Ok, well firstly we haven't defined all of our terms. (As must be done with proper philosophical debate.) What's your definition of magic?

 

True that the past shows that the two sides are at war. But just because our fathers made mistakes, does that mean that we have to?
There are groups like www.reasons.org that are trying to show that the two aren't at odds.
By denying science a person that supposedly follows God is denying what God has created. By denying religion a person is denying the REASON for everything.

 

Sounds pretty similar to me...

 

Well its not really the definition that is the problem now is it? Its more the connotation that is implied (ie "Jesus is Magic"). We could look up the word "Cracker" in the dictionary, and it's not going to tell us the connotation that it is about a white boy.

 

And the reason for everything would be?...

 

Well let's hear the Christian standpoint on the validity of the Gospels.

The Gospels were first hand accounts. They were written by eye witnesses or were based on interviews with eye witnesses. There were many sources for the interviews also, not just one person.

There are over 26,000 direct manuscripts of the Gospels, more than any other document in history. When you do the manuscript comparison tests, you find that the Gospels are 99.8% accurate amongst the manuscripts. The only flaw is a few punctuation marks.

Considering that there are only 643 copies of Homer's The Iliad has 5% textural corruption shown by the manuscript test, but yet it is seen as a valid and reliable copy.

Now sure, the English versions aren't as accurate due to the lack of word usage in our language compared to Greek and Aramaic (of example: the Greeks have many words for love when we have but one word for it).

So what we have is what was written in the beginning of the faith.

Now it has been documented by Scripture and non-Christian accounts that 11 of the disciples (Including Matthias, not Judas Iscariot) were killed for their faith in Christ. The other was sent to a desolate island. Sure, many people have died for a good cause, but their cause died when Christ died. They were scared. So scared in fact that only one of them was at the cross with Jesus, the rest were in hiding. They thought He would rise up and take control of Israel and drive the Greeks out of the country, but when He did, their hope died.

So why would they die for a dead savior? Because He was raised from the grave. That is the only explanation for them being hidden one day, and then going out and spreading the Church.

Some people think they simply created the story, but that isn't logical because who would die for a lie?

Some also think that someone dressed as Jesus and went amongst the people. That is also invalid. The disciples lived with Him for three years. They knew Him quite well. Sure, the could have been fooled by an impostor if He only stayed around for a day, but even that is unlikely. The thing is, He stayed on the Earth for 40 days. I doubt an impostor could fool anyone for that long.

For the miracles that the Gospels claim Jesus did, true, many illusionists have attempted and succeeded in performing them as illusions. The thing is, they had many supplies and had to have the perfect lighting. What did Jesus have? The clothes on His back. Plus, He did most of His miracles outside, which is something illusionists won't do due to unpredictable lighting effects.

As for the contradictions, state some, please. I want to know of these. I'm not a true Biblical scholar, but I hope to be one day and would like to know of these.

I'm just offering an accurate (Yes, I said accurate. No theories. All of these have been proven by text and archeology) argument for the Gospels since most seem to be against them. And you can research these points in Josh McDowell's compilation book, A Ready Defense. It's a good read for Christians and non Christians.

Sorry that it was so lengthy.

 

Depends on the dictionary I bet...

 

Wow, I really doubt I could answer that one here. I'd have to say read the book! Hahaha

 

Explain to me why, when comparing differnt Gospels to each other, not just comparing the different versions of each invidual gosepl to itself, does it reveal that glaring inconsistencies are being made?

they do not agree with one another, and contradict each other very much

 

Please name some of these inconsistencies. I seriously want to know some of them.

 

Ok, so Magic is something that is human caused in nature. Thats not God.

 

Actually no, they weren't. The eyewitnesses would have been dead by the date the gospels were supposedly written.
Um, the accuracy comments aren't about the translations. They are about accurate depictions of the events and places in which they occurred in history. (which the gospels are not)
Simon Magus, for one, did nearly all of his miracles outside. He impressed the emperor so much he had a statue erected in his name. But this is a religious aside and has no evidence or proof and thus doesn't really have a place here.

The rest of your post was biblical hearsay and has no real place here.
Read the rest of this thread. Dozens have been stated and I even posted several links to sites geared completely around it.
You haven't given one accurate or valid argument for the gospels, nor has anyone else yet.

 

Then what is god? Define him.

 

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
Chew on that one for a while...

 

First off I have been away a while and don’t want to start with out saying I am only responding on a page by page basis

So Yea I’m BOLD enough to comment.

I voted for him and I would do it again tomorrow if I had a choice. I have a very strong belief in this country and the ability we have to stand up for the things that happen to it. This war we are in is not just a fight over oil it is a war that was started by many, many men long before Bush got into the picture even before his father. Men like Bill Clinton who in a way to pay for our debts supplied the Jihad Regime with many of the weapons that are being used to kill the soldiers that are standing up for the people of this country and also the people you refer to as the ones who treat their women worse the dogs. Also the front runner for the D.N.C. is and will always be an idiot, a man who had a plan and change that plan more times during his campaign then any other politician that came before. He dug a whole so deep that his own party abandon him after the election. So yes I pick the most qualified candidate, and so did the majority of the people that voted. To end I would also like to pint out the major back tracking steps that the D.N.C. is making to help recover the many mistakes mad by the party during the last election as to win back the White House and many of the front runners for the DNC are very devout Christians so don’t just come out and say that Bush is the only one. This country is dependant in Political leaders that believe how the majority believes and that means in order to win you have to stand up and say you believe in God.

If you don’t like it move or find as many of your fellow believers and go out and vote for a change.

 

Actually there are two assumptions as to when the Gospels were written. One assumption suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark's account as a source to record their own Gospel. The Gospel of Mark in this view says that it was written between 50 and 60 A.D. with Matthew and Luke following closely afterwards.

The other view is that Matthew and Luke didn't used Mark as a source, and that Mark was written between 50 and 70 with Matthew written in the 50s and Luke in the early 60s

John has two views also. The traditional view is that it was written around 85, but more recent research suggests it was written between from 50 to no later than 70.

My point, only one view, and it is an old one, suggests that the witnesses would have been dead. The other, more recent ones, show that it is highly possible for the Gospel writers to have eye witness interviews.

I suppose you are talking Simon the Sorcerer of the book of Acts who was also written about by other authors beside Luke. Every story conflicts with eachother. Not a very valid point on your part.

Also, I said illusions would be hard outside, not miracles, which are real.

I beg to differ.

 

lol i like those sights. if you get yourself a bible and look up the verses for yourself, they never say what the websites say they do. all purposely taken out of context. its funny to compare the verses with those sights.
did you just like google bible contradictions and put the link or what?

 

^^^ I must agree with you. It really was pretty ridiculous.

 

ok so by your account, if they were written in those years, that would be approximately 20-40 years after christ was dead. If the apostles were approximately jesus' age then the eyewitness accounts would have been approximately 60-70 years old. Are you aware of the life expectancy of people at that era? Do you honestly think that the accounts weren't perhaps exaggerated a bit if they were alive? Not to mention the contradictions from the source I cited?
Yup, the one and only. And why do those stories conflict with one another?... Exactly my point. Contradictions in the stories of the gospels.
Miracles by christians, but illusions by everyone else... how conveeeeenient... What are your definitions of illusions versus miracles? Because the claims of miracles are identical to Simon Magus, Simon Peter, Paul, and Jesus.

Um, yeah, then prove me wrong. Elaborate a bit. The proof of burden lies on the shoulder of the claimant.

 

they act that way because you feed the dog. you pet the dog. you give him attention. he wants and likes your attention. when you come home from work he knows you can give him these things. why do dogs hang around the ones who pet them and feed them the most?
because lions dont and cant eat elephants. out of respect and honor? thats just crazy.
[quote="tC_2NeR"]
what animal does that? lol

your welcome