So, what are you doing on May 21?

#51
#51
This thread has become laughable... and for once I didn't start the fire.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#52
#52
sjt18 said:
None of them. God is benevolent but His benevolence is no more perfect than His holiness and justice and righteousness. If the sacrifice of Christ was not a sufficiently "benevolent" act to convince men to repent then how can anything but condemnation be just?
Click to expand...

What makes me believe that Jesus actually existed? Was actually the Son of God? Was actually crucified? Was actually raised from the dead?

Aside from a handful of texts, written seventy years after this event supposedly happened (after a very bloody rebellion, as well), there is no historical record of this event.

sjt18 said:
That is a philosophical viewpoint... and one even as a Christian with somewhat calvinist views, I do not accept. The Bible is very clear that man is a free moral agent with real choice and will.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I do not see how someone could will themselves to believe in anything. I can tell myself every waking minute of every day that the sky is brown; that does not mean that I believe the sky is brown. Beliefs are much deeper than conscious control.

sjt18 said:
Every sin is willful. None are "accidents". None are compulsions that cannot be resisted. Each choice to sin is equivalent to saying "God is not just or sovereign... I can do as I please".
Click to expand...

As far as Catholic Theology is concerned (Anglican as well, not sure about the Lutheran and Calvinist sects), there are three conditions of sin:

1. The person has to know the act is wrong.
2. The person has to desire to commit the act (meaning that the person is not being coerced).
3. The person has to commit the act.

So, if someone does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then they do not know that is wrong. Second, what is actually being committed?
[/LIST]
 
#54
#54
VOLatile said:
This thread has become laughable... and for once I didn't start the fire.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think it's a quality debate. For once, a disagreement hasn't broken down into name-calling and personal attacks.
 
#55
#55
sjt18 said:
None of them. God is benevolent but His benevolence is no more perfect than His holiness and justice and righteousness. If the sacrifice of Christ was not a sufficiently "benevolent" act to convince men to repent then how can anything but condemnation be just?
.
Click to expand...

is it so much to ask for maybe one scred of other evidence in the 2000 years afterwords? i could see condeming people who knew jesus personally to death. :)
 
#56
#56
There is evidence since His life, death and resurrection 2000 years ago. Jury trials have been acceptably settled with lesser evidence. Enough evidence, in fact, to convince many highly intelligent people who put in the effort to research the evidence for themselves and consider it honestly, even when they originally set out to convince Christians how foolish they were (Josh McDowell has come up in these discussions a few times as an example of that, Ralph Muncaster is another).

As much as non-believers want to believe that most Christians are simply stubborn traditionalists following what they inherited from their parents, fairy tale believing fools or the blind following the machinations of devious men, this is simply just not the case. The ranks of Christians include some of the most brilliant researchers and scientists.

Do you really want to know? Do the research. Evidence That Demands a Verdict is a good place to start.
 
#57
#57
I enjoy hearing other people's interpretations of the Bible.

I do NOT enjoy hearing other people insist that there is no other interpretation.
 
#59
#59
You constrain the definition of evidence to first hand witness.

It's possible to determine a murderer when there is no first hand witness to the murder. It is done using the same kind of evidence that I am referring to.
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
I enjoy hearing other people's interpretations of the Bible.

I do NOT enjoy hearing other people insist that there is no other interpretation.
Click to expand...

We know by now. In your book, you're the only one allowed to be partisan and one-sided in spite of the facts.
 
#61
#61
J-P said:
You constrain the definition of evidence to first hand witness.

It's possible to determine a murderer when there is no first hand witness to the murder. It is done using the same kind of evidence that I am referring to.
Click to expand...

yes but you need credible evidence.
 
#62
#62
You mean like archeological artifacts and discoveries, extra-Biblical writings and so forth? These exist.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just saying that before you say there is no evidence because you have heard others say there is no evidence, be sure there is no evidence. If you've done that and feel the evidence is still weak, then we simply disagree.
 
#63
#63
there is plenty of evidence jesus existed as a real person. there is no evidence he was god's son.
 
#64
#64
droski said:
there is plenty of evidence jesus existed as a real person. there is no evidence he was god's son.
Click to expand...

See, I feel there is: credible witness testimony by several people who preferred to die a painful death rather than recant their testimony, one who actually killed Christians for their blasphemous beliefs before encountering Jesus.

Also, I believe it was Josephus that recorded that Jesus was a wizard that was stirring up followers, so at the very least, He was doing something out of the ordinary to get the reputation of one who works magic.

I'm pretty sure there are others that my failing memory can't come up with right now. Those to me are credible evidences. The New Testament writings are certainly credible enough for most archaeologists who work in that region, as they continue to uncover ruins of places written of in the New Testament that were previously believed to have never existed. If the writings are reliable enough in all other things, shouldn't they be considered trustworthy when it comes to what they write about Jesus? I think they should.
 
#65
#65
J-P said:
See, I feel there is: credible witness testimony by several people who preferred to die a painful death rather than recant their testimony, one who actually killed Christians for their blasphemous beliefs before encountering Jesus.

Also, I believe it was Josephus that recorded that Jesus was a wizard that was stirring up followers, so at the very least, He was doing something out of the ordinary to get the reputation of one who works magic.

I'm pretty sure there are others that my failing memory can't come up with right now. Those to me are credible evidences. The New Testament writings are certainly credible enough for most archaeologists who work in that region, as they continue to uncover ruins of places written of in the New Testament that were previously believed to have never existed. If the writings are reliable enough in all other things, shouldn't they be considered trustworthy when it comes to what they write about Jesus? I think they should.
Click to expand...

Credible witness tesimony from Saul/Paul???
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
Also, there were plenty of "wizards" in that day and age...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#71
#71
therealUT said:
Credible witness tesimony from Saul/Paul???
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The deciples Matthew, Peter, Luke and John wrote espitles. James and Jude , half brothers to Christ, also wrote epistles. All six of these personally knew Christ.
 
#72
#72
VOLatile said:
Burden of proof falls on the believer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the burden of proof falls on each individual.

If you're happy with your decision, so be it. I feel no compunction in having to convince anybody of anything. I answered a point stating that I felt there was sufficient evidence. That is one reason I believe in Christ, but my belief has reached a much more personal level than just that, as I believe will most people if they stop striving with God and start recognizing their true state and His true nature. The Bible has a mandate to spread the good news that God has provided a way for eternal salvation and to be prepared to share why I believe, but it does not charge me with having to convince anybody. That is actually between God and the individual. In the VN Political forum alone there has been so much debate of both sides of this topic as to make me feel pretty certain that you have heard that news, whether you chose to accept it or not. Punto final, the end.

I believe that one day, everybody will have to stand before that Almighty God and explain themselves. Be sure to mention me when He asks you if anybody ever told you about Him.
 
#73
#73
J-P said:
He was willing to die for what he believed. How is he less credible than you?
Click to expand...

He hit his head against a large tree branch, knocking him off his horse, and then he saw Jesus (who was dead, btw). I would count this as delerium. Not credible testimony, regardless of his willingness to die.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#74
#74
Gramps said:
The deciples Matthew, Peter, Luke and John wrote espitles. James and Jude , half brothers to Christ, also wrote epistles. All six of these personally knew Christ.
Click to expand...

No. The Gospel of Matthew and Luke-Acts have unknown authorship. Christian theologians have admitted this for centuries.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top