What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings? (page 9)

PSacramento

RE" "tweaking" the bible.

If one believes that the name of God can be "tweaked" out of Holy Sripture, who is to say that other things haven't been "tweaked" out?

AK - Jeff

Or - whose to say that many other things have not been 'tweaked' in?

If I was building a legend [or a religion], I would tweak in miracles, ressurections, too. There is no known 'evidence' existing that any of these things really happened is there?

If someone suggested that Muslims could show you 'proof' that the Koran was truly the 'word of God' [and Muslims believe this don't they?], Christians would simply explain-away any miraculous portions. How can the book itself be 'proof' of anything? It's a book - written by man, claiming to be inspired in part, translated and re-translated for millenia now. Even today it is undergoing transformation by translators. It was hidden from the ordinary man for hundreds of years - written in tongues he couldn't read.

The point of this thread is Paul's words specifically. But in general it applies as well.

Jeff

reniaa

ak jeff shows what happens when you start disbeliefing parts of the bible it quickly unravels so you can't find any of it believable.

The bible is an All or nothing deal otherwise you are just setting yourself up for atheism.

Reniaa

AK - Jeff

Bullshit, Ren!

Who ever told you that finding realism outside of the Bible makes one an atheist? Are Muslim's atheists? Buddhist's? Give me a break!

Was Abraham an atheist? He didn't have the Bible.

Jeff

AK - Jeff

It is true that under scrutiny, the Bible unravels pretty quickly. Yet, sadly, many would prefer to ignore that and believe it without inspection. NOW, that makes better sense than finding out if it holds water, doesn't it?

Jeff

XJW4EVR

It is true that under scrutiny, the Bible unravels pretty quickly.

Really? How so?

Yet, sadly, many would prefer to ignore that and believe it without inspection.

Couldn't the same be said for those that wish to reject the evidence for the inspiration of the Bible out of hand?

NOW, that makes better sense than finding out if it holds water, doesn't it?

Sure, are you willing to find out whether your view regarding the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament "holds water"? In my experience, most skeptics are unwilling to abandon the presuppostion that the Bible is not the word of God regardless of what the evidence demonstrates.

PSacramento

I think that it is very easy for someone to get confused in regards to the bible and that makes it easier for some to "impose" their interpretation of the bible on others.

I think that we must understand that, if we choose to follow a certain interpretation of the bible, a certian viewpoint, certain doctrines and such, that we must be aware that we are doing jsut that, follwoing our chosen interpretation of scripture.

As such we can't condem other for different views.

History has shown that, all religious organization have/had views that have either changed or been clung on to which ate tenious at best.

AK - Jeff

Sure, are you willing to find out whether your view regarding the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament "holds water"?

Yes! Please prove it. Show me irrefutable evidence and I will accept it. So far, all you can do is ridicule my statements, as if that makes them false. I am not seeking to prove the NT false - I am asking that someone prove it true instead of constant credulous acceptance without evidence.

Jeff

AK - Jeff

If you have the evidence, bring it on.

So far all I hear is blind acceptance. I did believe the scriptures for most of my life. They have unravelled due to inspection of the contents - some of which has been discussed here. If you want to believe them - fine. If you want to convince me that you have something of interest to add to this discussion, please present.

Jeff

XJW4EVR

OK Jeff, what sort of evidence would you deem as acceptable?

What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?

Share this