|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 10:56:41 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I don't debate your logic regarding the seismic activity in that area of the world. You make a logical point here. However, how do you account for all the references that Jesus made throughout the gospel accounts to "I AM" in relation to attributes given to God Himself throughout the Old Testament? Just check out this article for a long list of these quotes throughout the gospel accounts.
www.letusreason.org/trin23.htm
www.gotquestions.org/I-AM.html
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 11:04:12 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I don't debate your logic regarding the seismic activity in that area of the world. You make a logical point here. However, how do you account for all the references that Jesus made throughout the gospel accounts to "I am" in relation to attributes given to God Himself throughout the Old Testament? Just check out this article for a long list of these quotes throughout the gospel accounts.
www.letusreason.org/trin23.htm Faune, I do not consider the Bible to be a reliable historical document. There could be double, even triple the number of references to "I am" in the gospel accounts and I would be no more convinced!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 11:27:28 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I don't debate your logic regarding the seismic activity in that area of the world. You make a logical point here. However, how do you account for all the references that Jesus made throughout the gospel accounts to "I am" in relation to attributes given to God Himself throughout the Old Testament? Just check out this article for a long list of these quotes throughout the gospel accounts.
www.letusreason.org/trin23.htm Faune, I do not consider the Bible to be a reliable historical document. There could be double, even triple the number of references to "I am" in the gospel accounts and I would be no more convinced! Matisse ~ I'm very knowledgeable of that fact about you. However, for those who are still open to what the Bible has to say in this respect, I would like to share the conclusion of that article I referenced previously for consideration.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 11:32:15 GMT -5
First post on something that caught my attention. Satan was tempting Jesus to tempt God by casting himself from the temple. Jesus wasn't referring to himself as God but was saying that he shouldn't tempt God into saving him (Jesus) by jumping off the temple. If that makes any sense. I enjoyed what Wally posted in Luke 4 gospel where Jesus reminded Satan that He was still Satan's, Lord/Yahweh I AM God. Satan was casting doubt with the word " IF Thou be the Son of God..." And Jesus replied to Satan, that He is the Lord God I AM Himself, NO! IF about it. Maybe others could share their thoughts where in the Scriptures Jesus claimed he was God.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: Luke 4:11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Here are many verses where Jesus claimed He WAS God the Almighty the "I AM that I AM God" for you to ponder...
~~~ Nathan: Jesus claimed he was God/the Son, when he was alive and the Jews did NOT believe him so they crucified him on Calvary's Cross for BLASPHEMY! A man calling himself God in John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. John 10:30-33 I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus Christ Claims to be God NOT just in the gospel of John but in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells Satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.
Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said...but I say to you.."
Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46 - not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord." Jesus calls Himself Lord, which is God.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.
Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 - Jesus says that He is "Lord of the Sabbath." He is the Lord of God's law which means He is God.
Matt. 18:20 - Jesus says where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them.
Matt. 21:3; Luke 19:31,34 - Jesus calls himself "Lord." "The Lord has need of them."
Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70 - Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God.
Matt. 28:20 - Jesus said He is with us always, even unto the end of the world. Only God is omnipresent.
Mark 14:36 - Jesus calls God "Abba," Aramaic for daddy, which was an absolutely unprecedented address to God and demonstrates Jesus' unique intimacy with the Father.
Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said "tell how much God has done for you." And the man declared how much Jesus did.
Luke 17:18 - Jesus asks why the other nine lepers did not come back to give praise to Him, God, except the Samaritan leper.
Luke 19:38,40 - Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. If these were silent, the very stones would cry out.
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#jesus-III
Nathan ~ I believe we were thinking the same thing and posted about the same time? However, your quotes above just compliment my own submissions in reference to the words Jesus often used in describing himself and his mission ~ namely, "I AM." Thanks for sharing these other references from the synoptic gospels, too, with your notes in red highlights! For those who still doubt Jesus made such statements regarding Himself as God in the flesh, I feel we have covered all the bases from the New Testament here?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 11:43:52 GMT -5
Faune, I do not consider the Bible to be a reliable historical document. There could be double, even triple the number of references to "I am" in the gospel accounts and I would be no more convinced! Matisse ~ I'm very knowledgeable of that fact about you. However, for those who are still open to what the Bible has to say in this respect, I would like to share the conclusion of that article I referenced previously for consideration.
Faune, if you know I do not consider the Bible to be authoritative, then why did you challenge me to "account" for something written in it?? I do not understand your apparent need to lob Bible verses at me!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 11:54:38 GMT -5
Matisse ~ It's not my intention to "lob Bible verses" at you personally. My response was designed for anybody who reads these posts on this thread and not geared for you particularly. However, it's hard to take the Bible verses out of the equation when you are trying to defend what Jesus actually said about himself, don't you think? It's all part of the complete package, in my opinion, regardless of your views about the Bible not being an authoritative account. However, I also gave secular historical references from first century earlier in this thread to verify that Jesus existed, had a following, was rumored to perform miracles, and died by crucifixion. As far as the resurrection accounts go, I have no other reference than the Bible itself and what views were shared by early Christians regarding Jesus' divinity from the Early Church Fathers, which I also presented.
Matisse shared...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 12:32:52 GMT -5
In addition, I would like to bring out that there were a lot of self proclaimed Messiahs during the first century; however, they all disappeared from the pages of history except for Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps the resurrection appearance had something to do with this fact along with his claim that his Kingdom was not of this world and He was returning to his heavenly Father? When people witnessed his ascension on the Mount of Olives, undoubtedly news spread quickly that Jesus was alive and contributed to believers in Jesus' divinity and promises to his followers? I might mention also that there was no mention of these other Jewish Messiahs being resurrected from the dead or their following continuing after they died by crucifixion for alleged insurrection against the leadership of Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 13:37:05 GMT -5
In addition, I would like to bring out that there were a lot of self proclaimed Messiahs during the first century; however, they all disappeared from the pages of history except for Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps the resurrection appearance had something to do with this fact along with his claim that his Kingdom was not of this world and He was returning to his heavenly Father? When people witnessed his ascension on the Mount of Olives, undoubtedly news spread quickly that Jesus was alive and contributed to believers in Jesus' divinity and promises to his followers? I might mention also that there was no mention of these other Jewish Messiahs being resurrected from the dead or their following continuing after they died by crucifixion for alleged insurrection against the leadership of Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Google "Resurrection Myths in Religion" and read especially about the pagan Sun God, Mithra and "Mithraism" which was very popular in Rome during the earliest phase of Christianity. You will find many parallels, including the dedication of "Sun-day" as the "Day of our Lord", a belief that Mithra would judge men's deeds, and a ritual involving the representation of the death, burial (in a rock tomb) and resurrection of Mithra, as well as a "sign of the cross" used by followers. You might also investigate the Syrian cult of Adonis...also represented in its liturgy as "dying and then rising again on the third day....also mourned by women and discovered risen by women on the third day. There is also the Egyptian cult of osiris, who also reportedly rose from being dead on the third day. I am sure you can find plenty of Christian apologists to defend you against these... I personally find the parallels to be remarkable and it seems likely to me that elements of pre-existing belief systems were incorporated into Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 14:22:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 14:28:54 GMT -5
The Devil was One of the highest rank archangel of God Order. God created all the angels. God existed before all of the angels. The Devil/Seprent tried to overthrown God authority in heaven but he and 1/3 of his fallen angels failed. The Devil wants God, the angels, and humans to worship him as God. The Devil has to act and imitate himself as God. He wanted to be served and NOT to be servants to anyone but God created the devil to be a servant to God and humans.
All pagans belief, rituals, teachings all came from God's thoughts, ideas and the devil just copied and he made it looked like it was his own idea. God/Judaism/Christianity copied it from Pagan religions/the Devil. That pesky Devil...foils God's best-laid plans yet again.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 15:09:48 GMT -5
In addition, I would like to bring out that there were a lot of self proclaimed Messiahs during the first century; however, they all disappeared from the pages of history except for Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps the resurrection appearance had something to do with this fact along with his claim that his Kingdom was not of this world and He was returning to his heavenly Father? When people witnessed his ascension on the Mount of Olives, undoubtedly news spread quickly that Jesus was alive and contributed to believers in Jesus' divinity and promises to his followers? I might mention also that there was no mention of these other Jewish Messiahs being resurrected from the dead or their following continuing after they died by crucifixion for alleged insurrection against the leadership of Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. Google "Resurrection Myths in Religion" and read especially about the pagan Sun God, Mithra and "Mithraism" which was very popular in Rome during the earliest phase of Christianity. You will find many parallels, including the dedication of "Sun-day" as the "Day of our Lord", a belief that Mithra would judge men's deeds, and a ritual involving the representation of the death, burial (in a rock tomb) and resurrection of Mithra, as well as a "sign of the cross" used by followers. You might also investigate the Syrian cult of Adonis...also represented in its liturgy as "dying and then rising again on the third day....also mourned by women and discovered risen by women on the third day. There is also the Egyptian cult of osiris, who also reportedly rose from being dead on the third day. I am sure you can find plenty of Christian apologists to defend you against these... I personally find the parallels to be remarkable and it seems likely to me that elements of pre-existing belief systems were incorporated into Christianity. Matisse ~ I have also studied the same claims in the past years and read books on these different Roman and Egyptian god myths. However, when you look closer at the actually details surrounding these god-men, you find there are some distinct differences in the actual stories in relation to the gospel accounts, especially the resurrection. However, I do appreciate you bringing up this point, which should be considered as well in any discussion like this. In fact, I did two threads in the past that dealt with this particular subject entitled Christian Dilemmas and Lost Christianities. The latter one dealt with the earlier Christian groups of the first century that faded from existence over time.
professing.proboards.com/thread/22036/christian-dilemmas?page=1
professing.proboards.com/thread/22116/lost-christianities?page=1
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 15:10:14 GMT -5
That pesky Devil...foils God's best-laid plans yet again. Satan thinks he is foils God best=laid plan... but in doing so he is fulfilled God's plan. Remember, God is one kingdom above Satan. Satan is keep on forgetting that God is much wiser, smarter than him by far.Of course! There is an "answer" for every head-scratching question!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 15:39:01 GMT -5
Matisse ~ That's actually quite an interesting article and the Religious Tolerance site is a pretty reliable source of information. However, I believe many of these points within this article were also presented in my thread on Christian Dilemmas a while back? However, I notice that the basis of this article seems to be more centered around the different mythicists interpretations of events? Even Bart Ehrman debunks a number of these mythicists views in one of his latest books, "Did Jesus Exists," and he's an atheist/agnostic today with no ax to grind. As a historian and Bible scholar, he also believes that Jesus physically existed during the first century and died by crucifixion. What he doesn't feel is supported by historical evidence is the virgin birth and resurrection account. Honestly, that would be hard to verify, when you think about it, because even some of the historical records from that time are thought to have been added to along with additional verses added to the Bible. The reference to the dead saints who arose from their graves and walked around town in Matthew 27:52-53 is just one account that is believed to be an example of an add-on to Matthew's gospel account, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 17, 2014 15:55:54 GMT -5
Matisse ~ That's actually quite an interesting article and the Religious Tolerance site is a pretty reliable source of information. However, I believe many of these points within this article were also presented in my thread on Christian Dilemmas a while back? However, I notice that the basis of this article seems to be more centered around the different mythicists interpretations of events? Even Bart Ehrman debunks a number of these mythicists views in one of his latest books, "Did Jesus Exists," and he's an atheist/agnostic today with no ax to grind. As a historian and Bible scholar, he also believes that Jesus physically existed during the first century and died by crucifixion. What he doesn't feel is supported by historical evidence is the resurrection account. Honestly, that would be hard to verify, when you think about it, because even some of the historical records from that time are thought to have been added to along with additional verses added to the Bible. The reference to the dead saints who arose from their graves and walked around town in Matthew 27:52-53 is just one account that is believed to be an example of an add-on to Matthew's gospel account, in fact. I did not follow the thread you refer to. I think much of what is being discussed here has been discussed before in the course of any number of old threads! I think it is possible that Jesus existed as a bona fide human being and was put to death as recorded AND that significant parts of the biblical stories about him are fabricated....a composite of fact and fiction.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 16:13:42 GMT -5
Matisse ~ That's actually quite an interesting article and the Religious Tolerance site is a pretty reliable source of information. However, I believe many of these points within this article were also presented in my thread on Christian Dilemmas a while back? However, I notice that the basis of this article seems to be more centered around the different mythicists interpretations of events? Even Bart Ehrman debunks a number of these mythicists views in one of his latest books, "Did Jesus Exists," and he's an atheist/agnostic today with no ax to grind. As a historian and Bible scholar, he also believes that Jesus physically existed during the first century and died by crucifixion. What he doesn't feel is supported by historical evidence is the virgin birth and resurrection account. Honestly, that would be hard to verify, when you think about it, because even some of the historical records from that time are thought to have been added to along with additional verses added to the Bible. The reference to the dead saints who arose from their graves and walked around town in Matthew 27:52-53 is just one account that is believed to be an example of an add-on to Matthew's gospel account, in fact. I did not follow the thread you refer to. I think much of what is being discussed here has been discussed before in the course of any number of old threads! I think it is possible that Jesus existed as a bona fide human being and was put to death as recorded AND that significant parts of the biblical stories about him are fabricated....a composite of fact and fiction. Matisse ~ I believe that is the consensus of the opinion of modern day Bible scholars, like Bart Ehrman. The thread I referenced above did go into more detail along these lines, too. However, the mythicists claim the whole Bible is a bunch of fiction stories and that no real historical Jesus every existed, which is what Bart Ehrman debunks in his book referenced above.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 17, 2014 17:23:56 GMT -5
DMG shared ~
DMG ~ I believe you will ask for proof even then! LOL However, as I stated earlier, the purpose of this thread was to discover any proof that verifies the events found within the Bible relating to the life of Jesus which can be regarded as factual. Granted, there could have been some additions over the years to the gospel accounts by the RCC to promote Christianity; however, I was looking for historical evidence of Jesus' existence and any events recorded in the gospel accounts. I believe I did find what I was looking for in that respect and provided links to the same. However, unless you were there to witness the resurrection in person, how can you disclaim it never occurred and was a concoction by the Church? I believe you are also lacking in evidence to the contrary as much as I may be lacking in proof of the resurrection occurrence, IMHO? Honestly, can you provide any evidence that it didn't occur either? I will be awaiting your answer to that one beyond any presumption regarding the same. OMG, faune!
I have already stated it all before!.
Don't we all, including you, by now realize that the burden of proof is on the person who makes an argument for supernatural and paranormal beings & incidents ?
The burden of proof IS NOT on someone else to dis-prove them? How can anyone go about dis-proving such stuff as supernatural beings?
I didn't expect YOU to dis-prove the supernatural gods of the Vedas!
Now, I'm tired of explaining. So, NOW I AM going to challenge YOU to dis-prove those gods from the Vedas EVER existed.
I will be awaiting your answer to that one beyond any presumption.
Haven't we all, including you, by now realized that the burden of proof is on the person who makes an argument for supernatural and paranormal beings & incidents ? ( this case it is you , faune)
The burden of proof IS NOT on someone else to dis-prove them! How can anyone go about dis-proving such stuff as supernatural beings? The burden of proof is NOT on the person who doesn't believe!
Faune, I didn't expect YOU to dis-prove the supernatural gods of the Vedas! Now, I'm tired of explaining why the one who makes claims about supernatural and paranormal beings & incidents bears the burden of proof!
So I AM going to challenge YOU to dis-prove those gods from the Vedas EVER existed.
I will be awaiting your answer beyond your presumption
I AM STILL WAITING!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 17, 2014 17:38:04 GMT -5
Matisse ~ I'm very knowledgeable of that fact about you. However, for those who are still open to what the Bible has to say in this respect, I would like to share the conclusion of that article I referenced previously for consideration.
Faune, if you know I do not consider the Bible to be authoritative, then why did you challenge me to "account" for something written in it?? I do not understand your apparent need to lob Bible verses at me! Matisse, I agree. Neither do I understand why faune continues to have some apparent need to lob Bible verses at me!
That is the reason I once asked who she was trying to convince, me or herself?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 17, 2014 17:51:31 GMT -5
I did not follow the thread you refer to. I think much of what is being discussed here has been discussed before in the course of any number of old threads! I think it is possible that Jesus existed as a bona fide human being and was put to death as recorded AND that significant parts of the biblical stories about him are fabricated....a composite of fact and fiction. Matisse ~ I believe that is the consensus of the opinion of modern day Bible scholars, like Bart Ehrman. The thread I referenced above did go into more detail along these lines, too. However, the mythicists claim the whole Bible is a bunch of fiction stories and that no real historical Jesus every existed, which is what Bart Ehrman debunks in his book referenced above. I can accept the fact that perhaps a real historical Jesus existed, -but I cannot believe in that whole made up cloth about Jesus being able to perform miracles or was a supernatural being!
Why should I believe that about Jesus as factual anymore than I should believe Grimm's Fairy Tales are factual!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 17, 2014 19:22:42 GMT -5
DMG ~ In answer to your earlier question, I believe we have to take all things into consideration when reading the Bible, especially some of the stories that defy our imagination? However, I do believe a historical Jesus did exist and had a following and was a great teacher among the people, who was later crucified. Although his birth and early life is questionable due to numerous discrepancies within the different gospel accounts as well as noticeable errors within the recorded genealogies, I feel you can still determine that Jesus existed? However, to what degree his early life and ministry may have been embellished over the centuries remains to be seen? But, I still can't help but wonder how such a following could have resulted without some supernatural event, like the resurrection, contributing to the spread of Christianity? This article seems to sum things up well relating to the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, too, and the Christian fellowship practices during the first and second centuries, in which it appears the early Christians did regard Jesus as divine, as indicated by description below.
www.denisonforum.org/why-jesus
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 17, 2014 20:35:24 GMT -5
Determining that an earthquake took place during a particular 10 year period in a region with a long history of seismic activity doesn't strike me as being particularly noteworthy. Especially when that same 10 year period was the same as the period of time when Pilot was in place. In other words this ten year period was already determined by the fact that Pilot was in office in those years. So it narrowed the time frame down to the time frame that was already known.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 17, 2014 20:45:10 GMT -5
Also, in relating to the period of darkness at the time of the crucifixion, the NBC news article felt it could have been a dust storm that occurred back then and are looking into that angle? These people lived here. Don't you think if it had been a dust storm they would have called it a dust storm? You are grasping at straws. Oh, that makes sense! When there is a part of a verse that is so crazy there is no way to explain it just consider that one part to be false.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 17, 2014 22:25:38 GMT -5
DMG ~ In answer to your earlier question, ....
However, -you didn't answer my question, faune! I'll just ask it again: "Haven't we all, including you, by now realized that the burden of proof is on the person who makes an argument for supernatural and paranormal beings & incidents ? ( this case it is you , faune)
The burden of proof IS NOT on someone else to dis-prove them! Yet you state that I have no evidence that this supernatural event of the resurrection didn't happen. Also that I can NOT provide any evidence that it didn't occur . You are expecting me to dis-prove a supernatural event?
How can anyone go about dis-proving such stuff as supernatural beings?
The burden of proof is NOT on the person who doesn't believe!
Faune, I didn't expect YOU to dis-prove the supernatural gods of the Vedas! However now, I'm tired of explaining why the one who makes claims about supernatural and paranormal beings & incidents bears the burden of proof!
So I AM going to challenge YOU to dis-prove those gods from the Vedas EVER existed.
I will be awaiting your answer.
I AM STILL WAITING!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2014 0:25:37 GMT -5
DMG ~ I believe I did tell you earlier that the resurrection cannot be verified by historical evidence, but is believed to be true as a matter of faith that Jesus was who he claimed to be from scripture and that he was resurrected from the dead. Otherwise, how could one explain his following today if something supernatural didn't happen back in time? Also, I didn't ask you to prove anything to me either way regarding the resurrection. I was just giving you an honest answer in response to your question So, what's the big deal anyway There's no need to wait for some further response from me, as I never challenged you to prove me wrong on a matter of faith.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2014 1:20:17 GMT -5
DMG ~ I believe I did tell you earlier that the resurrection cannot be verified by historical evidence, but is believed to be true as a matter of faith that Jesus was who he claimed to be from scripture and that he was resurrected from the dead. Otherwise, how could one explain his following today if something supernatural didn't happen back in time? Also, I didn't ask you to prove anything to me either way regarding the resurrection. I was just giving you an honest answer in response to your question So, what's the big deal anyway There's no need to wait for some further response from me, as I never challenged you to prove me wrong on a matter of faith. Faune, here is your original postPost by faune on 16 Sep 2014 at 21:28"DMG shared ~ Wally, Speaking for myself, I will continue to ask "God" for "proof" even on judgment day!
DMG ~ I believe you will ask for proof even then! LOL
However, as I stated earlier, the purpose of this thread was to discover any proof that verifies the events found within the Bible relating to the life of Jesus which can be regarded as factual.
Granted, there could have been some additions over the years to the gospel accounts by the RCC to promote Christianity; however, I was looking for historical evidence of Jesus' existence and any events recorded in the gospel accounts.
I believe I did find what I was looking for in that respect and provided links to the same. However, unless you were there to witness the resurrection in person, how can you disclaim it never occurred and was a concoction by the Church?
I believe you are also lacking in evidence to the contrary as much as I may be lacking in proof of the resurrection occurrence, IMHO?
Honestly, can you provide any evidence that it didn't occur either?
I will be awaiting your answer to that one beyond any presumption regarding the same. "
You said that you were waiting for my answer. I gave you a answer.
I am still waiting an answer from you as to my questions.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Sept 18, 2014 2:18:16 GMT -5
DMG ~ Well, I guess my own words tripped me up here? LOL
However, I have nothing further to add to this discussion as far as historical evidence backing up the resurrection, as I brought out earlier within this same post you just quoted. Actually, I was just kidding with you about providing any evidence to the contrary, since I admitted it was a matter of faith surrounding the resurrection without historical evidence to back it up. Really, what more can I say that I haven't said already? However my exchange with you after stating this fact was solely "tongue-in-cheek" humor by using familiar words when caught between a rock and a hard place.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 18, 2014 2:52:09 GMT -5
DMG ~ Well, I guess my own words tripped me up here? LOL
However, I have nothing further to add to this discussion as far as historical evidence backing up the resurrection, as I brought out earlier within this same post you just quoted. Actually, I was just kidding with you about providing any evidence to the contrary, since I admitted it was a matter of faith surrounding the resurrection without historical evidence to back it up. Really, what more can I say that I haven't said already? However my exchange with you after stating this fact was solely "tongue-in-cheek" humor by using familiar words when caught between a rock and a hard place.
OK, faune.
Then you do understand how difficult it is for anyone to dis-prove any supernatural ideas and entities.
Many people who believe in a supernatural happening like the resurrection insist that non-believers should be able to dis-prove it happened. Skeptics get that argument all the time.
However, when one really thinks about it, there are many other supernatural incidents those same people don't believe. Yet they would not be able to dis-prove those supernatural incidents any more than we can.
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Sept 18, 2014 3:23:13 GMT -5
DMG ~ Well, I guess my own words tripped me up here? LOL
However, I have nothing further to add to this discussion as far as historical evidence backing up the resurrection, as I brought out earlier within this same post you just quoted. Actually, I was just kidding with you about providing any evidence to the contrary, since I admitted it was a matter of faith surrounding the resurrection without historical evidence to back it up. What more can I say that I haven't already? Of course, another way of looking at it is that the vast majority of Christians believe the complete account of Jesus as recorded in the Bible. They don't accept some parts (eg his teaching) and not accept other parts (eg his divinity) based on what they want to believe. They accept the Bible and also accept that the historicity of Jesus is supported by accounts outside of the Bible. On the other hand, the atheist who regards Jesus as a complete mythical character (it seems this view is on the increase amongst atheists) presumably has a problem when it comes to the historical accounts outside of the Bible. What does it do with them? Ignore them, gloss over them, discount them as inaccurate or discredit them? I've seen all of the above occur. The atheist who clearly discounts the supernatural side of Jesus but accepts that he was an historical figure also has a challenge. What do they do with Jesus? Do they discount only the supernatural parts of the Bible or do they completely reject the Bible altogether as a complete fraud? What do they do with the Bible? There is obviously a wide divergence of views and much has been written. Where does that leave the Christian? It would seem in quite a good space - the Bible is a significant and remarkable series of books written over many thousands of years by different people yet from OT to NT combines to tell an amazing account of God's plan in the world and for humanity. We don't have to "prove" the life, death and resurrection of Christ - it is clearly articulated in a book that is readily available for us to read. And if we needed non-Bible accounts to vouch his historicity they are there. And the remarkable thing about it is that even if one didn't accept the divinity of Jesus but lived by His teachings our world would be in a much better place than what we have today. In our own country, the demand for church based schools is huge and growing - much of it from non-Christians who want their children to be grounded in Christian values, without necessarily having a living faith in Jesus. Why is this? Jesus can't be that bad after all...
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 18, 2014 7:43:16 GMT -5
DMG ~ Well, I guess my own words tripped me up here? LOL
However, I have nothing further to add to this discussion as far as historical evidence backing up the resurrection, as I brought out earlier within this same post you just quoted. Actually, I was just kidding with you about providing any evidence to the contrary, since I admitted it was a matter of faith surrounding the resurrection without historical evidence to back it up. What more can I say that I haven't already? Of course, another way of looking at it is that the vast majority of Christians believe the complete account of Jesus as recorded in the Bible. They don't accept some parts (eg his teaching) and not accept other parts (eg his divinity) based on what they want to believe. They accept the Bible and also accept that the historicity of Jesus is supported by accounts outside of the Bible. On the other hand, the atheist who regards Jesus as a complete mythical character (it seems this view is on the increase amongst atheists) presumably has a problem when it comes to the historical accounts outside of the Bible. What does it do with them? Ignore them, gloss over them, discount them as inaccurate or discredit them? I've seen all of the above occur. The atheist who clearly discounts the supernatural side of Jesus but accepts that he was an historical figure also has a challenge. What do they do with Jesus? Do they discount only the supernatural parts of the Bible or do they completely reject the Bible altogether as a complete fraud? What do they do with the Bible? There is obviously a wide divergence of views and much has been written. Where does that leave the Christian? It would seem in quite a good space - the Bible is a significant and remarkable series of books written over many thousands of years by different people yet from OT to NT combines to tell an amazing account of God's plan in the world and for humanity. We don't have to "prove" the life, death and resurrection of Christ - it is clearly articulated in a book that is readily available for us to read. And if we needed non-Bible accounts to vouch his historicity they are there. And the remarkable thing about it is that even if one didn't accept the divinity of Jesus but lived by His teachings our world would be in a much better place than what we have today. In our own country, the demand for church based schools is huge and growing - much of it from non-Christians who want their children to be grounded in Christian values, without necessarily having a living faith in Jesus. Why is this? Jesus can't be that bad after all... What was it that Ghandi said..."I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." This is not to say that I have a sweeping dislike of Christians. It is more that I do not experience Christians as having an edge over others in the practice of loving one's neighbor as one's self. The concept of the Golden Rule predates Christianity in human culture. It was not invented by Jesus.
|
|