29 replies to this topic

[blueadept]

Bsix, on 31 December 2009 - 01:14 PM, said:

Which is all very interesting since many (Most it seems) traditional Christian Bible believers depend on human-created/found evidence as the basis for believing in the Bible for themselves...and how they prove the Bible to others.

After Hussein was overthrown during the time the local Christians were being persecuted, I found it interesting when I saw a bishop from Iraq and he actually could speak the language spoken by Jesus.  You add the fact that it's reasonable to associate parts of the Bible to the location of Baghdad, it all simply builds upon your belief in the bible through both reason and geography.

Quote

Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula.

Six

The BoM doesn't have the privelege of geographical confirmation as the Bible.  It can only be approached with faith first and then reason.
With the bible, it can be approached from both reason (geographical) and faith.

But the important thing is that everyone's belief in Jesus can only be approached with faith that he died as was resurrected.  No one is going to be shown any physical evidence to support our Christian belief.

Edited by blueadept, 31 December 2009 - 01:49 PM.

[Zakuska]

blueadept, on 31 December 2009 - 01:05 PM, said:

Thus the fact that the BoM should be approached with faith and then strengthened with reason.  You can't really do it the other way around IMO.

I would say the same thing goes for the Bible.

"The Just shall live be faith"

and all.

[Zakuska]

Gervin, on 31 December 2009 - 01:28 PM, said:

CFR. Or stop spiking your egg-nog.

Try this post from a "Christian" on CARM.

Quote

NHisImage:

Quote

You're missing the point - there is no evidence and God never tells us to have blind faith as Mormons do. (Nothing that you've given me has actually been any proof positive evidence and you know it. You have to have blind faith to believe it.) Having blind faith is a "cognitive dissonance thing" and it's a Mormon/cult virus.

I had to respond to the poster thusly...

Quote

Aaaa... No my dear...Im sorry to have to Inform you of this... but it is you who is missing the point... the very definition of Faith in the Bible is "Blindness"

Heb 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Otherwise it is not Faith at all, but "Perfect Faith" or as Paul puts it "Perfect Knowledge".

[Gervin]

Zakuska, on 31 December 2009 - 02:09 PM, said:

Try this post from a "Christian" on CARM.


I had to respond to the poster thusly...

I don't know what CARM is but I was responding to Bsix's statement:

"Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula."

I challenge that statement.  If you believe the statement is true then provide a basis for your belief.

[volgadon]

Quote

I found it interesting when I saw a bishop from Iraq and he actually could speak the language spoken by Jesus.

Correction, a language related to the one spoken by Jesus. Hey, I can speak one of the BoM languages, if we want to play that game.

[volgadon]

Quote

With the bible, it can be approached from both reason (geographical) and faith.

Those who approach it with reason remain atheist or agnostic.
They probably approach it in the same way you would Troy.

[blueadept]

volgadon, on 31 December 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

Correction, a language related to the one spoken by Jesus. Hey, I can speak one of the BoM languages, if we want to play that game.

Since I can't quote what I watched in regards to what I was told..........fine.  If someone mentioned to language during Jesus' time, all I can do is confirm that's what was said.  Oh well.

[volgadon]

blueadept, on 31 December 2009 - 02:52 PM, said:

Since I can't quote what I watched in regards to what I was told..........fine.  If someone mentioned to language during Jesus' time, all I can do is confirm that's what was said.  Oh well.

and that is what one gets for not doing even an elementary follow up.
A simple google search will reveal that there are many kinds of Aramaic, that Jesus spoke a form of western, whereas both Chladean and Assyrian neo-Aramaic are more recent developements of eastern Aramaic, which are very different to even the Jewish eastern aramaic dialects.

[blueadept]

volgadon, on 31 December 2009 - 03:08 PM, said:

and that is what one gets for not doing even an elementary follow up.
A simple google search will reveal that there are many kinds of Aramaic, that Jesus spoke a form of western, whereas both Chladean and Assyrian neo-Aramaic are more recent developements of eastern Aramaic, which are very different to even the Jewish eastern aramaic dialects.

thank you for dealing with my laziness......I'm trying to find out which form of Aramaic it may have been but I'm not being too enthusiastic this new years eve.

From the references I can find, the area in question seem to ruled by the Chaldeons due to the fall of the Assyrians (Ninevah) after 612 B.C.
So the language at that time would have been some form of Chaldean Aramaic.  I have no real interest in confirming if that is the same Aramaic spoken by Jesus or not but obviously it peaaked my interest to be told that this bishop spoke Aramaic and I didn't keep in mind that it may have been a different dialect.  Hmmm.....

Edited by blueadept, 31 December 2009 - 03:33 PM.

[Zakuska]

Gervin, on 31 December 2009 - 02:23 PM, said:

I don't know what CARM is but I was responding to Bsix's statement:

"Faithful acceptance of the Bible on the basis of spiritual witness and trust is not a part of the traditional Christian formula."

I challenge that statement.  If you believe the statement is true then provide a basis for your belief.

To which I gave an example of a Christian saying archeology was more important than a spiritual witness.