Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News1 min ago
The Historical Jesus.
102 Answers
Compared to other people in history, there is a wealth of documents to support the existence of Jesus, and His ministry on Earth, yet critics pour scorn on His very existence, but have no trouble believing in other figures for which there is only fractional evidence.
Is this a correct assertion that I have made, or am I somehow mistaken?
The scorn, that is, not the existence of Jesus.
Is this a correct assertion that I have made, or am I somehow mistaken?
The scorn, that is, not the existence of Jesus.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"God is never going to issue conclusive proof, because it would defeat the purpose."
This is rubbish and not borne out by the Bible itself. He used to appear to people all the time, not least of which is Jesus. If he exists (he hasn't come and proved anything yet, by the way) he clearly has no problem in doing it.
"If ever the resurrection were to be conclusively proven, he would have lost the intent, which was to earn the attention (love?) of mankind of its own volition"
All the disciples are knackered then because they were witnesses with incontrovertible evidence.
"A forced respect via scientific treatise is useless."
Why is it any different from what Christians claim for themselves through non-scientific means? If Christians know that it is true through personal experience of God, then they have had conclusive proof, which you say above isn't possible.
This isn't just semantics, it's an obvious hole in the logic.
This is rubbish and not borne out by the Bible itself. He used to appear to people all the time, not least of which is Jesus. If he exists (he hasn't come and proved anything yet, by the way) he clearly has no problem in doing it.
"If ever the resurrection were to be conclusively proven, he would have lost the intent, which was to earn the attention (love?) of mankind of its own volition"
All the disciples are knackered then because they were witnesses with incontrovertible evidence.
"A forced respect via scientific treatise is useless."
Why is it any different from what Christians claim for themselves through non-scientific means? If Christians know that it is true through personal experience of God, then they have had conclusive proof, which you say above isn't possible.
This isn't just semantics, it's an obvious hole in the logic.
Doc Spock - I don't believe in fairies. Demons, yes, but fairies, no.
Niether do I believe in effect without a cause.
Our universe is an effect. I believe God was the cause. Otherwise, I would have to believe that "Something" came out of "Nothing" for no reason whatsoever. Now that is a leap of blind faith ... in my opinion.
Niether do I believe in effect without a cause.
Our universe is an effect. I believe God was the cause. Otherwise, I would have to believe that "Something" came out of "Nothing" for no reason whatsoever. Now that is a leap of blind faith ... in my opinion.
More prophecy / miracles?
Well yes. Individuals have had their lives transformed by their knowing Jesus, discovering Him by searching for Him, not by an idle curiosity led browsing of course. People have been healed of illnesses, and have known answered prayer.
The claims are many and universal, and have bolstered the faith of many.
Well yes. Individuals have had their lives transformed by their knowing Jesus, discovering Him by searching for Him, not by an idle curiosity led browsing of course. People have been healed of illnesses, and have known answered prayer.
The claims are many and universal, and have bolstered the faith of many.
OK so I wouldn't actually call this a wealth of documents.
Because they are not what you might call independent.
However taken in context with Jospehus' reference I'd say that the evidence for his existance was strong.
But that's a long way from believing that what the Bible says is accurate or even that the people who's names are against the gospels wrote them!
Because they are not what you might call independent.
However taken in context with Jospehus' reference I'd say that the evidence for his existance was strong.
But that's a long way from believing that what the Bible says is accurate or even that the people who's names are against the gospels wrote them!
Excellent side-step, Theland.
You habitually use the bible as evidence of 'prophecy fulfilled/miracles' and the ONLY two you ever mention are formation of the State of Israel and the squabbling over Jerusalem.
I don't doubt your belief that knowledge and acceptance of God has transformed people but that is NOT 'biblical prophecy fulfilled' in the same way as you have been stating over the course of many months, is it ?
You habitually use the bible as evidence of 'prophecy fulfilled/miracles' and the ONLY two you ever mention are formation of the State of Israel and the squabbling over Jerusalem.
I don't doubt your belief that knowledge and acceptance of God has transformed people but that is NOT 'biblical prophecy fulfilled' in the same way as you have been stating over the course of many months, is it ?
Spock, do yourself a favour.
Take 5 minutes, close your eyes in a quiet place, and imagine, really imagine, not existing. Not going to sleep with the safe presumption of dreaming a bit and waking up in the morning, but ceasing utterly to be. If you are content with that then well and good. But I do hope you are not.
Are you happy with annihilation ?
Take 5 minutes, close your eyes in a quiet place, and imagine, really imagine, not existing. Not going to sleep with the safe presumption of dreaming a bit and waking up in the morning, but ceasing utterly to be. If you are content with that then well and good. But I do hope you are not.
Are you happy with annihilation ?
