Posted on 01/31/2006 9:37:58 AM PST by SirLinksalot
It is believed Theophilus of Antioch penned those books as were dictated by the apostles. In fact, Theophilus is accredited twice, once in Luke and once in Acts, with having been given the charge of penning the Gospel of Luke - possibly more - and the Acts of the Apostles.
Strobel's statement is comparable to my having had quoted a private message from you, however others would have no credible proof you've actually written the piece I've quoted. Therefore, from that premis, one would need assume my quote factually credible or further discourse upon the matter is improbable.
Your questions don't offend me - in fact they help me dig deeper into the scriptures for answers - whether or not they seem rational to you.
And for that inquisition, I say "thanks"...
> I've seen enough of your posts to recognize that you're not interested in rational explanations.
Incorrect. I'd like to find a rational explanation, but many years have taught me that the best I can realistically expect is entertaining handwaving. Take, for example, the oft-repeated fiction that Jesus is more historically verified than Julius Caesar. When presented with viewpoints like that, I go into the same mode as when I'm confronted with alien abductions, 9-11 conspiracy theories or Democratic party policies.
1. Regardless if Strobel was really as skeptical as he states, he presents the common arguments against various facets of the Christian conviction, from the historicity to the philosophical. In fact, most of the arguments you've brought up are raised by Strobel.
If Strobel was lying about his initial skepticism, then he would be knowingly sinning.
2. I fully concede the point of the rebuttal book. Perhaps you could somehow procure that book and weigh it to Strobel's. From the positive and negative reviews on Amazon, it seems relatively weak.
3. Pascal's Wager was brought up only as a point that you should seek out the true nature of God and follow Him for the potential costs are infinite. Notice that not once did I say it was by default the Christian God. Only after a rigorous challening of the evidence did I settle on Christ, and I hope you will too.
My underlying point is this:
You have some objections to the foundations and arguments of Christianity. Lee Strobel asks the same questions and makes the same points you do. Renowned experts in various fields (history, medicine, philosophy) answer the the points you raise, as well as the major purveyors of those points (Jesus Seminar, Swoon notion advocates). If you hear the responses from these experts and find them inadequete, then you have at least challenged your beliefs and have vindicated them. But as it is I think you are being willfully complacent in your unsubstantiated dismissals of Christianity. I am in no way insulting you; I am merely challenging you to challenge yourself.
> If Strobel was lying about his initial skepticism, then he would be knowingly sinning.
As the several episodes of perjury by members of the ID crowd at the trial in Dover... it'd hardly be the first time one woudl find a Liar For Christ.
> From the positive and negative reviews on Amazon, it seems relatively weak.
Again, not a good metric. Ever hear of "Freeping?"
> you should seek out the true nature of God and follow Him
Uh-huh. And if God turns out to be a scumbag? Why follow a scumbag? You proceed from the assumption that your concept of God *is* THE God. Ain't necessarily so.
> Only after a rigorous challening of the evidence did I settle on Christ, and I hope you will too
After rigorous challenging, I settled away from Christianity. Too much weird, too little evidence. God *may* be a decent fellow, but hios fan club can be downright spooky at times. Not as nutty as Allahs fan club, but still...
> But as it is I think you are being willfully complacent in your unsubstantiated dismissals of Christianity.
A common assumption among those who hold to Christian beliefs regarding those who have examined Christianity and found it wanting. Muslims think the same of *you*.
Nice cherry picking of points to address. You have not addressed my main point: Strobel's book is heavily cited by credible sources that address your claims against Christianity.
Instead you focus on reviews, assumptions about Strobel's initial skepticism, and my personal history. All of these bear very little relevance to my main point.
When Muslims produce academics like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and the others cited by Strobel, I will joyfully read it. Today, they do not exist. Moreover, the history I have read about Islam makes it a fantasy. It uses a lot of widely-disproven Apocryphal versions of Christ (written centuries after the primary sources) and has a very dubious story about how Mohammed--an illiterate--received and transcribed the Koran. But please don't focus on this aside!
I have challenged you to seek the answers to the questions you supposedly pose in good faith here. It is your choice whether you do so. But, before you claim Strobel is biased, you should really look at those he cites and compare them to other experts in their fields. By your claim that Strobel (or one of his experts) said the 4 Gospels were thought to be anonymously written, it is clear you didn't really read closely or critically.
That is all.
See post 111.
> it is clear you didn't really read closely or critically.
If it comforts you to believe that, go for it. Faith does not require evidence, clearly.
Believe me, your complaceny gives me no comfort, only sadness.
Don't worry about it. I'm sure I'll get into Asgard.
A reasonable theaory? Alright, here's one: the "apostles" made it all up, got others to believe, and thus the religion was born.
And this to you is easier than the historians view: a man we know as Jesus lived in the time and place, was thought to be a healer and was crucified by the Romans? [Your other theories about the religion can follow.]
Made it all up is more plausible to you than the historian view?
> Made it all up is more plausible to you than the historian view?
I was asked for a reasonable theory; I provided one. I consider it reasonable because we've seen the same thing happen within our lifetimes , or nearly so (how many Scientologists *were* there in, say, 1945?).
What's more plausible... shrug. I have no way to compare numerically. Did a feller named Jesus live at that time, do some nice stuff and get railroaded? Maybe. It's quite possible. But again, it's also quite possible that the whole thing was made up. Humans do that with some regularity. Is it possible that the miracles were performed, including lots of dead folk getting up and wandering the streets, and yet *none* of that was recorded by Roman observers? Seriously unlikely.
Again, L. Ron Hubbard existed, as did Joseph Smith, et. al for your examples. Whatever we may think of their deeds or their teachings, their followers did not make them up.
it's also quite possible that the whole thing was made up.
It is possible that twelve guys made up Jesus and everything about him: his teaching and followers, his basic biography and the crucifixion by the Romans. But it takes a lot more work to hold this as more plausible than he existed, was thought to be a healer and was crucified by the Romans. It takes a great deal more, and it goes contrary to the conclusions reached by scholars and historians.
On this single part, your wishing to believe, your "faith" is at least as strong as those you are debating against.
> Again, L. Ron Hubbard existed, as did Joseph Smith, et. al for your examples.
Did Xenu? Did the angel Moroni? Neither Hubbard nor Smith claimed to be anything other than a prophet of some type (AFAICR)... certainly not demigods like angels of the son of some god.
> It is possible that twelve guys made up Jesus and everything about him: his teaching and followers, his basic biography and the crucifixion by the Romans.
Just as one guy made up Dianetics and one other guy made up the whole book of Mormon.
> your "faith" is at least as strong as those you are debating against.
My "faith" in what? Faith in seeing a serious lack of evidence and thus not coming to a firm conclusion? That's just good science.
Your passion for your faith must be clouding your ability to communicate. Again, I'm talking about the existence of the founder. Not miracles, not their religion or anything else. The basics of the founder's existence.
Just as one guy made up Dianetics…
Again, I'm talking about... Please focus.
My "faith" in what?
Your faith that holds that this person did not exist against common sense and the scholarship of history.
Faith in seeing a serious lack of evidence and thus not coming to a firm conclusion?
Faith in holding to what you wish to be true to support your other beliefs, or you think needs to be true to support your other beliefs.
That's just good science.
No, those who study the subject objectively practice the science of their field. You disagree with their conclusions and postulate a wild conspiratorial ex nihilo theory not held by any reputable historian. It can only be faith, your desire that it be so, that moves you so strongly.
You've spent a great deal of effort here avoiding a very simple historical event. One that need not harm the rest of your views about Christianity. Yet you have fought for it tenaciously.
You don't have the same faith as Christians, but you have the same degree of faith as the strongest Christian.
> Again, I'm talking about... Please focus.
You're missing the point. Did Jesus write the Gospels? I know few who claims such. The gospels were written *by* others *about* Jesus. In that sense, Xenu and Moroni are the founders of their religions in the same way that Jesus was. But if you see Hubbard and Smith as the founders of their religions... then the authors of the Gospels were the founders of Christianity... not Jesus. Without those authors, Christianity was just another flash in the pan messiah cult.
> Your faith that holds that this person did not exist
Where did I say he didn't? I simply question it, and point out the obvious possibility that he didn't.
What loony toon logic. So, the only way that a 'religion' is valid is if the 'author' of the basic documents of the religion are the found him/herself? So Hinduism is not a valid (since the founder didn't write their religious writings), nor mormonism (Mormon wrote the plates 'found' by Smith).
Did Julius Caesar write his own history?
Oh, please. You've done a great deal more than "simply" anything. It was your "reasonable theory," remember? It's equally possible, remember?
I'm afraid you're only being successful in denying your faith to yourself. And that, too, is very important to you for some reason.
I wonder what it might be.
> What loony toon logic
Wrong.
> So, the only way that a 'religion' is valid ...
I said nothing regarding validity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.