pajarito

The Unwitting Testimony Of Unbelievers To The New Testament “We add to this the testimony of unbelievers. Unwittingly, they have given testimony to the early composition of the New Testament. Speaking of Celsus, a man living in the second century who hated Christianity, Bishop Fallows writes: This unbeliever, although he caused great annoyance to the believers in Christ living in his day, and seemed to be disturbing the foundations of the Christian faith, rendered more real service to Christianity than any father of undisputed orthodoxy in the Church. He admits all the grand facts and doctrines of the gospel, as they were preached by the Apostles, and contained in the acknowledged writings, for the sake of opposing. He makes in his attacks eighty quotations from the New Testament, and appeals to it as containing the sacred writings of Christians, universally received by them as credible and Divine. He is, therefore, the very best witness we can summon to prove that the New Testament was not written hundreds of years after the Apostles were dust; but in less than a century and a half had been received by the Christian Church all over the world. He expressly quotes both the synoptic Gospels, as they were termed (the first three Gospels), and the Gospel of St. John” (Bishop Fallows, Mistakes of Ingersoll and His Answers, pp. 91,92).

We’re not meant to know and understand everything. We wouldn’t understand much at all concerning his purpose for our lives unless he didn’t give it to us in his written word, the Bible. The Bible clearly states that he does care even if all you’re doing is hurting yourself and nobody else. You’re right. It does make Christianity different from some other religions. “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord.” Isaiah 1:18” ”Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15” God didn’t want us not to think or to have “blind faith.” ”What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Romans 3:9-12 Some here have made fun of it but I would challenge you to go to www.thewayofthemaster.com, answer “No” to the question of “Are you a Christian?” and take the 10 Commandments test to see how righteous you really are. Religion doesn’t necessarily make you a better person. See previous quote. Your works, however good they may be, do not make you righteous. ”For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

The male sexual organ is designed to work with the female sexual organ. You’re going to argue that? I’m not saying you can’t do other things with it. I’m just saying that it wasn’t “designed” to go up another guy’s butt. Sorry to be blunt but I guess I’ve got to. Two bolts won’t hold anything together unless there’s a hole they can screw into. That argument, however, was just one of many concerning why it’s just plain wrong. I’m not saying they can’t do what they want. That’s their business and I’m in no way saying that there’s “a sufficient basis to proscribe it.” I’m just saying that that kind of union is not legitimate in the context of marriage and shouldn’t be treated that way. The most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents. So far we have erected artificial barriers to having such a home with two gay parents. Claiming that "a study says only heteros have good families" is like saying that "a study shows hydrogen cars can never work because there are none on the road." I am arguing that we should remove those artificial barriers; only then will two loving parents be able to raise their children in a normal household free from governmental interference. Where is your poof that the most ideal and healthy setting to raise children is a family with two committed parents whether they be homosexual or not? Oh, I agree with you that I was born heterosexual and, therefore, some homosexuals might also be born with those tendencies. I’m just saying, in the context of using that argument to support gay marriage, where’s your proof? Don’t really understand your comparison of the institution of marriage and slavery. I kind of know what you’re trying to get at but its apples and oranges. You’re kind of doing what you did with the abortion – children being killed in war comparison.

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus replied: “Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments. Matthew 22:35-40 Assuming you believed in what the Bible says. You’d agree that not following the commandments without having accepted Jesus Christ as lord and savior will land you in hell, correct? The first and greatest commandment isn’t a sin against another person yet it will land you in hell just as fast as if you had killed someone and not repented. There is no difference in sin in the context of whether you will be condemned for it without the saving grace of God.

No, Jesus might hold up a sign saying something like this. “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:8-9 Explanation quoted from NIV study Bible: The delay of Christ’s return is related to the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom to the whole world (Matthew 24:14). God wants everyone to hear the gospel and does not want anyone to perish eternally (1 Titus 2:4; see Ezekiel 33:11, note; Jonah 3:10). This truth does not mean that all will be saved, for if a person rejects God’s grace and salvation, then he or she remains lost. “You’re destroying America seems political and out of the context of religion.” “You’re going to hell” is rather direct but the end result is the same as what I quoted above. By the way, I happen to agree with their right to protest the "gay pride" whatever you want to call it but I don't necessarily agree with anyone just because they say they're a Christian. There are some people/organizations who misinterpret the Bible and fill in whatever fits their agenda. Many organizations have those kinds of people who decieve. Some Christian organizations are no exception. They are comprised of imperfect people just like all others.

Gotta go. Be back later.

How about, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are tying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Matthew 23:13-15

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6 I take that as "all who don't" are condemned. What does that say to you?

Exactly my point. You're now much happier about the thought of dying because you think there is something waiting for you afterwards. True. I'm more comfortable with the idea of dying because I "know" there's a future.

No. If you believe, you should want to do good things instead of bad ones. If you "sincerely" invite Jesus into your heart and accept him as your personal lord and savior, there will be a change in you and you will become more compelled to do righteous things. That doesn't mean that you won't ever want to do bad things just because you're "saved." We are in a constant inner battle with our human nature. The point is that, once "saved", you should always work to be like Jesus. Of course, you can't live up to that standard but you've got to "run the race." Being Christian doesn't give you a free ticket to do whatever you want. The key is in the sincerity of the decision. If it wasn't sincere, then you are living a lie and it will show in your works.

I'm saying that you, as a person, can't live up to your own code of morality much less the one given by the Bible. If I look to my own moral code, in all probability, I will fail from time to time. If I look to the Bible for my moral code, I will also fail because I'm human and imperfect. Jesus Christ led the perfect life, though, and set the example for all of us. I am only righeous in the eyes of God through my faith in him. Therefore, the code of the New Covenant is not flawed.

Yes...but are you saying that you never have? If so, the system of ethics and morality that you've created for yourself is flawed.

That’s a good descriptive example of the flaw and imperfectness of man. All Christians included. I reckon religions are the frameworks that have been invented to support notions of spirituality and the soul, which in turn sprang up from an inability to face fear of death. But thats a whole different thread. I’ve faced real fear and death before. I, however, face it with confidence now because I know my future.

That's one of the arguments of religion I just don't get. People say that without religion people wouldn't know how to act in a civilised manner. I think it's that people who want to do bad things, use religion as a crutch to curb their desires. Whereas those of us that don't want to do bad things, don't need it. For example, Pajarto mentioned numerous times that it is a constant struggle for him not to cheat on his wife. And that his commitment to god is the only thing keeping him from doing it. Personally, I've never even cheated on a girlfriend. It was my commitment to that person and not wanting to hurt them that kept me from doing it. Bottom line, IMO, religion is for people who don't have enough empathy for other people to do the right thing, so they need a rulebook so that they know how to act. I congratulate you on your ability to live a perfect life without having ever done anything to harm anyone (either physically or verbally). You are obviously righteous on your own merit and that is quite an accomplishment. I, as well as most everybody else on planet Earth, stand in awe.

Nothing needs to be explained away. How is it inconsistent? You just don’t like the rules of the game so you criticize. You’re presumption that “those who lived before the New Testament got fucked out of going to heaven” isn’t true either. Before Jesus, people were justified by the grace of God through their righteousness. I’m not saying everybody. I’m saying those who God deemed righteous. I’m not an Old Testament scholar so someone correct me if I’m wrong. When Jesus came and did what he did, a new covenant was ushered in with God’s people. People are now justified only through the blood of Jesus Christ. One must accept Jesus as savior and repent of sin. Bottom line. There is no other way for anyone.

History passed down by “word of mouth” prior to the written records was taken very seriously by the ancient Jews and was obviously cross-checked by everyone for accuracy. The written records were also written down within a relatively short period of time after the death of Jesus. The accounts are also very detailed and are corroborated by the other books in the Gospels almost exactly. The New Testament stands on its own as for reliability. Whatever historical significance the ones not included might have is not needed.

The books of the Bible or any ancient written work aren’t proved to be accurate by means of the scientific method as in your example with PhillyKev. Accepted ways of establishing credibility and their reference to the Bible are listed below: Method: Bibliographical (Textual Criticism) Definition: Examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. Evidence: 1. Greek Manuscripts - Papyri, Uncials (Majuscules), Minuscules, and Lectionaries 2. The Versions (Translations) – Well over 19,000 versions have been produced. You will say that this discredits the reliability and I agree that there may be some lost in translation but I tell you that this is overwhelming corroborating evidence for its accuracy. 3. Writings of the Church Fathers - Most of the New Testament could be reconstructed with just the notes from The Church Fathers and not using any other source mentioned. Note: NO OTHER "ancient work" has this kind of evidence for reliability. Method: Internal Evidence (Historical) Definition: Credibility of the persons who wrote the text. Evidence: 1. Eye-witnesses to the events that took place. 2. Respected and trusted authors. 3. Due to seriousness of claims, authors were obviously watched and examined by many for deviation from truth. Method: External Evidence (Historical) Definition: Whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony. Evidence: Paraphrased from book by Josh McDowell 1. Two friends of John confirm the internal evidence from John's accounts. The historian Eusebius preserves writings fo Papis, Bishop of Hierapolis: "The Elder (Apostle John) used to say this also: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writign down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing,not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them. 2. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (A.D. 180 Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had been a Christian for eighty-six years, and was a disciple of John the Apolstle) wrote: "matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on his breast himself produced his Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. Method: Archaeology Definition: Physical evidence from the past. Evidence: Without listing all of it, Sir William Ramsay (One of the most famous archaeologists ever) changed his skeptical view after much research and discovery and determined that the historicity of Luke was accurate. He also came to the conclusion that the Book of Acts was accurate in its description of the georgraphy, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. Others including F.F. Bruce, A.N. Sherwin-White (classical historian), and Dr. Clark H. Pinnock, professor of systematic theology, all now share the view that the New Testament text is confirmed. I'd say that the vast proponderance of the evidence leads to a conclusion of reliability as opposed to your skeptical view. "Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias." Dr. Clark H. Pinnock

Damn...you layed down some green in one day. Congratulations!

How true. That bill is still pretty screwed up, though.

You know what I’m talking about. The most ideal and healthy setting to raise children has been established in study to be a 2 parent home with a mother and a father. I hate to keep bringing up arguments that we’ve been over and over but what’s the difference between what you’re saying in regards to allowing marriage for a homosexual and allowing marriage for a polygamist? There are Americans with those beliefs/feelings also. Are you in favor of allowing that? You’ll probably say that one is biological and, therefore, uncontrollable and the other is not. I’d then ask you to give me credible proof that homosexuality is, in fact, a trait that someone is born with. Marriage, defined as being between one man and one woman, is tried and true throughout the world and has been since the beginning of civilization for thousands of years. You know how I feel about abortion. Social engineering is generally frowned upon. I can only imagine your reaction if a social engineer found a way to determine whether a 4 week old fetus would grow up with any defects so it could be aborted early! It would surely result in a better (i.e. more healthy) society overall, but I suspect you would think the costs would not be worth it.

I’m not claiming that I haven’t broken most of the 10 Commandments in my life. I’m not claiming that I haven’t broken the Sabbath. I have. I’m imperfect like everybody else. In reference to the validity of the 10 Commandments, however, my failure to follow them to the letter does not take away from their applicability in our culture today as they were thousands of years ago. Why stop there? Why then would you have a problem with them having multiple partners in some form of marriage? As long as the multiple partners all agree that it fits within the “moral framework” that they’ve each derived for themselves. Why not then set your standard for what marriage is loosely so that it will include a broader range of subsets? Everybody just do what makes them happy, follow your impulses with no thought of consequences, and not worry about anything. Be free....man. (Sarcasm) Procreation isn’t the only allowable reason for sex. This is quoted from an article written by Larry Wilson. Sex was created for the following: Procreation For one thing, Genesis 1:28 tells us, God created sex and ordained marriage for procreation. Before the beginning, God determined to have a people for his own possession. He foreordained that his Son would have "many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). He predetermined to have communion with "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages" (Rev. 7:9). Toward that end, God is seeking "godly offspring" (Mal. 2:15). He keeps his covenant from generation to generation. A fundamental purpose of sex is to propagate the human race and to perpetuate God's covenant. Partnership But that's not its sole purpose. When he revealed his intention to create Eve, "the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him' " (Gen. 2:18). God saw man as incomplete, and so he created woman. God insists that "the wife of your youth ... is your companion and your wife by covenant" (Mal. 2:14). God didn't design men, women, and sex just for bearing children. More than that, he created sex and ordained marriage for companionship – for partnership. Sex, then, is more than four bare feet in one bed, and it is for more than producing babies. God gave it to seal and reseal the commitment between one man and one woman who have covenanted to be lifelong companions. "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). Pleasure Another godly purpose for sex in marriage is pleasure. This purpose is godly because it's God's design. He personally invented and installed all the wiring and plumbing that generates sexual pleasure. Moreover, he commands married people to enjoy this pleasure: "Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love" (Prov. 5:18–19; see also the Song of Songs). Banning interracial marriage is not biblical and any religious group backing such as stance based on Christianity is dead wrong. Homosexuality, however, is very specifically identified in the Bible as being wrong. There is not room for misinterpretation concerning that issue. Ok…I don’t agree with these rulings and they are not biblical. They do nothing to discredit Christianity or what it teaches. I’ll agree that you don’t agree. ***Then we will continue to disagree. I believe history will eventually relegate this debate to the same page as the debate over interracial marriages. I think future generations will look back on this issue and wonder what all the fuss was about; gays will be married/united or whatever, society will not have collapsed, and they will be as accepted as we accept interracial couples today. Time will tell.*** If our culture continues on the post-Christianity path that began after WWII and has steadily increased in pace, you might be correct. The moral decay of our society isn’t slowing down much.

That may be so but, when children are involved, refer back to reason #1, do the math concerning the physics of it all (square peg not designed to go into a round hole) in reference to normality, and also review the studies done on what's the best/ideal environment for a child to grow up in. Assuming that we agree that marriage needs to be defined and not just be some loose and arbitrary partnership, wouldn't your standard need to be representative of the vast majority and not a relatively very small segment of the population? When defining a cultural institution with the importance of this one which also has the most implications across the board, wouldn't you want to establish the most normal, healthy, and productive model to follow?

No, I said that the “primary” purpose was for procreation. Another is for spouses to mutually help each other.

It’s hard sometimes to convey the entire meaning of what you’re trying to say in these threads. A lot gets lost in context. In reference to my comment, “I don’t think someone’s sexual preference gives them special privileges or protections.” This was in response to someone’s attempt at grouping the homosexual movement in with that of women/ethnic origin/race in an attempt to “normalize” homosexuality in our culture and, therefore, use that as a vehicle to further their cause. I do not think homosexuals should be discriminated against due to their sexual preference. Refusing to include them into the institution of traditional marriage, however, is not discrimination. They can establish and call their union something else. It is illegitimate, however, in the context of marriage. In reference to my comment, “Entering into marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is what gives me the associated rights and privileges. Marriage is the foundation of family and our culture.” Marriage is unique in that it is a fundamental and universal social institution. Its primary purpose is for procreation. It has been accepted in every successful and long-standing civilization for thousands of years as the union of one man and one woman. Heterosexual marriage is vital to family health, the passing along of values, and the foundation of social order. It is the basis for our culture. A normal (mother and father), stable, and healthy home has been proven statistically to be the best environment to raise a child. Raising a child in this kind of environment, in turn, affects all other aspects of our society. You might then say that, “wouldn’t it be better for a child with no parents to be raised by a homosexual couple instead of having to be a burden of the state.” Possibly… but I have religious reasons why I would disagree with that. I don’t expect you to follow those. However, in general and as a global policy, I would say that it is crucial that the ”standard” for marriage remain as between one man and one woman. In addition, whatever rights and privileges that our government has deemed should be for a married couple should remain for those unions fitting that definition.

Sure you do. You think being heterosexual gives you priveleges and protections not afforded to gays. -Josh Entering into marriage, defined as the union between one man and one woman, is what gives me the associated rights and privilages. Marriage is the foundaton of family and our culture.