Salvation and being with God is not predicated on perfect obedience--that's why God sent Christ to bear the cost of our sins so that we might be with Him despite our imperfection. There are plenty of verses about what God wants. Here are three of them from both the Old and New Testaments:



Mercy
Knowledge of God
Do justly
Love mercy
Walk humbly with your God
Love the Lord your God with your entire being
Love your neighbor as yourself

Note that perfect obedience and complete understanding are not on the list. God desires all people to be saved but has given us free will, which allows the nature of what's in our hearts to shine through. In short, I suppose you could say that God simply wants what any father would want: for his children to learn what is good and to do the right thing out of their own desire to do so.

There are a very few, very simple things that God requires of us and these are extremely clear in the Scriptures. Of course, some people will still argue about it, but that's not the Scripture's failing. That's man's failing.

Those who desire God and seek God will find Him. Those who do not will not. It really is that simple.

Everyone is called to God by the gospel:



So yes, you were called before and you are called now, just like everyone else whether they believe or not. Those who believe answer the call, those who don't, don't. The idea that only a few are called is a Calvinist idea and in my estimation is the result of trying to impose the constraints of time on an eternal God in an effort to understand the "mechanical" details of salvation, an understanding that is irrelevant to one who simply trusts in God.

ETA: I haven't forgotten your question about the empty tomb. I've subscribed so I don't forget--I'm off to a Bible study now, but I haven't forgotten your question.

Those are just a couple of Christian beliefs which make no sense to me.

How does sending someone to endure torture and an excruciating death, somehow bear the cost of anyone else's supposed sins?

And why should we need to be "saved" for being how God made us, anyway?

For that matter, why would he make us imperfect in the first place? (Assuming a perfect being would even be capable of imperfect creations, an idea that I find very questionable.)

You seem to be knowledgeable and articulate. Perhaps you can offer a rational explanation?

 

Are you saying that God did not send Jesus to die for our sins?  Scripture says otherwise.

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Matthew 26:36-44
Gethsemane
36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.
These parts in red seem to say that God sent Jesus for a particular purpose.
For what purpose?
2 Corinthians 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

But some early church fathers say that Jesus didn't really become sin, right?  Well, why was Jesus in so much anguish to the point of sweating blood, as told in Luke 22:44? " 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground."  
It's because Jesus knew that God would turn away from him when he took all the sin of the world on himself.
Thats why Jesus said: Matthew 27:46  " 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)"
Then he said "It is finished".

As these scriptures point out, Jesus came here (willfully) to die for our sins by taking ALL of them on himself.  Since the wages of sin is death, he died for our sins.  ALL of our sins, past, present, and future.  He was then raised three days later defeating sin.
So was Jesus punished for our sins?  
Yes and no.
Yes, because the wages of sin is death.  He became, or took our sin upon him, which ever way you want to look at it, and that result is death.  But the most important part is his resurrection.  If he would have stayed dead and his body was still in the tomb then it would have been no different than any other man dieing. So he was punished by the rules that were already in place.  He knew that sin=seperation from God, that's why he wanted the cup to be taken from him.  He didn't want to be seperated from the Father for even an instant.
No, because he did it willfully.  He knew what the end result was going to be, and he knew the sacrifice he was going to have to make and he did it anyway.

Is there anything I can post even makes a passing reference to the differences in faith tradition that you won't feel the need to debate? Seriously, I was addressing a particular question. If you want to debate this point, start another thread and I'll go 'all in.'

Thanks. That makes a little more sense.

Hmm. Can you cite where it says that Man was created perfect? I have found nothing in Genesis where that is said. Indeed, everything I've read in Genesis indicates that Adam and Eve had pretty much the same physical and mental characteristics as people today, none of whom I'd rate as anywhere near perfect. And they were given those characteristics by God.

For that matter, Adam and Eve were obviously not very bright. Not only did they accept as true the word of a talking snake, they apparently thought they could not only hide from an omniscient being, but also get away with lying to him.

God may not have literally blindfolded Man and waited for him to trip, but it looks to me like that was in essence what God did. According to Genesis, God said only, "Don't eat that fruit or you'll die." There is nothing which shows that Adam and Eve had any understanding of death. Worse, God did not bother to warn those two people, "Hey, if you see a talking snake, don't believe what he tells you. He lies." That's a rather important bit of info to leave out.

It's obvious what your posts are about.

No further derailment from me.

"Passing reference" that's hillarious!

Hey OP.  I think your opening post was referencing my comment.  I was a staunch atheist and am now a committed follower of Jesus for about 10 years now (I'm in my 30s now).

Basically I was doing what you're doing, searching.   Like you, I was frustrated when people would cite "faith" because it wasn't concrete - I wanted facts and data.  I also enjoyed "debating" christians, and eventually when the "but faith!" card was played I would announce that I won the disagreement with a smarmy smile

Now, having a relationship with God - I know he exists.   However the process of salvation relies on faith by design, and God has designed it that way.  We have to be willing to approach him like children at the diving board, dad in the water.  We want proof he will catch us, there is no proof - until we jump!  

God requires we approach him like little children, and not intellectuals.  Paul himself says that Christ is a stumbling block to the Greek thinkers who celebrated rational, concrete thinking.  

Hebrews 11:1, 3 and 11:6
--- 1.  Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
--- 3   By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
--- 6.  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Take in mind, the Bible illustrates time and time again that even after repeated miracles to deliver and provide for people, they would still turn away from Him.  Even the droves following Jesus around seeing all his miracles - who is left before his crucification?  A handful.  If Jesus descended during the Super Bowl and spoke to the crowds - you know, real proof - I'm convinced that it wouldn't change many peoples opinions ... just as in the days he walked the earth - they would scoff and doubt.  "Isn't this Joseph's Son?", "That's just a TV trick", etc

Another thought - I notice many atheists have faith as well.  For example - they will scoff that mankind descended from 2 people, but believe that ALL LIFE came from primordial soup.  That takes faith as well.

Sorry if I rambled!

Hey, Fooboy. Thanks for dropping in. So, what did cause you to change from atheist to believer?

I dunno. I find it unfathomable that God would create a seemingly logical universe, then require that its life forms abandon logic, and turn to faith.

If there is a Creator, I'm inclined to go with Jefferson: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Heh, heh. Yes, I'm sure you're right about that.

I agree. Myself, I consider both as possibilities, but I don't take on faith that either is true.

Haha, thanks. I'll see what I can do, but now you're asking "Why did God..." questions. Sometimes the Bible answers those, sometimes it doesn't. Faith comes into play in the latter situation. I'll take the questions in the order in which they appear in the Bible, i.e., creation first.

OK, God didn't make us imperfect in the sense that there is some defect. He did, however, give us the ability to make decisions for better or worse. Why did God make us capable of making bad decisions? Nothing in the Scripture tells us why, so all I can do is speculate based on things that are in the text.

First, we are eternal beings. God created us in His own image, which I do not take to mean that God has arms and legs and eyes and ears, but rather that we are spiritual beings who are, for a brief time, "stuck" in this body of flesh which is itself "stuck" in this temporal creation. God exists in eternity, and my concept of that is not a large quantity of time but an existence completely outside of time--He is the great "I AM". Words like before, after, during and when don't really apply to God. He just IS and is not subject to the constraints of time (the failure to understand this is, in my estimation, the source of lots of bad teaching about God in our religious world).

If we are eternal beings, our existence will continue after our bond to this creation is broken, that is, after death. So, there we are with God in eternity. God is indeed perfect. After all, He is the One who defined "good" and "evil." What is good is what God wants, and what is evil is what is not in accordance with His will. Time and again throughout the Scripture, particularly in the case of the design of the Tent of Meeting (nobody was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies except the high priest, and then only once per year and then only after a fairly involved ritual cleansing), we see that God does not generally allow that which is not perfectly good to come into contact with Him. That is consistent with the idea of what happens to us in eternity. If we are pure, we live in eternity with God. If we are not pure, we do not live in eternity with God--we instead are punished.

Back to the garden. Adam and Eve lived in perfect harmony with everything. They lived in perfect harmony according to what God taught them (they really only had three instructions) and everything was fine--as long as they didn't make the decision to stop complying with God's instructions. Of course, they did and thus the first sin was brought into the world by man--not by God. Now man had a real problem. God does not exist in eternity with anything imperfect, and now Adam and Eve were imperfect. This imperfection was not the result of God's decision, it was the result of their own decision.

Of course, all the while God had had a plan to purify Adam and Eve and every other person made imperfect by sin. That plan was the sacrifice of His own son to bear the cost of our sins. Remember, the punishment for sin is death. When I sin, someone--namely me--owes that price. When I sin, I earn the wage of death. Well, God loves us and wants us to have a way to be pure even though we made bad decisions and disobeyed Him. What did He do? He sent Jesus, His Son, to stand in our place and accept the penalty of death for us. Remember this about Jesus: He is not some random person whom God decided would suffer for everyone else. Jesus is the Christ, He is God. God Himself, in the body of Jesus, came into His own creation to dwell among us and God Himself suffered at our hands on the cross despite His innocence and purity. In other words, God through His grace and mercy, decided to bear the cost of our sins Himself so that we might still be able to live in eternity with Him--He loves us and desires for us to live so much that He did all of that for us.

***********************
ETA:

This is a fine explanation of the sacrifice:


I would say, however, that that is in fact a "substitutional" sacrifice--Christ chose to sacrifice Himself so that we need not die. It's the perfection of the Old Testament sin offerings, in which the life of a pure animal was offered to atone for each sin committed. However, not until Christ offered Himself for us was there a means for the sins to be forgiven, or erased.
***********************

Now, we're back to the ability to choose. We have all sinned and thus we all deserve death in eternity, but thanks to Christ's work on the cross, we have a way back to God. Now, we have another choice to make. Do I walk down that way? Do I walk through that door? Do I take that second chance that God has given me? Or, do I affirm my love for the world and eschew Christ who provided me with that means of returning to God? I get to choose, and I have to do so based on faith that what is written is true. Here's the catch: I have to make that decision based on what God has told me. In other words, I have to trust God. If I do not--if I demand proof and just can't believe it until I have some hard evidence--then I don't have faith, and faith is what gets us home to God.

This has been a pretty clumsy explanation, but again, when the question is "What is God's motive?" I can't answer with any sort of authority unless God has told us all through His word. I don't know if that clears anything up or even answers what you ask. I imagine that it did not and am happy to answer questions as best as I can, always with the caveat that I'm no authority on God. All I can do is relay to you what God has told us all through the Scripture.



ETA: Here's a question designed help you relate to God's decisions to allow us opportunities to fail. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't:

Are you a cruel or imperfect parent by virtue of owning guns, even though you know that your children might make a poor decision and disobey your instructions and, as a result, that they might hurt or kill themselves or someone else?

Quoted:
Posted By stanc:

Haha, thanks. I'll see what I can do, but now you're asking "Why did God..." questions. Sometimes the Bible answers those, sometimes it doesn't. Faith comes into play in the latter situation. I'll take the questions in the order in which they appear in the Bible, i.e., creation first.
Thanks for being willing to take some follow-up questions. I'll use this format to reply, due to the five-quote-block limitation.

OK, God didn't make us imperfect in the sense that there is some defect.
That may be true, but do you not agree that he did give us physical bodies and mental abilities which are imperfect?

He did, however, give us the ability to make decisions for better or worse. Why did God make us capable of making bad decisions? Nothing in the Scripture tells us why, so all I can do is speculate based on things that are in the text.

First, we are eternal beings. God created us in His own image, which I do not take to mean that God has arms and legs and eyes and ears, but rather that we are spiritual beings who are, for a brief time, "stuck" in this body of flesh which is itself "stuck" in this temporal creation.
Other people, in other threads, have said the same thing. I have to wonder if this is speculation and conjecture, because I have not seen in Genesis where it says only our spirits are created in God's image. Also, in Genesis there is a comment about God walking in the Garden, and walking requires physical legs, does it not?

God exists in eternity, and my concept of that is not a large quantity of time but an existence completely outside of time--He is the great "I AM". Words like before, after, during and when don't really apply to God. He just IS and is not subject to the constraints of time (the failure to understand this is, in my estimation, the source of lots of bad teaching about God in our religious world).

If we are eternal beings, our existence will continue after our bond to this creation is broken, that is, after death. So, there we are with God in eternity. God is indeed perfect. After all, He is the One who defined "good" and "evil." What is good is what God wants, and what is evil is what is not in accordance with His will. Time and again throughout the Scripture, particularly in the case of the design of the Tent of Meeting (nobody was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies except the high priest, and then only once per year and then only after a fairly involved ritual cleansing), we see that God does not generally allow that which is not perfectly good to come into contact with Him. That is consistent with the idea of what happens to us in eternity. If we are pure, we live in eternity with God. If we are not pure, we do not live in eternity with God--we instead are punished.
Yes, I understand that concept. What I don't get is being punished by God, for being the way we were made by God (which also includes how we evolve, and the choices we make, due to the conditions in which we are placed by God).

Back to the garden. Adam and Eve lived in perfect harmony with everything. They lived in perfect harmony according to what God taught them (they really only had three instructions) and everything was fine--as long as they didn't make the decision to stop complying with God's instructions. Of course, they did and thus the first sin was brought into the world by man--not by God. Now man had a real problem. God does not exist in eternity with anything imperfect, and now Adam and Eve were imperfect. This imperfection was not the result of God's decision, it was the result of their own decision.
I would attribute it to not only their decision, but also to some actions of God.

Of course, all the while God had had a plan to purify Adam and Eve and every other person made imperfect by sin. That plan was the sacrifice of His own son to bear the cost of our sins. Remember, the punishment for sin is death. When I sin, someone--namely me--owes that price. When I sin, I earn the wage of death. Well, God loves us and wants us to have a way to be pure even though we made bad decisions and disobeyed Him. What did He do? He sent Jesus, His Son, to stand in our place and accept the penalty of death for us. Remember this about Jesus: He is not some random person whom God decided would suffer for everyone else. Jesus is the Christ, He is God. God Himself, in the body of Jesus, came into His own creation to dwell among us and God Himself suffered at our hands on the cross despite His innocence and purity. In other words, God through His grace and mercy, decided to bear the cost of our sins Himself so that we might still be able to live in eternity with Him--He loves us and desires for us to live so much that He did all of that for us.
Sorry, but that still seems to me like a lot of contradictory and irrational behavior by God. I suppose I may never be able to accept it like Christians do.

Now, we're back to the ability to choose. We have all sinned and thus we all deserve death in eternity, but thanks to Christ's work on the cross, we have a way back to God. Now, we have another choice to make. Do I walk down that way? Do I walk through that door? Do I take that second chance that God has given me? Or, do I affirm my love for the world and eschew Christ who provided me with that means of returning to God? I get to choose, and I have to do so based on faith that what is written is true. Here's the catch: I have to make that decision based on what God has told me. In other words, I have to trust God. If I do not--if I demand proof and just can't believe it until I have some hard evidence--then I don't have faith, and faith is what gets us home to God.
Well, if you have proof, belief is unnecessary. If faith and belief are required, then people like me have a problem.

As to the ability to choose: Based on my experience and observation, a non-believer cannot choose to start believing, any more than a believer can choose to stop believing. At least, I have never heard of such a change resulting from a conscious decision. It seems to only occur as a result of some event in a person's life.

This has been a pretty clumsy explanation, but again, when the question is "What is God's motive?" I can't answer with any sort of authority unless God has told us all through His word. I don't know if that clears anything up or even answers what you ask. I imagine that it did not and am happy to answer questions as best as I can, always with the caveat that I'm no authority on God. All I can do is relay to you what God has told us all through the Scripture.

ETA: Here's a question designed help you relate to God's decisions to allow us opportunities to fail. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't:

Are you a cruel or imperfect parent by virtue of owning guns, even though you know that your children might make a poor decision and disobey your instructions and, as a result, that they might hurt or kill themselves or someone else?
I would answer "No" to that. However, I would also say that it is a very inaccurate analogy to what transpired in the Garden of Eden. Try this version:

Are you a cruel or imperfect parent if you place a loaded gun in the middle of a room, put your children in the room, don't teach them anything about safe gun handling or the injury and death that can result from use of guns, then - after a simple admonishment, "Don't touch the gun or you'll die" - you leave the room and knowingly allow another person to go into the room and tell your kids that "Daddy was just kidding, it's really okay for you to play with the gun, it can't hurt you," even though you know that your children will disobey your order? If someone is shot, who is really to blame: the ignorant child who pulled the trigger, or the knowing parent who put the child in that situation?

That really is the crux of the matter. I can sit here and tell you all day what I think, but it would by no means be authoritative.  I'll answer the other questions when I have time (which may be today, but it may be next week--I'm trying to wrap things up work-wise so I can get out of town), but we'll just be going back and forth and trying to catch clouds.

The bottom line, if you look to this creation or anything in it--including me or any other person--for knowledge about God, you won't find it. If on top of that you also don't believe that the Bible is revelation from God, that leaves you stranded and I don't know how you would ever come to believe. In the end, your relationship with God--whatever that is--is between exactly two persons: you and God. If you don't believe it, I won't be able to convince you. All I can do is share what God taught me. What you do with that is between you and God and no one else.

If I can get my sermon knocked out in the next few hours, I'll take some time to sort through your other questions today. Whether or not that's the case, I did want to address at least this one point as it's an important one.

I was an atheist until I was 26, I became born again at 27.  Why I started to believe would be Gods influence.  What led up to would be the same answer.  So are you looking for what life was like not being raised in church and then converting?  What influence believers had on my life?

No, I'm interested only in the actual cause of the switch from atheist to believer. "God's influence" is rather vague. Can you be more specific?

OK, Monday morning and I have a little free time before I need to get going on some stuff. Here's an attempt at answering but as I've said, we are now solidly in the realm of human reasoning, which is never the source of truth. So, for what it's worth:

Quoted:
Posted By stanc:

Haha, thanks. I'll see what I can do, but now you're asking "Why did God..." questions. Sometimes the Bible answers those, sometimes it doesn't. Faith comes into play in the latter situation. I'll take the questions in the order in which they appear in the Bible, i.e., creation first.
Thanks for being willing to take some follow-up questions. I'll use this format to reply, due to the five-quote-block limitation.

OK, God didn't make us imperfect in the sense that there is some defect.
That may be true, but do you not agree that he did give us physical bodies and mental abilities which are imperfect?

I'd say He made us pretty well, when you think about it. If by "imperfect" you mean "not omnipotent" or "not omniscient" then I guess we're imperfect as we certainly not all-powerful, all-knowing beings. However, we're pretty smart and durable. Think about the amazing amount of injury our bodies can sustain and recover, and about the complexity and capability of the human mind.
By "imperfect," I only had in mind susceptibility to disease, illness, injury, and death. However, that we're also not omnipotent and omniscient, further makes the case.

**********

First, we are eternal beings. God created us in His own image, which I do not take to mean that God has arms and legs and eyes and ears, but rather that we are spiritual beings who are, for a brief time, "stuck" in this body of flesh which is itself "stuck" in this temporal creation.
Other people, in other threads, have said the same thing. I have to wonder if this is speculation and conjecture, because I have not seen in Genesis where it says only our spirits are created in God's image. Also, in Genesis there is a comment about God walking in the Garden, and walking requires physical legs, does it not?

The New King James Version (and plenty of other versions as well, I'm sure) does indeed translate Genesis 3:8 as, "And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day...." Two things are perhaps worth noting if you look at the Hebrew. Before I get into that, let me just come right out and say that I don't read Hebrew. I'm referring to my reference books, so you're not getting any kind of scholarly opinion here.

That said, the Hebrew word translated "sound" can also be translated "voice." In fact, the King James translates the word that way. Second, the Hebrew word translated "walking" can be translated "coming" or "going" or "proceeding" or "traversing". So, you could read it as something like, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God proceeding in the garden in the cool of the day...."

Another point I would make is the regular use of the word "walk" in the non-literal sense. In Genesis, for example, Noah and Enoch are said to have "walked with God" and Abraham is said to have "walked before God". I've always read the verse about God walking in the garden in a similar, non-literal sense.

Whatever the case, that's really not the point of the story. The point of the story, and that verse in Genesis 3, is Adam and Eve now saw the world differently. Now, they were ashamed of their nakedness and they were afraid to confront God. In other words, they now knew the difference between good and evil, and were painfully aware that they had committed an evil act (disobedience).
Well, the subject we were discussing was the idea of humans "being created in God's image," not the point of the Adam and Eve story. I suppose there is no way to know whether the Hebrew text meant "walking" versus "proceeding"?

**********

God exists in eternity, and my concept of that is not a large quantity of time but an existence completely outside of time--He is the great "I AM". Words like before, after, during and when don't really apply to God. He just IS and is not subject to the constraints of time (the failure to understand this is, in my estimation, the source of lots of bad teaching about God in our religious world).

If we are eternal beings, our existence will continue after our bond to this creation is broken, that is, after death. So, there we are with God in eternity. God is indeed perfect. After all, He is the One who defined "good" and "evil." What is good is what God wants, and what is evil is what is not in accordance with His will. Time and again throughout the Scripture, particularly in the case of the design of the Tent of Meeting (nobody was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies except the high priest, and then only once per year and then only after a fairly involved ritual cleansing), we see that God does not generally allow that which is not perfectly good to come into contact with Him. That is consistent with the idea of what happens to us in eternity. If we are pure, we live in eternity with God. If we are not pure, we do not live in eternity with God--we instead are punished.
Yes, I understand that concept. What I don't get is being punished by God, for being the way we were made by God (which also includes how we evolve, and the choices we make, due to the conditions in which we are placed by God).

We are not being punished by God for being the way we were made by God. I would strongly disagree that part of how God made us is the choices we make because, while God gave us the capacity (and, when you think about how He placed us in a creation subject to time, the obligation) to make choices, God does not make our choices for us. When we choose to act in a manner contrary to how God taught us to act, we choose to do that all by ourselves (you could say that we are tempted by Satan, but we either resist or give in to temptation by our own choice). As to the conditions in which we exist, you have to remember that the "bad" conditions did not exist until man decided to disobey God. In that sense, we do not today exist in creation as God originally made it. We live in creation tainted by our own behavior.
I might buy that, if only Adam and Eve had been punished. Extending the punishment to untold billions of people who didn't even exist at the time is an infinitely gross injustice, irrational behavior taken to the ultimate extreme.

**********

Back to the garden. Adam and Eve lived in perfect harmony with everything. They lived in perfect harmony according to what God taught them (they really only had three instructions) and everything was fine--as long as they didn't make the decision to stop complying with God's instructions. Of course, they did and thus the first sin was brought into the world by man--not by God. Now man had a real problem. God does not exist in eternity with anything imperfect, and now Adam and Eve were imperfect. This imperfection was not the result of God's decision, it was the result of their own decision.
I would attribute it to not only their decision, but also to some actions of God.

I've never been a fan of the whole "blame the manufacturer" thing. If Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit, none of the bad things would have happened.
Sometimes the manufacturer is to blame. If a carpenter makes a chair with one leg shorter than the other three, would you blame the chair because it wobbles?

It's clear that God:

- did not warn Adam and Eve that a talking serpent wasn't to be trusted.
- allowed said serpent to freely roam around the Garden.
- did not intervene when the serpent began seducing Eve.
- did not place a guard at the tree, to prevent ignorant children from eating its fruit.

Seems like pretty irresponsible parenting, by any reasonable standards. Or else God wanted Adam and Eve to fail...

**********

Of course, all the while God had had a plan to purify Adam and Eve and every other person made imperfect by sin. That plan was the sacrifice of His own son to bear the cost of our sins. Remember, the punishment for sin is death. When I sin, someone--namely me--owes that price. When I sin, I earn the wage of death. Well, God loves us and wants us to have a way to be pure even though we made bad decisions and disobeyed Him. What did He do? He sent Jesus, His Son, to stand in our place and accept the penalty of death for us. Remember this about Jesus: He is not some random person whom God decided would suffer for everyone else. Jesus is the Christ, He is God. God Himself, in the body of Jesus, came into His own creation to dwell among us and God Himself suffered at our hands on the cross despite His innocence and purity. In other words, God through His grace and mercy, decided to bear the cost of our sins Himself so that we might still be able to live in eternity with Him--He loves us and desires for us to live so much that He did all of that for us.
Sorry, but that still seems to me like a lot of contradictory and irrational behavior by God. I suppose I may never be able to accept it like Christians do.

All I can think to tell you is, the mind of man is different from the mind of God. To try to limit God to our human reasoning is at once short-sighted and incredibly arrogant.
I would have to question that. If we were created in God's image, why shouldn't our minds operate alike?

**********

Now, we're back to the ability to choose. We have all sinned and thus we all deserve death in eternity, but thanks to Christ's work on the cross, we have a way back to God. Now, we have another choice to make. Do I walk down that way? Do I walk through that door? Do I take that second chance that God has given me? Or, do I affirm my love for the world and eschew Christ who provided me with that means of returning to God? I get to choose, and I have to do so based on faith that what is written is true. Here's the catch: I have to make that decision based on what God has told me. In other words, I have to trust God. If I do not--if I demand proof and just can't believe it until I have some hard evidence--then I don't have faith, and faith is what gets us home to God.
Well, if you have proof, belief is unnecessary. If faith and belief are required, then people like me have a problem.

As to the ability to choose: Based on my experience and observation, a non-believer cannot choose to start believing, any more than a believer can choose to stop believing. At least, I have never heard of such a change resulting from a conscious decision. It seems to only occur as a result of some event in a person's life.

Perhaps so. We might not be able to choose whether or not to believe, but we can choose whether or not to obey what God says.
If one does not believe God exists, the Bible then is seen as just a fantasy novel. Why would a rational person choose to obey what a fictional character said???

I hope you can get all your questions answered. I am clearly not the guy to do that as I am no philosopher. You're looking to human reasoning for the truth and you seem to have a pretty firm expectation that God should see and respond to the world the same way that you and I do. As a believer, I understand that the creator and the created by definition cannot have the same perspective on creation. I also understand that being made "in the image of" something is not the same as being made "exactly like" something, sort of like Michelangelo's David was made "in the image" of some model, but I could never hope to have that statue explain to me what it's like to eat an omelet.

All I can tell you is, if you are looking for the truth in human reasoning, I promise you that you won't find it. After all, if human reasoning is the ultimate measuring stick for truth, then each of us can simply decide for ourselves what is truth (which is exactly what the academic elite will tell you when you take your liberal arts classes at college). If that is the case, when two people disagree with each other on any issue, both are correct because both have used human reasoning to arrive at their conclusions. We both know that's not the case and we both have seen the ridiculous behavior that comes out of this rejection of a truth separate from humanity.

Enough from me, though. Good luck and I hope you find what you're looking for!

I didn't say it meant being "exactly like" God. There is certainly a vast difference in level of intelligence, but I fail to see why it necessarily means our minds don't function similar to God's.

The trouble with that line of thought is that humans vary greatly in reasoning ability, as well as intelligence. But, the reasoning ability of some humans is what has produced all of mankind's advances and achievements, which aptly demonstrates that all reasoning abilities are not equal.

So?

I'm going to try and sound as sincere as possible with what I'm about to ask, because I really am asking out of curiosity.

Many people have issues with the bible because it is, after all, a book written by a person. By person I mean a human being.

What gives any book credibility, written about the bible (another book), saying that the bible is completely credible and should be considered fact.
Faith is the answer I always get from believers when I ask why they believe the bible, or at least some of the bible, is fact. What "real world" credibility shows that the bible, or the resurrection in this case, is historical fact?
By "real world" credibility I mean something other than one persons word.

Again, sincerely asking out of curiosity.

So, it's fallacious to argue that, because individuals differ in their perception of the truth, human reasoning therefore cannot find truth. Just because the reasoning ability and intelligence of some humans may be inadequate to enable those particular individuals to accurately analyze a matter, doesn't mean that everybody cannot do so.

Mastadon says only God's word gives us truth, whereas Man's ability to reason does not. Let's take a look at an example from the Noah's Ark thread:

God says that people - or, at least, his people - shall not eat "unclean" animals. God gives no reason for this edict, other than the vague notion that a person who comes into contact with such an animal somehow also becomes "unclean."

Yet, countless numbers of humans have been eating lobster and other "unclean" critters for centuries. Human reasoning, together with experience, has shown that so-called "unclean" animals are just as viable a food source as the "clean" creatures.

I'm glad you used the unclean animal example. In today's time we now know that those animals are not the most healthy thing to eat. Red tide affects shellfish and fish without scales, but does not affect fish with scale.  Pork is not a healthy meat choice, or any other scavenger. That's why most people don't eat buzzards, crows, coyotes, etc. as a normal diet.
Maybe God knew what our bodies were made to eat, what is good for us and what is not. No, not maybe, He definitely knows.
It's weird we have "cutting edge" diet advice in the bible.

I'm glad you're glad, because I'm not. I've inadvertently taken the discussion off track. I should've limited my previous reply to just the first paragraph.

In today's time we now know that those animals are not the most healthy thing to eat. Red tide affects shellfish and fish without scales, but does not affect fish with scale.
The obvious answer to that is to avoid eating contaminated shellfish, rather than abstaining completely.

Pork is not a healthy meat choice, or any other scavenger.
Well, I certainly wouldn't want a steady diet of pork, but I fail to see how having it occasionally is likely to have any noticeably adverse impact on health.

That's why most people don't eat buzzards, crows, coyotes, etc. as a normal diet.
Oh? What info is there which shows that health concern is the real reason those critters are not normally eaten?

Maybe God knew what our bodies were made to eat, what is good for us and what is not. No, not maybe, He definitely knows.
It's weird we have "cutting edge" diet advice in the bible.
I'd hardly call it "cutting edge" advice, and I sure wouldn't classify it as weird.

If it truly comes from God, it would be extremely surprising if the Creator didn't know what foods were best for his creations to eat.

If it comes from the "wise men" of ancient times, odds are they noticed a correlation between some illnesses and certain foods.

Either way, with relatively primitive people who lacked knowledge and understanding, it would've just been easier to make such dietary "advice" in the form of law.

P.S. I find it "interesting" that early in Genesis, God seems to want Man (and all the animals?) to be strictly vegetarian, but later on God condones the consumption of meat. If God is so concerned with our health, why the change?

ETA: I'm not claiming that this is God's reasons for declaring these animals unclean, He never says why He does, but that I don't think it's a coincidence.  It just so happens that the food that is clean is better for us than the food that is unclean?  Too much of a coincidence for me.

Quoted:
Quoted:

In today's time we now know that those animals are not the most healthy thing to eat. Red tide affects shellfish and fish without scales, but does not affect fish with scale.
The obvious answer to that is to avoid eating contaminated shellfish, rather than abstaining completely.
Not only are shellfish easily contaminated, but they have a ton of cholesterol.  Do some research.
I don't need to do research to know shellfish are reportedly high in cholesterol. That had not been part of the discussion. Contamination was the only issue you raised.

Pork is not a healthy meat choice, or any other scavenger.
Well, I certainly wouldn't want a steady diet of pork, but I fail to see how having it occasionally is likely to have any noticeably adverse impact on health.
You don't sound like much of an outdoorsman so I don't expect you to know that hogs carry diseases that can be transferred to humans.
Like trichinosis? Yes, I'm aware of that. Did you know that hazard can be neutralized by proper cooking, thereby rendering the meat safe to eat?

That's why most people don't eat buzzards, crows, coyotes, etc. as a normal diet.
Oh? What info is there which shows that health concern is the real reason those critters are not normally eaten?
Haha, I don't think there would have to be a study to show most people do not eat these animals.  Buzzards will eat anything dead, crows pretty much will too, coyotes stink so bad most people shoot them and leave them laying or take them for their fur.Animals taste like what they eat.I don't know of anyone that makes any of these a normal diet, nor have I heard of such.
Nor have I. But, you did say that most people don't normally eat such animals because they're not a healthy choice, so I figured you could cite info to support your statement.

Maybe God knew what our bodies were made to eat, what is good for us and what is not. No, not maybe, He definitely knows.
It's weird we have "cutting edge" diet advice in the bible.
I'd hardly call it "cutting edge" advice, and I sure wouldn't classify it as weird.
There have been hundreds of fad diets out there and the one in the bible has never been dismissed.  It has been the one to stand the test of time.  No, it's not weird, God knew exactly what He was doing.

If it truly comes from God, it would be extremely surprising if the Creator didn't know what foods were best for his creations to eat.
Exactly

If it comes from the "wise men" of ancient times, odds are they noticed a correlation between some illnesses and certain foods.
Sorry, they weren't that wise.
Nobody back then was bright enough to figure out this stuff based on their experiences and observations??? If all people were so dumb that they really needed to have even the most basic behaviors established as mandatory laws, that sure doesn't say much for either the competence of the Creator, or the intelligence of what some have called his greatest creation.

Either way, with relatively primitive people who lacked knowledge and understanding, it would've just been easier to make such dietary "advice" in the form of law.
I believe it was a law, hence the word "unclean"

P.S. I find it "interesting" that early in Genesis, God seems to want Man (and all the animals?) to be strictly vegetarian, but later on God condones the consumption of meat. If God is so concerned with our health, why the change?
When did the change take place?
Why do some people ask me questions, without answering mine?

ETA: I'm not claiming that this is God's reasons for declaring these animals unclean, He never says why He does, but that I don't think it's a coincidence.  It just so happens that the food that is clean is better for us than the food that is unclean?  Too much of a coincidence for me.
I don't consider it a coincidence. The question is, is it truly from God, or is it from humans who were a bit smarter and wiser than most?

Just read this last night, it was after pentecost and during the time God was revealing the Holy Spirit to both the Jew and Gentile. I believe along with the gift of salvation being for all nations and the full power of Christ's atonement being for us all regardless of lineage, that God also was showing Peter that His creatures were clean by the simple fact that He made them. That was my take anyway...

Acts 10 9-16

9 The next day as Cornelius’s messengers were nearing the town, Peter went up on the flat roof to pray. It was about noon, 10 and he was hungry. But while a meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the sky open, and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. 12 In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. 13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat them.”

14 “No, Lord,” Peter declared. “I have never eaten anything that our Jewish laws have declared impure and unclean.[b]”

15 But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.” 16 The same vision was repeated three times. Then the sheet was suddenly pulled up to heaven.

Just never mind. Please proceed as you were.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel might be helpful for some to read.

Lol

lol?

An Atheist?

No, I posted a legitimate question I was curious about and nobody wants to answer it?
Lol was just my way of laughing off the fact that my question was avoided.

Where it is bro,?

Found it!
Will answer here in a little while!
Very good and astute question worthy of a full and complete response.

Thanks

I'll touch on this real quick right now, and can get more in depth later.

For starters, a vast majority of the people in the New Testament have shown to have existed in other historical writings besides the bible. The time frame is accurate as well.

Please do go into detail, because I was hoping to avoid other people as a credible source. People can be deceptive and vastly unreliable, so I don't find them to be a "real world" explanation for proving the bible as historical fact.

The Bible: The Inerrant Word of God

A Definition of Inerrancy

The word inerrancy means “freedom from error or untruths.” Synonyms inlcude “certainty, assuredness, objective certainty, infallibility.” But doesn’t the concept of inspiration automatically imply inerrancy? So we might ask the question, “Why this section on the inerrancy of the Bible?” Ryrie has an excellent explanation in answer to this question.

Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.52

Clarifying the definition of inerrancy has become necessary because many have, in very subtle ways, retained words like inspiration, infallible, and even inerrant in speaking about the Bible while denying its freedom from error.

E. J. Young, in his classic work on the inspiration of the Bible, gives us good definition of inerrancy: “By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.”53

Concerning the definition of inerrancy, Ryrie explains:

Definitions of inerrancy are not plentiful! Errantists equate inerrancy with infallibility and then limit its scope to matters of faith and practice or to revelational matters or to the message of salvation. An example of this: “The Bible is infallible, as I define that term, but not inerrant. That is, there are historical and scientific errors in the Bible, but I have found none on matters of faith and practice” (Stephen T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977], p. 115). At least this is an honest distinction between infallibility and inerrancy.54

In view of this, when defining inerrancy, it is always important to state clearly what it means and what it does not mean.

It does not demand rigidity of style and verbatim quotations from the Old Testament. ‘The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.’ (Charles C. Ryrie, What You Should Know About Inerrancy, p. 16). At the Chicago meeting in October 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy issued the following statement on inerrancy: ‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)”55

Ryrie makes an important comment regarding the statement at Chicago.

The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in its Chicago statement affirmed inerrancy in a brief statement that the “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching.…” Then followed nineteen articles to further describe and explain inerrancy.

This brief statement would be unsatisfactory to errantists. If there were any doubt about that, certainly the nineteen-article elaboration would exclude errantists’ agreeing with it.56

It is important to bear in mind that belief in inerrancy is in keeping with the character of God. If God is true and He is (Rom. 3:4), and if God breathed out the Scripture, then the Scripture, being the product of God, must also be true. This is why the Psalmist affirms, “All your words are true” (Ps. 119:160a).

Clarifications Regarding Inerrancy

A number of different issues invariably come up when considering the doctrine of inerrancy. What about the variety of styles, or the varying ways certain events are described, or the different reports of events? How does this mesh with the concept of inerrancy? Paul Enns has done an excellent job in summarizing these fundamental issues.

Inerrancy allows for variety in style. The gospel of John was written in the simple style one might expect of an unlearned fisherman; Luke was written with a more sophisticated vocabulary of an educated person; Paul’s epistles reflect the logic of a philosopher. All of these variations are entirely compatible with inerrancy.

Inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event. This phenomenon is particularly observed in the synoptic gospels. It is important to remember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the writers of Scripture wrote their accounts in Greek, meaning they had to translate the original words into Greek. One writer would use slightly different words to describe the same incident, yet both would give the same meaning, albeit with different words. There is an additional reason for variety in details. One writer might have viewed the event from one standpoint while the other gospel writer viewed it from another standpoint. This would make the details appear different, yet both would be accurate.

Inerrancy does not demand verbatim reporting of events. “In times of antiquity it was not the practice to give a verbatim repetition every time something was written out” (E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, p. 119). A verbatim quote could not be demanded for several reasons. First, as already mentioned, the writer had to translate from Aramaic to Greek in recording Jesus’ words. Second, in making reference to Old Testament texts it would have been impossible to unroll the lengthy scrolls each time to produce a verbatim quote; furthermore, the scrolls were not readily available, hence, the freedom in Old Testament quotes (William R. Eichhorst, The Issue of Biblical Inerrancy: In Definition and Defence, Winnipeg, Man.: Winnipeg Bible College, n.d., p. 9).

Inerrancy allows for departure from standard forms of grammar. Obviously it is wrong to force English rules of grammar upon the Scriptures. For example, in John 10:9 Jesus declares, “I am the door,” whereas in verse 11 He states, “I am the Good Shepherd.” In English this is considered mixing metaphors, but this is not a problem to Greek grammar or Hebrew language. In John 14:26 Jesus refers to the Spirit (pneuma = neuter) and then refers to the Spirit as “He” (ekeinos = masculine). This may raise an English grammarian’s eyebrows, but it is not a problem of Greek grammar.

Inerrancy allows for problem passages. Even with so vast a work as the Holy Scriptures it is impossible to provide solutions to all the problems. In some cases the solution awaits the findings of the archaeologist’s spade; in another case it awaits the linguist’s research; in other cases the solution may never be discovered for other reasons. The solution to some problems must be held in abeyance. The answer, however, is never to suggest there are contradictions or errors in Scripture. If the Scriptures are God-breathed they are entirely without error.

Inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction. In the statements of Scripture, whatever is written is in accord with things as they are. Details may vary but it may still reflect things as they are. For example, in Matthew 8:5-13 it is noted that the centurion came to Jesus and said, “I am not qualified.” In the parallel passage in Luke 7:1-10 it is noted that the elders came and said concerning the centurion, “He is worthy.” It appears the elders first came and spoke to Jesus, and later the centurion himself came. Both accounts are in accord with things as they are.57

What Happens If Inerrancy Is Denied?

How important is inerrancy? What happens when this doctrine is denied? There are those (and some are even evangelicals) who believe that inerrancy is not important. We do not need to defend the Bible, particularly as it relates to the details of chronology, geography, history, or cosmology or the so-called alleged discrepancies. But how sound is this kind of thinking and how does it stack up with the teaching of the Bible and particularly with what Christ taught?

If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true? Also, the chronology, geography, and history of the Bible are often woven together like strands of a basket with vital spiritual truths. As you cannot start pulling strands out of a woven basket without doing damage to the whole, so it is with the Bible.

For instance, is the history of Adam and Eve important? Absolutely, for Paul developed a theological analogy between Adam and Christ which essentially breaks down if it is historically not true. The Old Testament has dozens of prophecies of the coming Messiah that detail his lineage. If the genealogy of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are historically inaccurate, then this raises questions about whether Jesus is the one anticipated as well as about the rest of His life.

As Ryrie points out, “Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.”58 If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?

I recently received an email question regarding the story recorded in the gospels where Jesus delivered two demon possessed men and sent the demons into a herd of swine. Assuming that the owners of the pigs were Jews (which they were not), the person sending the email doubted the historicity of the account because they could not imagine Jews raising pigs since it was contrary to the law for them to eat pork. A person believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, would know that the account was historical and accurate. Therefore, the apparent problem was not in the accuracy of the Scripture, but in their understanding of the event, which was precisely the case.

A denial of inerrancy is a serious matter and will lead to the following kinds of problems doctrinally and practically:

When inerrancy is denied one may expect some serious fallout in both doctrinal and practical areas.

Some doctrinal matters which may be affected by denying inerrancy include the following.

(1) A denial of the historical fall of Adam.

(2) A denial of the facts of the experiences of the Prophet Jonah.

(3) An explaining away of some of the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments.

(4) A denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

(5) A belief in two or more authors of the Book of Isaiah.

(6) A flirting with or embracing of liberation theology with its redefining of sin (as societal rather than individual) and salvation (as political and temporal rather than spiritual and eternal).

Some lifestyle errors that may follow a denial of inerrancy include the following.

(1) A loose view of the seriousness of adultery.

(2) A loose view of the seriousness of homosexuality.

(3) A loose view of divorce and remarriage.

(4) “Cultural” reinterpretation of some of the teachings of the Bible (e.g., teaching on women, teaching on civil obedience).

(5) A tendency to view the Bible through a modern psychological grid.

Inerrancy is an important doctrine, the denial or even diluting of which may result in serious doctrinal and life errors.59

Support for Inerrancy
from the Teachings of Christ

A study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Rom. 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.

Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:

(1) Its entirety; the whole of the Bible is inspired (Matt. 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan’s temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration). In Matthew 5:17-18, Christ promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. In fact, He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. Christ’s point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled.

(2) Its historicity; He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history. Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8). He spoke of Jonah and his experience in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matt. 12:40). He also verified the events of the flood in Noah’s day along with the ark (Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27). He verified God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). These are only a few illustrations; many others exist.

(3) Its reliability; because it is God’s word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54).

(4) Its sufficiency; it is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His salvation (Luke 16:31).

(5) Its indestructibility; heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matt. 5:17-18).

(6) Its unity; the whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44).

(7) Its inerrancy; men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).

(8) Its infallibility; the Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35).


52 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.

53 E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 113.

In my humble opinion brother, If the Holy Ghost of Spirit of God who is the One who is supposed to dwell on the inside of all of the genuine born-again believers in Christ Jesus, isn't speaking to your heart and soul at all times about the word of God, or the Christian Bible as being, ''Rock Solid" just as Jesus Christ is the, "Chief Cornerstone" of His church and including being the Lord over all things, then maybe you should re-evaluate your own salvation at this time, or at least your own faith issues as to why you should still be looking here.

These things are real and binding to all of us, no matter what we might believe or think.

Are you spending enough time on your own seeking the information that you need right now asking God Himself through prayer? Do you really need it at all?

In the end having the Holy Spirit in the midst of your life will become a legal issue in the sense of God's final Judgments towards humanity which should concern us all.
You will not be able to, "Lawyer up" without Him being in you now, that being, if you were to die today and were expedited into the kingdom of God without the proof of God's inerrancy taking you there, as it has abided in you from the beginning or whenever He came to, "tabernacle" with you and inside of you.
Not a scare tactic here by me stating these things of you, but is a fact and is inerrant and I kid you not.

If the word of God would have been error in any one point from the beginning, then there would be no final Judgment of God toward anyone or anything. Even the Devil and Satan knows this quite well of these facts as he actively attempts with his minions to break the word in any one point or any part thereof, every single second of every single day!

This is Warfare Maximus; it is about living and winning; it is about losing and dying.

We are all called to fight! Where is your armor brother? You'll get zapped out here without it.

This, is this, and there it is. A good name shouldn't be chosen over great wealth (or the great wealth that the world has to offer).

Jim

Kapeech Brother?

So we are using the argument that the Bible is inerrant and the word of God, because it says so?

No.

Or it might not. Before spending one's money to buy the book, I'd suggest reading the review at http://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html. Below is a very brief extract from the intro:

It appears that the author was far from conducting an objective, impartial investigation into the matter.

FWIW, there is also a video documentary of Strobel and his "investigation" at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-case-for-christ/.

SOMT,
Here is a website that shows where non Christians talk about Jesus.

Link

The only support for inerrancy in your copy/paste response was the teachings of Christ (from the Bible).  The copy/paste response also seems to repurpose the definition of "inerrant" to include a "book that contains a central theme in it's teaching".  That is a pretty low bar.  

Not to mention, redefining a word to match your objective is somewhat Clintonesque. :)

Believing in an inerrant Bible, how do you reconcile the conflicting versions the Bible presents of the empty tomb?

Those sources do not necessarily talk about Jesus, but they do talk about his followers.  I don't think that there is much dispute that Jesus was a man who existed and that he had followers.

The quote from Josephus is the only one directly talking about Jesus as if he had actual knowledge of the person, but the authorship of that passage is in dispute.

Also "historical reliability of the canonical gospels" does not equal proof of truth in entirety.  I have read some Louis L'Amour books that are historically accurate, but I don't pretend they are true stories.

<><

Beyond this; I really cannot say much more on the subject at hand.

What would be the use?

This is inherently still the problem here. I'm not trying to discredit anyone's beliefs here, so let's get that straight right now before any confusion.
What I seek is proof not from the bible itself, and not from someone else saying so. Allow me to make a statement, hopefully not in negative context. Again, the ONLY reason I am asking these questions is because I seek knowledge about the subject.
Before the bible, there is assumingly-so these people who exist. Prophets, God himself, his son Jesus, etc. What they believed, and have been believed to have done, comes from stories in the bible and maybe a couple runoff books.
Were talking about a BOOK, that contains several different stories compiled into one book. This book was rewritten and rewritten several times as time goes on. Understandably so because they wanted these stories to be passed on and paper doesn't last forever.
So here we have a book, written by man and rewritten by man. We are expected to believe the this book lacks error and that the beliefs lack error. So what this comes down to is, we are told the bible is historical fact (or just fact in general with some of the stories being known as literary lessons) because some people say so. There is nothing else needed, other than a man telling you it's true, for people to believe the bible is fact?

What I ask is not proof from man. Man was not created perfect, there is no arguing that or we would not have sin and therefore wouldn't have needed Jesus to die for us to relieve our sins. If man is not perfect, then a book cannot be perfect. What I'm getting at is the claim that the bible lacks error, but is created by an error filled being.
This is why nonbelievers have grief with believers. It's that believers follow a book that proves nothing. There is no proof in the bible, it is impossible. You are simply expected to believe it is true and real.
What I ask, and again this is for my own knowledge and not to bash these beliefs in any way regardless as to how it may seem, is for some proof or reason to believe the bible. Just saying "these people say it's true and the bible says you must simply believe" is where all of this lacks credibility.

I want to know why people believe. If it is just "because they are told the bible is true", then that's fine. To each his own and I have no right to argue that. I just don't want to be the person who doesn't even take the time to learn about this.

By the way I never said I was an athiest or a theist, and it'll stay that way. To me that's irrelevant to this question.




This is useless to me.

Well said.  I feel the same way.

Why is it useless?