disagree with bible text.

So why are you sweeping away Allanon's personal experience and the convictions that it has brought him?  

quote:Do you know just how 'similar' the world's religious beliefs are? In fact, did you know that the Koran was loosely based on the old and new testaments, albeit heavily rewritten?
All the world's holy books have 'very' similar themes and ideals. The characters and events are different of course, as they arose in different times and cultures, but their messages are essentially the same.

Anyone who has even very little knowledge of world religions would know that this statement is completely false.  To say that "their messages are essentially the same," is to completely ignore what each religion is saying.  Every religion is essentially exclusivist, whether it is explicitly stated or implied.  In other words, either one religion is right, or they are all wrong.

quote:I am extremely open minded to all these things and try to encourage same in all my discussions on all topics....One point concerning archaeological evidence cited in this post, that is claimed to support bible events: the evidence cited has been gathered by Christian-minded archaeologists who's main purpose (and more importantly, their funding) is aimed at validating bible events as being historically accurate.  Evidence gained in this way is highly biased and thus not internationally acceptable in the actual fields of archaeology and history. You will find this kind of evidence being presented as 'fact' in many bible-oriented magazines, books and papers. But these are the only places where such things (Christian propaganda) are accepted.

You just contradicted your open mindedness, and that by arguments that are so fallacious I hardly know where to begin.  First, how do you know that the evidence has been gathered by Christian-minded archaeologists?  Second, so what if it has been gathered by Christian-minded archaeologists.  Third, you refer to it as Christian propaganda.  Fourth, you state that this "Christian propaganda" is only accepted in "bible-oriented magazines, books and papers."  I sure hope people here are actually paying attention to what you are stating.

We should apply your logic to some other things, such as, OBE and astral projection.  You write books, don't you?  How about evolution?  Are there archaeologists out there looking to prove it?  How about Native American history?  Etc.  The whole point of archaeology and science is to prove something.  Don't scientists set out to find evidence for their theories?  Every single scientist, archaeologist, and person in the world will bring their biases to the table when given any sort of evidence.  To assume it is only Christians who do so is completely fallacious.

All you have done is given your own fallacious opinions, with nothing to back up your claims, and seem to think that your conclusions follow.  Another fallacy.  Deal with the arguments and evidence and provide proof instead of attempting to discredit Christians.  Prove to me you are open minded.

[exothen]

Adrian,

quote:I think a very important consideration here is that it seems likely that no one actually documented the words of Jesus at the time, and if they were documented no such documentary evidence exists today. There is of course the esoteric/occult records of the Essenes (which Jesus is widely thought to belong to along with his parents and disciples) and more recently the Nag Hammadi scrolls. The bible then is mostly based upon hearsay,and accordingly as evidence it would be rejected in a court of law. Note, the Nag Hammadi Gnostic scrolls were almost certainly hidden in order to prevent almost certain destruction by the emergent christian orthodox church which was seeking to impose its own powers as it has over the centuries.

Wow, you must have learnt from Robert.  This is all just opinion from which, your conclusions don't follow from your premises.  Let's see some evidence.

I can't even deal with the rest of your post, it's all the same, unsubstantiated, fallacious...stuff.

(edited to add the following)

Robert,

quote:There is no loose or circumstantial evidence to support anything in the bible, not even a 'little'. There is not one single shred of factual evidence, not one. The earliest archeological evidence available today are a few third century fingernail-size fragments of parchment that scientists 'think' may have come from an early hand written bible testament.

Some has been given, which you have not even bothered addressing properly and have swept them under the carpet.  There is a good deal of evidence from the OT right through to the NT.  I am really thinking that you have never actually looked into any of this for yourself.

quote:The 'thousands' of texts that have been vaguely cited as 'loosely' supporting the validity of the bible must be contemporary texts, not historical texts. These are based on blind dogmatic belief in the validity of the bible, not on any actual proof. They should thus be considered inadmissable as proof in this discussion.

Until you provide any actual proof of anything in your "argument," they will be considered proof in this discussion.  There are several thousand, in fact almost 25,000, complete and partial manuscripts of the NT with which scholars can virtually put together the complete NT with over over 99% accuracy.  No other book of antiquity even comes close. On top of that, the dates of the earliest copies compared with the actual date the originals were written, is so small as to be negligible (about 50 years).

quote:During the formation of christianity, elements of many beliefs and religions were taken into the heart of christianity (it appeared to be a very political affair), including elements of Mithrism (sun worship), and it is from this that we get the modern Eucharist included in christian worship.

All I ask is that you provide some evidence, any evidence.

quote:As for providing proof that there is no evidence, this is ludicrous. It is up to anyone who wants to dispute my statements to offer actual proof to the contrary. The proof you seek, but probably don't want to find, is freely available should you choose to do a little research.

You have committed another fallacy, Burder of Proof (BoP).  You clearly stated "I say again, there is 'no' historical proof to support what is in the bible. The only thing that supports the bible is the bible itself. This is fact, provable, etc. Anyone want to take the challenge??" back on page 12.  You made the claim, so it is up to you to prove it.  Don't try and shift the BoP back onto the Christian.  I have done some research but apparently you haven't done any.

Again, I don't want to deal with the rest of that post (page 14) as it is all mere unsubstantiated opinion.  No evidence of anything, none.

[Adrian]

Greetings Exothen,

As much as I respect Robert as I surely do, I can assure you I conduct my own extensive and thorough reasearch into all these matters. For example, rather than dismissing the bible our of hand in the same way as religious people here dismiss Spirituality, I do take the time to consult references in the bible whenever necessary in order to validate or invalidate certain claims etc.. For example, I personally believe there is much occult, mystical and symbolic meaning in the Gospel of St. John, which the writers of the bible failed to appreciate. That Gospel is also separately available as the Essenes version which hasn't been tampered with. This however does not in any prove it was actually written by John himself, but rather only by someone who had a very deep understanding of Spritual issues.

With regards to the authenticity of the bible itself, the fact the happenings upon which it was based occured in the middle east where the native language was Ancient Hebrew, and yet the bible was purportedly translated from Greek should say alot for starters. How did this collection of works come to be written in Greek, thousands of miles from where it all supposed to have happened? The answer cannot be that the Greek text was translated from Ancient Hebrew, because there is no real record of there ever having been an original. Jesus of course is a Greek name, not a Hebrew one. This is all notwithstanding the fact that as we have said here before, there has been translation upon translation, and interpretation upon interpretation, all to match the aspirations of the the world rulers of the time. Much of what is in the bible was selectively included under the control of Roman emperors and you know what the Romans thought of Jesus!

Regarding the claim the bible is the "word of God"; the bible, such as it even is, is actually composed of numerous separate texts from numerous different people. Were all of these people jointly and severally channelling God? (Rhetorical question). If not, which part of the bible is "the word of God" and which is the word of humans?

What I am saying is quite simple; rather than ram the bible down peoples throats condeming everyone to "hell" who refuses to embrace it, a bible which is only evidenced by itself, why not at the very least think for a minute about the origins and history of the bible rather than accepting it as a truism above and beyond all else?

With best regards,

Adrian.

[Rob]

Exothen - your attitude makes me not want to post any more on this topic. Which is such a shame, as the discussion was going so well.
Please be nicer in the future......

[chill]

Hi NarrowPath !

This is chill.

This will be an off-topic post, I believe.

A couple of years ago I read a powerful interpretation of the part in the Gospels from which we have extracted  the famous saying : throwing the first stone. The interpretation is from René Girard.

Now back to these 'events'. Jesus is called upon when a woman who is about to be lapidated. Jesus arrives at the scene and there are 2 or more people who explain to him why this woman should be lapidated.

Jesus does the following :

He kneels down (or lowers himself if you prefer) and start to draw something in the sand.

René Girard's interpretation : Jesus has looked in those people's eyes and seen how angry they were. Eager not to feed on this fire, Jesus wisely and intentionnaly breaks visual contact : he lowers himself and draws something in the sand. He's not drawing anything specific, of course. He creates a 'waiting', a pause. And most importantly, he doesn't look into anybody's eyes, while he does this. He doesn't want to be in contact with the contaminating anger, and doesn't want anybody to read something in his eyes that's actually NOT there. Everyone waits for him to say something meaningful. Jesus already has his reputation of saying meaningful things. And he knows it.

Jesus finally says « That person who has never sinned throws the first stone ».

The basic interpretation is that 'we are all sinners', hence no one threw a stone, and everybody departed. Well people are not that wise. René Girard's stance on this : Jesus knew that in those circumstances, the first stone is always the most difficult to throw. Because there is no one to imitate. There isn't yet a 'someone else' who's done it, or if you will a 'model'. As soon as someone else has thrown the first stone, you can much more easily throw your own stone. And the more stones are thrown, the easier it gets for everyone involved to throw their stones.  Soon enough, everyone will be throwing stones, even the ones who at first were not so sure at all whether they should throw a stone or not. René Girard claims that Jesus understood the mechanism quite well and that he 'used it' to prevent the lapidation from taking place. He might have known it intuitevely, mind you. But he sure made the burden of throwing the first stone much heavier. So heavy that no one could take the lead – no one could throw the first stone. So everyone departed.

I am not very good at telling this. I don't have the book at hand, and I read this a long time ago.

Just wanted to share this with you.

I think that you can find so much wisdom in the Gospels that your head can spin. I basically agree with you all, that is when you are not talking about the 'history' of those books, because frankly I don't know enough about the archeological-historical 'aspect' of the bible to say anything intelligent about it. However, I think that 'arguing' around the source will never bring you to the conclusion that the Gospels are not conveying very important messages. I know that if I eventually lose my faith for good, I will be forever touched and changed by les Évangiles.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804722153/qid=1063050975/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/104-7097787-0192718?v=glance&s=books

[Tab]

quote:I can't even deal with the rest of your post, it's all the same, unsubstantiated, fallacious...stuff.

Kind of like christianity ey

quote:All I ask is that you provide some evidence, any evidence.

Innumerable amounts exist, one needs only to look to the paganistic religions of the time to see how sun worship became worship of the sun-christ, moon worship (and it's many deities) the worship of Mary. Christianity's roots are more than obvious - the Jews didn't buy Christiainity because their messiah was nothing like Jesus, so the focus was shifted to the gentiles. Hence the dispelling of the sacred foods, circumcision, adoption of pagan rites and practices, christmas, the fish symbol, the ascention, so on and so forth.

Robert is right in saying that the evidence is right there in the open to the point where it's just plain redundant to collect it here. As much of a cop out as that seems, you'll find it's true, and there is plenty of said 'evidence' already available on this board. Christianity on the other hand, needs no proof. Because you just have to have faith. You mustn't think for yourself.

quote:Anyone who has even very little knowledge of world religions would know that this statement is completely false. To say that "their messages are essentially the same," is to completely ignore what each religion is saying. Every religion is essentially exclusivist, whether it is explicitly stated or implied. In other words, either one religion is right, or they are all wrong.

That's laughable. Of course the institutions of each religion are exclusivist, but institutions are worth as much in truth as any political organization with that much power. The doctrine and esoteric meanings to every belief are fundamentally similar. After all, they all sprang from the same source ideas, whether you accept these ideas as enlightened truths of the gods or ramblings of ancient man. Aside from the origins, beliefs have been shared and intermingled to the point of indistinguishability between them. Pagan-christianity and chaldeo-judaism are two prime examples.
As Blavatsky states, "It is from the exoteric religions that we have to dig out the root-idea before we turn to esoteric truths, lest the latter should be rejected."


exothen - omgsymbolism!>?!?
Anyway, it looks like Al figured out how to use a proxy.

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by Allanon in Disguise

If the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, as it claims (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21), we would expect there to be some evidence supporting these claims. After all, just because something claims to be the word of God does not make it true. We will examine the testimony of historical evidence to ask, Does the evidence support or deny the internal claims of the Bible?

Not that I reject the bible but if it were the infalible word of God it would not contain so many undeniable contradictions and flaws:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen11.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html

[Adrian]

Greetings everyone,

I think the very strength of orthodox religions is that they play on the need for most people to believe in an almighty personified being, a deity, who they can pray to, worship and ask help of, and who they believe will support them in their hour of need. This of course is pure faith, hopefulness and wishful thinking. The churches have harnessed those emotions to form the basis of a belief system which people can conveniently follow. This seems to be the basis of most religions whether it christianity, islam etc.. Unfortunately, some churches have exceeded the principles of belief systems to make religion a means of control, sometimes at congregation level and othertimes at national levels as witnessed by countries operated my muslim clerics and so on. Even christian countries and areas have historically become battlegrounds for catholics versus protestants with considerable death and suffering as a direct result, as indeed there has been for the last two thousand years; so much for the commandment "thou shalt not kill".

When people begin to know they are never alone as sons and daughters of The All, Spirit, and "God" is actually within them and not apart from them as a separate entity as the church teaches, then things will change dramatically and the churches will lose all of their power and they know it. This is why the churches are so anti the Spiritual organisations and their teachings. People will realise that the security of the churches and the orthodox concept of of the separate God as a deity is a false security, and the power to manifest anything they need is actually within. People will then realise they are never alone, even in their darkest hours, and the need for the false security of the church will be but a memory.

The bible is the instrument of control by the churches. If a member of the congregation strays or has a question, they are immediately referred to the bible as the final word as we have witnessed in this topic, and everything else they say is the work of "satan".

With best regards,

Adrian.

[exothen]

Inguma,

I am really trying to be pleasant, unfortuantely, my tone and inflection don't come through the text well.  I am simply calling Robert, and others, to put up.  In debating, one does not give an argument without giving support and evidence for that argument.  I am trying to show that most of these arguments, so far, are not logical or reasonable.  A challenge was put out specifically for Christians to give evidence, and then that evidence was summarily dismissed without the slighest effort to prove why it was dismissed.  This too, is unacceptable in debate.  I am all for pleasant debate and discussion, so if I have offended anyone, I do apologize.  At the same time, debating means that ideas and arguments must be dealt with and they will get shot down - mine and everyone elses.  How else are we going to come to the truth?

Tab,

quote:Innumerable amounts exist, one needs only to look to the paganistic religions of the time to see how sun worship became worship of the sun-christ, moon worship (and it's many deities) the worship of Mary.

Your parallel doesn't prove anything.  Just because the Mithras cult of the sun existed around the same time as the birth of Christianity, in no way what whatsoever, proves that Christianity adopted their practices.  Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.  Christ referred to himself as "the Son of God" and "the Son of Man."  Christians worship the Son, not the sun.

quote:the Jews didn't buy Christiainity because their messiah was nothing like Jesus

That is not true.  Jesus was a Jew, the disciples and apostles were Jews, and the first several thousand Christians were Jewish converts.  It is also not true on the grounds that Jews didn't, and still don't, agree on what their Messiah was supposed to be like.  We can get into it, but it will detract from the main topic and I would rather stick to one thing at a time.

quote:Christianity on the other hand, needs no proof. Because you just have to have faith. You mustn't think for yourself.

Sounds very similar to OBE, AP, etc.  And it also shows you don't know what the Bible teaches.  I have already stated that the Bible is clear that we are to "search will all our hearts," we are to "study to show ourselves approved," and that we are to love God with "all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind."  We are told to search for wisdom and understanding as though searching for hidden treasure, even if it costs everything we have.  Of course there is an aspect of faith to it - is there any way for the finite to comprehend the infinite?

quote:Of course the institutions of each religion are exclusivist, but institutions are worth as much in truth as any political organization with that much power. The doctrine and esoteric meanings to every belief are fundamentally similar.

I never said the institutions are exclusivist - the claims, the doctrine of each are.  Each religion is so fundamentally different from the next that there can be no reconciliation of beliefs.  The very ideas of who God is, why we are here, and how we attain salvation, if indeed we even have to, are so different that all them cannot be right, and most likely, only one is right.  The very core religious beliefs is what separates them, not institutions.

quote:Aside from the origins, beliefs have been shared and intermingled to the point of indistinguishability between them. Pagan-christianity and chaldeo-judaism are two prime examples.

Perhaps you can explain to me then the persecution of Christians by the Romans for 300 years.  Christian practice and belief utterly changed the landscape of Rome as the Christians refused to worship the pagan gods.  So, unless I completely missed your point, which is likely [:I], there is no reason to believe that all beliefs are indistinguishable.

[exothen]

Adrian,

quote:With regards to the authenticity of the bible itself, the fact the happenings upon which it was based occured in the middle east where the native language was Ancient Hebrew, and yet the bible was purportedly translated from Greek should say alot for starters. How did this collection of works come to be written in Greek, thousands of miles from where it all supposed to have happened? The answer cannot be that the Greek text was translated from Ancient Hebrew, because there is no real record of there ever having been an original. Jesus of course is a Greek name, not a Hebrew one.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.  The Old Testament is the same as that of the Hebrew Bible, although the books are arranged in a different order.  The OT came about from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, around 250 BCE, and this manuscript is called the Septuagint, or LXX for short.  The NT was written in Greek, mainly by Jewish Christians.  In the time of Christ Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were all very common and more than likely most people were bilingual.  Jesus was a Jew and his name, as we know it, is just a translation into English from the Greek.  His name was something like "Yhousa", or "Yeshua", which is Hebrew and is translated as "Iesous" in the Greek.  Both Greek and Hebrew mean Joshua, which means "Yahweh saves" or "Yahweh is salvation."

As for geographical area, I really have no idea what you mean by the Greek being written thousands of miles from where it all happened.

quote:This is all notwithstanding the fact that as we have said here before, there has been translation upon translation, and interpretation upon interpretation, all to match the aspirations of the the world rulers of the time. Much of what is in the bible was selectively included under the control of Roman emperors and you know what the Romans thought of Jesus!

These things may have been said, but has any proof ever been offered?  As I stated above, there are around 25,000 partial or complete manuscripts with which the originals can be reconstructed to greater than 99.5%.  Those manuscripts are still available and are used in translating the Bible, and all translations essentially say the same thing.  If much of what was said was under control of the Romans, why would the Romans let anything be said at all, especially since it looks unfavorable at Roman paganist practices, and then persecute Christians for their beliefs?  If the Romans did have control, they shouldn't have cared.  It makes no sense.

quote:Regarding the claim the bible is the "word of God"; the bible, such as it even is, is actually composed of numerous separate texts from numerous different people.

And that is what the word "Bible" means - "books."  But the fact that they were written by numerous people of a period of a couple thousand years (including the OT), does nothing in arguing against it, but rather adds support for its inspiration.

quote:What I am saying is quite simple; rather than ram the bible down peoples throats condeming everyone to "hell" who refuses to embrace it, a bible which is only evidenced by itself, why not at the very least think for a minute about the origins and history of the bible rather than accepting it as a truism above and beyond all else?

First, I have not rammed the Bible down anyones throat or condemned anyone to hell.  Second, the whole point of this discussion is to show that the Bible is not only evidenced by itself.  And third, we would have to come to a consensus on the origins and historicity of the Bible before coming to any conclusions about whether it is a truism or not.

Truth is absolute.  And since most disagree in here with Christianity, either you're all right, or the Christians are right, or we are all wrong; we cannot all be right.  What I want to get to is the truth.  As I stated earlier, the claims of Christianity demand the most serious investigation.

quote:Even christian countries and areas have historically become battlegrounds for catholics versus protestants with considerable death and suffering as a direct result, as indeed there has been for the last two thousand years; so much for the commandment "thou shalt not kill".

Yeah, look at all the Protestant vs. Catholic battles that have raged for centuries in North America.  First, you are judging Christianity by its abuses, not its beliefs.  Second, the commandment is "thou shalt not murder;" big difference.  And third, if we look at an athiestic belief like communisim, we see that many more have been killed in the name of no god, than in the name of God (not that that justifies anything, its just to tell the complete story instead of just one side).

quote:When people begin to know they are never alone as sons and daughters of The All, Spirit, and "God" is actually within them and not apart from them as a separate entity as the church teaches, then things will change dramatically and the churches will lose all of their power and they know it.

If you would like to get into the self-refuting nature of pantheism, that's up to you.  It would be a quick way to show what isn't the truth.  

quote:If a member of the congregation strays or has a question, they are immediately referred to the bible as the final word as we have witnessed in this topic, and everything else they say is the work of "satan".

This shows you don't really know anything about Christianity.

[Mustardseed]

Wow that was a lot of people answering that challenge!! it is so funny... I dont have the faintest clue what they are talking about Ha. Here I am a very believing Christian and have not much knowledge on all that archaologic stuf. I would like to caution everyone though, I feel somewhat like I am in the middle of a Bar Brawl and it is getting more and more like a fight. I personally dont like that a lot (from where comes war anbd fighting among you, come they not even frum your lust)I dont wanna preach but I feel that if we dont watch out we could become a reproach to the cause of the Christ.
Well Robert ..You threw out the challenge, what do you think. By the way just one thing you mentioned that I was thinking about all day. The thing about being a neutral judge of these evidence and stuf. You know what, I dont tink that is possible. It is either you try to prove the Bible becourse you believe or you try to disprove it cause you dont believe. There are no inbetween . All we can hope is that everyone will be as truthful in their arguing as possible.

Regards Mustardseed