3 ms·

I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway, but in my opinion you still need that leap of faith to believe that not only all those eye witnesses were tel

I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway, but in my opinion you still need that leap of faith to believe that not only all those eye witnesses were telling the truth, but also that the accounts recorded over 2000 years ago are still preserved the way they were. But frankly all this discussion is moot considering that if you believe in an omnipotent god, all other things should come naturally. I mean if a Being can create the entire universe from nothing (via the big bang or otherwise), then creating a Y-chromosome out of nothing is a very small feat for such a being. Now on the contrary, if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts. Especially considering that history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name.

nocman 12y ago
"I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway" No need to apologize (though I do appreciate the civility). I was not offended -- I just did not want anyone to think that my beliefs were based on no evidence, because that is not true. Your point about believing in God as an omnipotent being is important. You said "...if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts." I merely suggested that people read one of the accounts. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe those accounts are accurate, because God has protected them, because they are His testimony about Himself and how He has dealt with man's sin. And I believe these things because I read the accounts and was convinced that they were true, and that the accounts themselves were of divine origin. I'm not trying to argue anyone into becoming a Christian. I'm merely stating my own beliefs, trying to explain the reasons behind them, and encouraging anyone who is interested to read the book that led me to those beliefs. On the other point, the fact that "history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name" is really not an issue to me. It is cutting a pretty big swath to lump everyone who has some belief in a supreme being into one large group. There are vastly differing beliefs between people which lead them in vastly different directions. There are always people who will use anything they can for their own selfish gain. It think it is a huge mistake to ignore God altogether just because many people have done evil things in His name. My faith is not in other people. My faith is in Christ. I am convinced He is not just an ordinary man, but that He is God in the flesh. The things that He said and did, the way He talked to people, the way He answered people's questions. All of that convinced me of who He is. Again, if anyone is interested I would encourage you to read the book of John (I linked to it in my other posts on this subject) and to draw your own conclusions.
lotharbot 12y ago
> "leap of faith to believe ... the accounts recorded over 2000 years ago are still preserved the way they were." It's not so much a leap of faith as a study of manuscript integrity. The field of study is called "textual criticism". I can't do it justice in a single Hacker News comment, but you can find fairly substantial scholarly books and articles on the subject. When it comes to the New Testament, one of the keys for analysis is the multitude of spread-out manuscripts. They have subtle differences from each other, like spelling mistakes (which help us trace lineage -- the same spelling error often appears in later copies from the same source), but the core stories are extremely well preserved -- not changing from early to late manuscripts, or from region to region. It's also worth reading through the other writings of the early church, from the first 2 centuries, which extensively quote/reference those same accounts. The sum total of the evidence is that the current version of the Biblical accounts of who Jesus was were written within about 30 years of his death and well-preserved from that time period onward. (There's also what we call "higher criticism", which looks at how the contents of the text correspond to known history etc. That also establishes the gospels as written ~30 years after Jesus' death. My favorite oddball data: statistical distributions of the names in the gospels compared to names uncovered in archaeological digs -- the common names are correct for first century Palestinian Jews, not Egyptian or Greek Jews.) There are definitely leaps of faith involved in Christianity. "Does my book of Matthew match the first century book of Matthew?" is not one of them.
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  For those wondering about sources, Wikipedia has a solid article on the dates in the bible, and seem to settle on about 50 CE as the original authorship dates. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible] Totally ignorant question, but what year is accepted as the official death for Jesus?
  - lotharbot 12y ago
    > "what year is accepted as the official death for Jesus?" There's some disagreement, but in the research I was doing this morning the most commonly accepted date I found was April 7, 30 AD. (Other common dates are March 25 or April 25, 31 AD.) Interestingly enough, this provides the source for the date of Christmas. There's an old tradition that says Jewish prophets always live a whole number of years, so their death and conception are the same date, putting their birth date 9 months later / 3 months earlier. The two dates being celebrated in the 2nd century church were December 25 (based on the March 25, 31 AD date) and January 7 (based on April 7, 30 AD). We now call those two dates "Christmas" and "Epiphany". You can find these dates discussed by Sextus Julius Africanus (160-240 AD), Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, 180 AD), and Hippolytus (commentary on Daniel, 204 AD). Rumors about hijacking a pagan celebration date started several centuries later, by Jacob Bar-Salibi in the 12th century. He probably got his causation backwards -- the Dec 25 celebration "Sol Invictus" was a result of emperor Aurelius' decree in 274 AD, meaning it took a date Christians had already been celebrating a century earlier.

nocman 12y ago

"I apologize if what I said offended you in anyway" No need to apologize (though I do appreciate the civility). I was not offended -- I just did not want anyone to think that my beliefs were based on no evidence, because that is not true. Your point about believing in God as an omnipotent being is important. You said "...if someone chooses not to believe in such a god, then I don't see how you can make them believe virgin births or the integrity of 2000 year old eye witness accounts." I merely suggested that people read one of the accounts. I believe God is omnipotent. I believe those accounts are accurate, because God has protected them, because they are His testimony about Himself and how He has dealt with man's sin. And I believe these things because I read the accounts and was convinced that they were true, and that the accounts themselves were of divine origin. I'm not trying to argue anyone into becoming a Christian. I'm merely stating my own beliefs, trying to explain the reasons behind them, and encouraging anyone who is interested to read the book that led me to those beliefs. On the other point, the fact that "history is full of people who used religion to serve their own agenda (recent example: Al Qaeda) thus giving religion as a whole, a bad name" is really not an issue to me. It is cutting a pretty big swath to lump everyone who has some belief in a supreme being into one large group. There are vastly differing beliefs between people which lead them in vastly different directions. There are always people who will use anything they can for their own selfish gain. It think it is a huge mistake to ignore God altogether just because many people have done evil things in His name. My faith is not in other people. My faith is in Christ. I am convinced He is not just an ordinary man, but that He is God in the flesh. The things that He said and did, the way He talked to people, the way He answered people's questions. All of that convinced me of who He is. Again, if anyone is interested I would encourage you to read the book of John (I linked to it in my other posts on this subject) and to draw your own conclusions.

lotharbot 12y ago

> "leap of faith to believe ... the accounts recorded over 2000 years ago are still preserved the way they were." It's not so much a leap of faith as a study of manuscript integrity. The field of study is called "textual criticism". I can't do it justice in a single Hacker News comment, but you can find fairly substantial scholarly books and articles on the subject. When it comes to the New Testament, one of the keys for analysis is the multitude of spread-out manuscripts. They have subtle differences from each other, like spelling mistakes (which help us trace lineage -- the same spelling error often appears in later copies from the same source), but the core stories are extremely well preserved -- not changing from early to late manuscripts, or from region to region. It's also worth reading through the other writings of the early church, from the first 2 centuries, which extensively quote/reference those same accounts. The sum total of the evidence is that the current version of the Biblical accounts of who Jesus was were written within about 30 years of his death and well-preserved from that time period onward. (There's also what we call "higher criticism", which looks at how the contents of the text correspond to known history etc. That also establishes the gospels as written ~30 years after Jesus' death. My favorite oddball data: statistical distributions of the names in the gospels compared to names uncovered in archaeological digs -- the common names are correct for first century Palestinian Jews, not Egyptian or Greek Jews.) There are definitely leaps of faith involved in Christianity. "Does my book of Matthew match the first century book of Matthew?" is not one of them.

jobposter1234 12y ago
For those wondering about sources, Wikipedia has a solid article on the dates in the bible, and seem to settle on about 50 CE as the original authorship dates. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible] Totally ignorant question, but what year is accepted as the official death for Jesus?
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "what year is accepted as the official death for Jesus?" There's some disagreement, but in the research I was doing this morning the most commonly accepted date I found was April 7, 30 AD. (Other common dates are March 25 or April 25, 31 AD.) Interestingly enough, this provides the source for the date of Christmas. There's an old tradition that says Jewish prophets always live a whole number of years, so their death and conception are the same date, putting their birth date 9 months later / 3 months earlier. The two dates being celebrated in the 2nd century church were December 25 (based on the March 25, 31 AD date) and January 7 (based on April 7, 30 AD). We now call those two dates "Christmas" and "Epiphany". You can find these dates discussed by Sextus Julius Africanus (160-240 AD), Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, 180 AD), and Hippolytus (commentary on Daniel, 204 AD). Rumors about hijacking a pagan celebration date started several centuries later, by Jacob Bar-Salibi in the 12th century. He probably got his causation backwards -- the Dec 25 celebration "Sol Invictus" was a result of emperor Aurelius' decree in 274 AD, meaning it took a date Christians had already been celebrating a century earlier.