That YEC poll some of us are curious about.

[Onceuponatime]

None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him?

The gospel accounts are all by unknown authors. Paul explicitly says his information about Jesus was "revealed" to him, he never met him.

[Tanaqui]

No. The accounts written about Jesus were well after his death by those who never met him.

 

Well, technically Paul was a contemporary, in that they were about the same age (assuming a historical Jesus here), but since they never met (or if they did meet in life, Paul never saw fit to mention it) it's still not as strong as "Socrates' actual student says this".

 

[.Michelle.]

Sources?  This flies in the face of all the information I've seen on the authorship of the New Testament books.  The canon was written by 8 authors, 6 of whom were apostles, with the remaining 2 being close disciples of apostles.  

[Tanaqui]

Michelle, I'm not sure where you get your information, but I'll link you again to the Wikipedia article on the subject. I know it's Wikipedia, but I have to leave the house in 2 minutes, and it's still pretty reliable. (And a lot nicer than my usual source of rationalwiki!)

 

Edit: Also, on the authorship of the NT.

 

[redsquirrel]

Sources?  This flies in the face of all the information I've seen on the authorship of the New Testament books.  The canon was written by 8 authors, 6 of whom were apostles, with the remaining 2 being close disciples of apostles.  

 

There is so much information out there about the history of the bible, you really won't have any trouble tracking down that information. The Gospels were not written by the actual apostles and were written many many years after Jesus died. I think...and I am going back in my own memory here, the earliest written was Mark (?) and that was dated to be at a minimum 70 years after Jesus died. But, again, it's been a long time since I took a bible study class.

 

We used several sources during the class, but the one I remember most was this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Rescuing-Bible-Fundamentalism-Rethinks-Meaning-ebook/dp/B000FC27Z4/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1427046009&sr=8-8&keywords=John+Spong

 

As a non Christian, I found it to be very accessible.

[.Michelle.]

From your linked article:

 

Various books, memoirs and stories were written about Jesus by the early Christians. The most famous are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All but one of these are believed to have been written within 50–70 years of the death of Jesus, with the Gospel of Mark believed to be the earliest, and the last the Gospel of John.^[111][112] Blainey writes that the oldest surviving record written by an early Christian is a short letter by St Paul: the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which appeared about 25 years after the death of Jesus.^[113] This letter, while important in describing issues for the development of Gentilic Christianity, contains little of significance for understanding the life of the historic Jesus.^[114]

 

^{Now whether you count Paul as a contemporary or not would depend on whether you believe that he had a divine encounter on the road to Damascus.  However, the same Wiki also states that Pauline authorship of Galatians is uncontested and Galatians clearly tells of Paul staying with Peter, a direct contemporary of Jesus.}

 

^{Regardless, I hold to the Tradition of the Church.  It is far likely to me that the early Church Fathers were correct in their canon, especially when they were under great persecution, than to assume that modern scholars who are millenia-removed and lauded for skepticism are correct.}

 

Then again, the Bible is but one part of faith for me.  The Canon flowed from Tradition, not the other way around.  The four criteria for canonicity are enough for me.  But, I have faith in the Church.

 

 

[.Michelle.]

 the earliest written was Mark (?) and that was dated to be at a minimum 70 years after Jesus died. 

 

 

Mark is dated to around 66-70 A.D.

[Halcyon]

I just wanted to chime in that I am greatly enjoying this thread. :)

[Saddlemomma]

The difference between Socrates and Jesus - one of many differences - is that his own students wrote about him, and Aristophanes mocked him. None of Jesus' contemporaries wrote about him, or if they did, those writings have long since been lost. The first writings we have about Jesus were written well after his death by people who never met him in the flesh. That's much less convincing.  Jesus's own students (disciples) wrote about Him - Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.  They definitely met him in the flesh.   For those who dismiss these historical secondary sources, specifically because they are in that "imaginary" book, the Bible, we have the following: Tacitus, Lucien of the 2nd Century, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar Serapion.  In total there are about 9 non-Christian sources within 150 years of Jesus's death that mention him. Ref: http://www.str.org/videos/are-there-reliable-non-christian-sources-for-jesus#.VQ7yI-EYPqo

 

 

That's why historians look at multiple sources, and are always prepared to revise their ideas when new information comes in. It's like science, really - you don't go on faith, you follow the evidence.  See above, plus the following sources about what historians think about whether or not Jesus actually existed:

• http://www.livescience.com/28304-facts-about-jesus.html
• Michael Grant was a renowned secular historian who actually wrote a book about the historical Jesus.  While Grant was not very flattering to the beliefs of Christians and Christ's deity, he does not questions the existence of the man, Jesus Christ.  In fact, when asked about the historicity of Christ in 1977, his response was: “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.’  In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’—or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.†(emphasis mine).  Taken from the book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, by Mike Licona (PhD in New Testament Studies from the University of Pretoria which he completed with distinction)
• Another quote from a secular historian noted in the same book by Mike Licona: from C. A. Evans in Evans and Wright (2009): “No serious historian of any religious or nonreligious stripe doubts that Jesus of Nazareth really lived in the first century and was executed under the authority of Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea and Samaria.â€
• There are many more of these examples to be found.  Most serious historians of today (secular and nonsecular) endorse the fact that Jesus was a real historical person.  They don't, however, necessarily believe in his deity.

That's like you having faith that there isn't an invisible yeti in your backyard, or having faith that you're not the only person in the universe, or having faith that Santa isn't real. It's a bizarre definition of the word that's only used to make a false equivalence between atheists and theists. You're correct with some of the examples I put forth.  Weak explanation.  Here is a better response.  Faith to me means "trust".  I trust--based upon the evidence and information I've read about, seen, heard--that what I've learned about ..... (insert your choice of word here - evolution, Jesus, etc.) is true. Here is the best explanation for faith that I've ever heard expressed much more succinctly than I could manage in my very poor attempt: http://www.str.org/videos/greg-koukl---what-is-faith#.VQ77GOEYPqo

 

 

You know, I don't like that word "random". Evolution is many things, but its main driver, natural selection, is not random. The mechanisms of evolution work with the random variation generated by mutations. 

 

 

 

Look, if you want to have your own personal definition of "reproducibility", whatever, but in the real world that carries as much weight as you claiming that, to you, "leg" means any appendage, so a dog has five of 'em.  You know, I've had no problem responding to your other replies.  They were responses in a respectful tone. Why the snark here at the end?  I'm trying, apparently poorly, to answer questions that have been asked in a forth-rightful way.  You obviously don't agree.  Okay, fine, but this is exactly why some people get upset and don't feel they can participate in certain discussions--personal attacks.  This is the type of thing that gets interesting discussions locked.  Therefore, in the interest of keeping this discussion open, I'll say adieu!

 

Hopefully I've contributed a little bit for some other posters, however, it's time to move on to greener pastures on the Hive.  Have fun everyone! :001_cool:

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

There are a number of out-of-date assumptions about the historicity of Jesus, most dating from the 19th century.  Almost always when you hear people on various atheist websites and such, making the claim that Jesus didn't exist, they are directly or indirectly drawing on those kinds of older arguments.

 

From a historican's perspective, the information is considered to be pretty good, with the Gospels being written close to Jesus lifetime, as well as other non-canonical texts by people who were students of or knew the apostles.  This is better than what we have for a great many other historical figures - Socrates, as mentioned, or Hannibal is another example.  Historical records just aren't as complete as many people seem to think.

 

The fact is, within the field of ancient history, the "jesus myth" position isn't just a minority view, it's a fringe view that is considered to be a kind of conspiracy theory.  Taking that position would be pretty much a guarntee that you would not get a position in ancient history in a university.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

The mechanisms of evolution work with the random variation generated by mutations. 

 

 

They aren't actually random though, they are only random from our perspective.  But they have a cause, and a chain of events that leads to them. 

[Onceuponatime]

Mark is dated to around 66-70 A.D.

Yes. And it is anonymously attributed to Mark by a tradition which can only be traced as far back as the early second century. ( see wiki article on gospel of Mark.) At best it is 33 years after the death of Jesus, the year of his death being debatable depending on which account of the year of his birth you hold to be accurate. The document gives no claim to be an eye witness testimony. It does not mention the virgin birth and the oldest manuscripts end without Jesus reappearing. If it is not firsthand testimony, that makes it hearsay. And since the original autographs do not exist, there is no guarantee that it has not been modified more than in the known portions.

 

There are absolutely no biblical or extra-biblical writings about Jesus that were written during his lifetime. Nothing. If he caused such a stir, why is that so? Big news is big news.

[Murphy101]

There seems to be an expectation that young earth creationism must be held to different standards than other psuedoscientific beliefs such as astrology, alchemy, geo-centrism, etc. How would it sound if we rephrase your statement by saying "It's inaccurate to assume that those who hold to the flat-earth theory are anti-science"?

 

For sure it is disturbing for those who believe in YEC to be called anti-science, but all said and done, YEC is a form of quackery and I don't see why anyone should treat it with any form of deference.

Which would be valid if there were conclusive proof that there's no way YEC is possible. We have that for a flat earth. We do not have any definitive theory for how old the earth is or how old it is.

 

We have this body of persuasive theories vs this body of persuasive theories. Not the same as conclusive evidence.

 

Again. My frustration with either side is the refusal to admit they just don't know. We don't know IS a valid scientific response. And it's a response that does not inhibit scientific discussion or exploration on the topic.

[Vera]

Yes. :) And have you noticed that perhaps we (the general you and I, the ones who hold ourselves accountable) do not have a convenient out, in the form of forgiveness? There is something to be said for living with the consequences of our actions without a sense of being "forgiven" for our transgressions. It makes me more determined to live a good, ethical life - for myself, for my family and friends, for the community I live in, and for the planet itself.

 

ETA to clarify that when I said "more determined" I am speaking for myself. More determined than I was when I was a christian.

It is true. I would have to forgive myself if I did something terrible. I can't imagine how difficult that would be.

[Guest]

Has there ever been a scientist who, through science NOT faith, came to believe in a young earth? Again, with no faith involved?

[.Michelle.]

My single sentence was in response to the assertion that Mark was written 70 years after the death of Jesus, roughly 100 A.D.

 

A lot of these arguments seem to operate under the idea that the Bible is the final say, that undermining a date or an author would be sufficient to relegate Christianity to the dustbin of history.  It is, I must admit, bemusing to a Catholic.  We don't expect every answer to be written explicitly in the Bible, accompanied by a copperplate signature and a headshot or two.  The canon, old and new, consists of truths.  Some are historical.  Some are allegorical.  Some are poetic.  There is even truth in the form of foklore (Tobit anyone?)  Some books may have contained a lot of good information, but were rejected because they did not have apostolic origin, or were not universally accepted, or used liturgically.  

[HRAAB]

Has there ever been a scientist who, through science NOT faith, came to believe in a young earth? Again, with no faith involved?

After hunting I asked that same question here - a couple of times. I'll be interested to see if you get an answer.

[Onceuponatime]

My single sentence was in response to the assertion that Mark was written 70 years after the death of Jesus, roughly 100 A.D.

 

A lot of these arguments seem to operate under the idea that the Bible is the final say, that undermining a date or an author would be sufficient to relegate Christianity to the dustbin of history. It is, I must admit, bemusing to a Catholic. We don't expect every answer to be written explicitly in the Bible, accompanied by a copperplate signature and a headshot or two. The canon, old and new, consists of truths. Some are historical. Some are allegorical. Some are poetic. There is even truth in the form of foklore (Tobit anyone?) Some books may have contained a lot of good information, but were rejected because they did not have apostolic origin, or were not universally accepted, or used liturgically.

You happened to post in a thread about YEC, which tends to go hand in hand with sola scriptura. :-)

[redsquirrel]

Which would be valid if there were conclusive proof that there's no way YEC is possible. We have that for a flat earth. We do not have any definitive theory for how old the earth is or how old it is.

 

We have this body of persuasive theories vs this body of persuasive theories. Not the same as conclusive evidence.

 

Again. My frustration with either side is the refusal to admit they just don't know. We don't know IS a valid scientific response. And it's a response that does not inhibit scientific discussion or exploration on the topic.

 

But you make it sound like the scales are equally balanced between the two sides, those being science and Young Earth.  They just aren't. Young Earthers' clams are just overwhelmed by the preponderances of evidence that the earth is billions of years old. This is not a debate with two sides each making a responsible claim. Science isn't debating this at all. The earth is billions of years old. It is Young Earthers who are in the minority attempting to engage, looking for validation.

[.Michelle.]

There are absolutely no biblical or extra-biblical writings about Jesus that were written during his lifetime. Nothing. If he caused such a stir, why is that so? Big news is big news.

 

But it really wasn't big news outside of a small geographic area that was considered a backwater by the rest of civilization at the time. (ETA:  Consider also that Jesus' public ministry only lasted three years.) It was only through evangelization that the story spread beyond those boundaries and that didn't happen immediately.

 

We know that it had spread enough and was considered big enough for at least a mention by Josephus in the late 90s.

 

The funny thing to me is that if one of the apostles had transcribed every day's conversation as it happened, those writings would have certainly been included in the canon... and then they would be rejected as evidence because they would just be another book in the Bible.  :lol:

[Onceuponatime]

But it really wasn't big news outside of a small geographic area that was considered a backwater by the rest of civilization at the time. It was only through evangelization that the story spread beyond those boundaries and that didn't happen immediately.

 

We know that it had spread enough and was considered big enough for at least a mention by Josephus in the late 90s.

 

The funny thing to me is that if one of the apostles had transcribed every day's conversation as it happened, those writings would have certainly been included in the canon... and then they would be rejected as evidence because they would just be another book in the Bible. :lol:

That it wasn't big news is kind of my point. In fact there is the possibility that most, if not all, of the things attributed to Jesus never even happened.

 

The passage in Josephus is disputed and actually says very little.

 

The reasons for rejecting writings as evidence is not based on their inclusion in the Bible, but on scholarly tests that are applied to all historical documents.

[Pen]

During the course of this thread, has anyone besides me had any changes in opinion or the way they view things?  I have had, but am still sorting it out a bit. I was hoping maybe others would share things and it would help me as I am sorting.

[Professormom]

There is so much information out there about the history of the bible, you really won't have any trouble tracking down that information. The Gospels were not written by the actual apostles and were written many many years after Jesus died. I think...and I am going back in my own memory here, the earliest written was Mark (?) and that was dated to be at a minimum 70 years after Jesus died. But, again, it's been a long time since I took a bible study class.

 

We used several sources during the class, but the one I remember most was this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Rescuing-Bible-Fundamentalism-Rethinks-Meaning-ebook/dp/B000FC27Z4/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1427046009&sr=8-8&keywords=John+Spong

 

As a non Christian, I found it to be very accessible.

I have read Spong and am primarily Anglican in my beliefs. Spong caused a colossal controversy within the church (and I could write pages about the time and context during which his writings took hold) and most of what he wrote were his thoughts on the faith and did not reflect the actual faith, as it stood in tradition and/or practice. I would not go so far to say that he was wrong about everything he wrote, but he used a great deal of circular logic and attack language to make his case.

 

The example that comes to mind is his assertion that everything is relative (there is no Truth) and that the concept of right/wrong is an illusion. Now, he had taken vows to uphold Truth, to seek Truth, and to honor the creator of Truth (in his vows, this would be the Christian God). So, a lot of what he wrote about the Bible being "relative" went directly against the faith he proclaimed as his own (In this case, The Anglican Tradition).

 

Of course the people who disagree with him are wrong and he is right. So, he claims to possess truth, and those that disagree with his version of the truth he labels as fundamentalists, and uses inflammatory language to imply that they are either "intolerant" or "ignorant". He knew very well that he was trying to marginalize a large swath of believers which would actually fall in the category of those who had adhered to church tradition - defined here as the majority of believers in the Anglican faith since its inception - and those prior to that as well. So he is making some big assumptions, as well as contradicting his own theology.

 

I want to be clear that I raise this point, not to say that redsquirrel shouldn't read and/or agree with Spong (because the contents of his book - which are far more than my little post could espouse - would fall more in line with her worldview and I expect any of us will align more with what seems right to us... Human nature and all that), but to let the readers of this post who are genuinely interested in the Christian faith to know that Spong is very fringe and controversial within that faith and is not an accurate reflection of the faith as a whole. It has also not been validated by the theological community at large. So, if you want to use it as a resource, just understand its context with the faith that Spong aligned himself to.

[.Michelle.]

One passage is disputed as not entirely authentic; the second is widely accepted and disputed by a very few scholars.  Yes, it says very little, but it still says something and that something is in line with the biblical text.

 

Again though, at least for Catholics, the canon was put together because the writings were in line with Tradition.  The Church Fathers were performing their own scholarly tests on a huge array of writings.  There was much debate and discussion before the canon was settled on.  I will take the determination of the early Church over which writings were accurate (ETA: and authentic).  It makes much more sense to me than to ignore that and think that modern scholars, divorced from Tradition, are able to accurately pick things apart from where we sit in the 21st century.

 

 

[Professormom]

Here is a paper by Tim Keller that describes what Jean is, I think, speaking of when saying that we take the Biblical texts as the author intended.

 

Caveat: the biologos name is on this link; I have not investigated the overall claims of that organization and I do not mean to promote it. It is simply the host of a work by a man whose words I consider worthy of considering.

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

This is an excellent read and I think, for those of you who are seeking to understand, gives a logical walk-through of some of the challenges that believers face with regard to old-earth. It also gives a great theological underpinning for why I have come to be old-earth in my views, while retaining my faith.

 

For those who are confused about faith, I highly recommend Tim Keller's sermons and writings. He has an incredible grasp on the current issues that face the modern church body and works hard to be thorough and honest in his responses to them.

[Daria]

Which would be valid if there were conclusive proof that there's no way YEC is possible. We have that for a flat earth. We do not have any definitive theory for how old the earth is or how old it is.

 

We have this body of persuasive theories vs this body of persuasive theories. Not the same as conclusive evidence.

 

Again. My frustration with either side is the refusal to admit they just don't know. We don't know IS a valid scientific response. And it's a response that does not inhibit scientific discussion or exploration on the topic.

 

There are many many things that can not be scientifically explained in a cohesive way within a YEC framework.  Dinosaur bones, and very very early pottery shards, and carbon dating, and sedimentary layers in rock, and the light reaching earth from stars billions of light years away, and . . . . So, while science may have a definitive answer to the question "exactly how many years old is the Earth?", we can definitively say that science has demonstrated that the Earth is far older than 6,000 - 10,000 years old.  

 

Saying that, because there is debate as to the exact age of the Earth, we should therefore accept every single theory as equally valid, is ridiculous.   It's a little like saying "we don't know the exact composition of the Sun.  Some scientists say it's 71.0 % hydrogen by mass, some say 71.1 or 71.4.  I even found one source that said 74%*.  There is no definitive theory about the composition of the Sun.  Hey, maybe it's Amun Ra circling the Earth in his chariot, after all, we don't really know."  I guess it's possible that Amun Ra is circling the Earth in his chariot, but if that's true then the gods have gone to a whole lot of trouble to hide the evidence, because science consistently proves that the sun is a ball of fiery gases that is sitting in the middle of our solar system.  

 

*Note: I am not an astronomer.  It's quite possible that my figures here are wrong, but I'm sure you can figure out the general idea I am trying to convey. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Which would be valid if there were conclusive proof that there's no way YEC is possible. We have that for a flat earth. We do not have any definitive theory for how old the earth is or how old it is.

 

We have this body of persuasive theories vs this body of persuasive theories. Not the same as conclusive evidence.

 

Again. My frustration with either side is the refusal to admit they just don't know. We don't know IS a valid scientific response. And it's a response that does not inhibit scientific discussion or exploration on the topic.

 

But "we don't know...let's see if we can find out" is significantly different than "we don't know so God did it in 7 days."

[Lady Florida.]

But "we don't know...let's see if we can find out" is significantly different than "we don't know so God did it in 7 days."

 

Or "We don't know but this really, really old book written when people still thought seizures were caused by demons says God did it in 7 days."

[Murphy101]

But you make it sound like the scales are equally balanced between the two sides, those being science and Young Earth. They just aren't. Young Earthers' clams are just overwhelmed by the preponderances of evidence that the earth is billions of years old. This is not a debate with two sides each making a responsible claim. Science isn't debating this at all. The earth is billions of years old. It is Young Earthers who are in the minority attempting to engage, looking for validation.

No. I'm not saying anything about the balance of the sides. It doesn't matter to me either way. I'm saying neither is conclusive. I could build up a ton of circumstantial evidence, but that isn't the same as conclusive evidence.

 

eTA: and I don't think religion matters on either side. For me, it's not a religious issue either way.

[.Michelle.]

Does it really?  I know there is the account of the boy who had fits and foamed at the mouth, but the point of that story was that Jesus actually exorcised an actual demon that was causing those symptoms.  It wasn't a story that the boy was thought to be possessed, but actually had epilepsy and was healed.  I know there's another part that mentions epileptics and paralytics, but it was in part of a larger list of people that Jesus healed.  That list included those possessed by demons separately.

[Daria]

Does it really?  I know there is the account of the boy who had fits and foamed at the mouth, but the point of that story was that Jesus actually exorcised an actual demon that was causing those symptoms.  It wasn't a story that the boy was thought to be possessed, but actually had epilepsy and was healed.  I know there's another part that mentions epileptics and paralytics, but it was in part of a larger list of people that Jesus healed.  That list included those possessed by demons separately.

 

Aren't we talking about the Old Testament?  So, far older than Jesus?

[.Michelle.]

Searching "epilepsy and Old Testament" only returns a conjecture that the prophet Ezekiel may have suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy.  Nothing about demon possession.

[Aelwydd]

There is no money to be made is showing the science behind the virgin birth.

Sure there is. A virgin birth is inherently asexual. Asexual reproduction offers opportunities for couples who cannot reproduce together, for whatever reason. There would definitely be monetary incentives involved in such a study, and in fact, it is being studied, a.k.a. cloning.

[Professormom]

Aren't we talking about the Old Testament? So, far older than Jesus?

Nope, this story is in all synoptic gospels, Matthew 9:14-29, Mark 17:14-23, Luke 9:37-45.

[.Michelle.]

If it were talking about cloning, we would be talking about the double miracle of a virgin man giving birth.

[Lady Florida.]

Well quite honestly, to many of us the idea that it was an "actual demon" and not epilepsy doesn't make it sound any better. It makes the old old book even less likely to be believable.

[Professormom]

But "we don't know...let's see if we can find out" is significantly different than "we don't know so God did it in 7 days."

I can see how this is a legitimate idea in the context of this conversation. When I was agonizing my way through this (the theology more than the actual science), this was the distinction I kept coming back to. Thanks for sharing.

[Slartibartfast]

Well quite honestly, to many of us the idea that it was an "actual demon" and not epilepsy doesn't make it sound any better. It makes the old old book even less likely to be believable.

 

If that makes it less believable then I don't think they were going to believe anyways.

 

 

Why is curing epilepsy via touch so much more believable than demons?

[Daria]

Nope, this story is in all synoptic gospels, Matthew 9:14-29, Mark 17:14-23, Luke 9:37-45.

 

No, that's not what I meant.  I mean that if we're saying that the 7 day creation story comes from an old book written by people who believed that epilepsy was caused by demons, wouldn't we look to the Old Testament for evidence?  Those stories aren't particularly relevant to what the human authors of Genesis believed.

[.Michelle.]

But your statement implied that the Bible is untrustworthy because it was written at a time when people thought those with epilepsy were possessed by demons.  If anything, the Bible contradicts that idea entirely.  

[Slartibartfast]

Searching "epilepsy and Old Testament" only returns a conjecture that the prophet Ezekiel may have suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy.  Nothing about demon possession.

 

But some parts of the Bible specifically say demon and it specifically refers to demonic possession.

 

The demons talk, they bargain, they plead, they are sent into pigs and make pigs run off a cliff. 

 

 

I do believe in demons.

[.Michelle.]

Yes, I was unclear.  I was trying to say that the Old Testament doesn't seem to equate epilepsy with demonic possession anywhere.  Not that demons and demon possession are never referred to.

 

(ETA: As do I.)

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, I was unclear.  I was trying to say that the Old Testament doesn't seem to equate epilepsy with demonic possession anywhere.  Not that demons and demon possession are never referred to.

 

(ETA: As do I.)

 

I get it now.

 

I think we agree on that issue. :lol:

 

 

[Daria]

But your statement implied that the Bible is untrustworthy because it was written at a time when people thought those with epilepsy were possessed by demons.  If anything, the Bible contradicts that idea entirely.  

 

I didn't make the original statement.  I think the point of the original statement is that scientific thinking has changed immensely in pretty much every field since Genesis was written.  I think the only reason we still look at Genesis as "truth" is because of faith.  Which is, IMO, a perfectly valid reason to do so.  However, I do think that it's important to understand that the only evidence that supports a literal 6 day creation within the past 10,000 is faith based, not scientific.  

[Lady Florida.]

If that makes it less believable then I don't think they were going to believe anyways.

 

 

Why is curing epilepsy via touch so much more believable than demons?

 

Good point. Neither is believable to me. I guess what I was trying to say is that pointing out it was a real demon and not epilepsy doesn't make me go, "Oh, okay. Well that's different". 

 

To go back to my rephrasing of Chocolate Reign's original comment. 

 

CR said: But "we don't know...let's see if we can find out" is significantly different than "we don't know so God did it in 7 days."

 

My rephrasing: But 'we don't know...let's see if we can find out" is significantly different than "we don't know so let's believe the people who long ago thought that either epilepsy was caused by demons or people had actual demons inside them that can be cast out and who say God did it in 7 days ". It's a bit longer but covers it all for those who want to pick it apart I suppose. 

 

And yes, I know there are people who still believe today that demonic possession is real. That's all I'm going to say about that.

[Slartibartfast]

While I am enjoying a good old fashioned YEC argument what I am NOT interested in debating on a public message board among strangers is whether or not any of the Bible is real and the exact composition in precise percentages of the sun.

 

It's one thing to argue about dinosaurs but this is turning into something else entirely. 

 

We don't sit around arguing about whether or not any other faiths have any sort of validity.

 

I do believe in angels, I do believe in demons, I do believe in God. I don't have to give a reason for that. The date Mark was written doesn't impact my faith anymore than the existence of pterodactyls. No one is all, "Hey Buddhists, explain EXACTLY how you know where the next Dalai Lama is coming from because that sounds like a lot of hooey to me."

 

 

 

 

*I am really sorry Buddhists, I am just using you as an example, I don't believe your faith is hooey.

[.Michelle.]

I didn't make the original statement.  I think the point of the original statement is that scientific thinking has changed immensely in pretty much every field since Genesis was written.  I think the only reason we still look at Genesis as "truth" is because of faith.  Which is, IMO, a perfectly valid reason to do so.  However, I do think that it's important to understand that the only evidence that supports a literal 6 day creation within the past 10,000 is faith based, not scientific.  

 

I agree.

[Professormom]

Well quite honestly, to many of us the idea that it was an "actual demon" and not epilepsy doesn't make it sound any better. It makes the old old book even less likely to be believable.

This is the theology though, and that is why these threads go in so many directions. Coming at the same exact account from the atheist perspective is entirely different from coming at it from a Christian perspective. You have to fully understand the theological context, and quite frankly, agree with it, to fully understand and appreciate what that story is talking about. If you have decided it is all hooey, then you probably aren't going to be motivated to understand the theology. You won't be seeking what God is trying to tell us through the Bible if you don't believe in God. Make sense?

 

I have toyed with the idea of starting a new thread for people struggling with their faith, who are trying to understand doctrine and church history, but frankly, I don't know if I have the energy :lol:

 

I guess I am trying to say that if you have already decided that God doesn't exist, then the theological questions raised in the Bible and by the life of Christ, will lack depth and probably seem pointless and weird. It is the desire for God and the revelation by the Holy Spirit that gives faith its depth, passion, mystery and dynamism. Dallas Willard once said something to the effect that God doesn't force himself on us. If we don't want him, he will respect that. That was one of the most profound statements I have heard regarding evangelism, apologetics, etc. I can't change someone's mind about God if they are where they want to be. And someone who doesn't believe in God sees old-earth from an entirely different viewpoint that a Christian who sees old-earth does. Even though we both see the science the same, we see the meaning behind the science very differently.

 

I really appreciate some of my atheist friends on this board and am thankful for those who seem to have an intuitive understanding of respect and genuine curiosity when it comes to these discussions, on both sides of the fence. Over and out.

[Aelwydd]

If it were talking about cloning, we would be talking about the double miracle of a virgin man giving birth.

I did not say that the virgin birth was cloning, although one could hypothesize a cloned birth where environmental effects in utero led to a genotypical female presenting as as phenotypical male. Not likely, but perhaps possible.

 

However, my point is that study of virgin birth would be of interest. Cloning is an example of asexual reproduction, but I did not equivocate between the two.

[fraidycat]

While I am enjoying a good old fashioned YEC argument what I am NOT interested in debating on a public message board among strangers is whether or not any of the Bible is real and the exact composition in precise percentages of the sun.

 

It's one thing to argue about dinosaurs but this is turning into something else entirely.

 

We don't sit around arguing about whether or not any other faiths have any sort of validity.

 

I do believe in angels, I do believe in demons, I do believe in God. I don't have to give a reason for that. The date Mark was written doesn't impact my faith anymore than the existence of pterodactyls. No one is all, "Hey Buddhists, explain EXACTLY how you know where the next Dalai Lama is coming from because that sounds like a lot of hooey to me."

 

 

 

 

*I am really sorry Buddhists, I am just using you as an example, I don't believe your faith is hooey.

????

 

 

And the Buddhists aren't saying they know the Earth is young because the Dalai Lama's book told them so.

 

???

 

The specific arguments here are in response to specific claims. In this case, the claims are made by Christians about the historic and scientific validity of their "special book".