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.
JTP - God tells us through His Word, that He is eternal, He just is. It's as simple and as complicated as that.
Simple, because that is what we are told. Complicated obviously, because we humans do not have the capacity to understand further, and so we are not told anything further.
It's difficult enough for me trying to read a book written in laymans language about particle physics, which is still part of creation, so how could I possibly get my head around concepts such as eternity?
Yes, you, Jake, have a scientific grounding, and are streets ahead of me in understanding our universe, but in the face of eternity, we are level pegging. Pun intended.
Simple, because that is what we are told. Complicated obviously, because we humans do not have the capacity to understand further, and so we are not told anything further.
It's difficult enough for me trying to read a book written in laymans language about particle physics, which is still part of creation, so how could I possibly get my head around concepts such as eternity?
Yes, you, Jake, have a scientific grounding, and are streets ahead of me in understanding our universe, but in the face of eternity, we are level pegging. Pun intended.
Jack - Not sidestepping. But as you can appreciate, thread is a bit busy at the moment.
But, yes, there are countless accounts of miracles.
For example, Hudson Taylor, who founded the China Inland Mission, did so purely on faith. Whenever he tried to do things of his own accord, he failed, and it was only intotal submission to God that the mission became possible and successful. I recommend reading the biography of him. There were so many miracles in his life and mission, they could not be written off as coincidence. And that is just one mans story.
But, yes, there are countless accounts of miracles.
For example, Hudson Taylor, who founded the China Inland Mission, did so purely on faith. Whenever he tried to do things of his own accord, he failed, and it was only intotal submission to God that the mission became possible and successful. I recommend reading the biography of him. There were so many miracles in his life and mission, they could not be written off as coincidence. And that is just one mans story.
We aren't definitely sure.
So what?
Not knowing something is no reason to insist it must be God - this is called 'God of the Gaps' where any time one come across something we can't presently explain, one says, 'Ah, it must be God then,' and subsequently looks extremely stupid when a few years later someone discovers what's actually going on.
Michael Behe of the Discovery Institute is a good example of someone who repeatedly makes himself look cataclysmically dumb in this regard with his attempts to prove irreducible complexity.
So what?
Not knowing something is no reason to insist it must be God - this is called 'God of the Gaps' where any time one come across something we can't presently explain, one says, 'Ah, it must be God then,' and subsequently looks extremely stupid when a few years later someone discovers what's actually going on.
Michael Behe of the Discovery Institute is a good example of someone who repeatedly makes himself look cataclysmically dumb in this regard with his attempts to prove irreducible complexity.
I'm not familiar with Michael Behe but will try to look him up. But again, is it possible that this man would actually choose to believe a lie, if it is a lie?
Do we all have ot have advanced science education to grasp the reality of our universe?
Abiogenesis has not been repeated despite attempts to do so inthe laboratory, and its no good saying that one day science will conquer, and life will be formed in the test tube.
It just hasn't happened despite the scientists claiming to have replicated conditions on Earth eons ago. And of course, Abiogenesis is supposed to have come about without the assistance of clever men in white coats.
But as for the beginning, science cannot explain that, and I do not believe that philosophers would even give legitimacy to the question of the legitimacy of asking the question in the first place, such is its complexity.
Oh yes ... in my opinion, (just in case Wizard is still looking in!)
Do we all have ot have advanced science education to grasp the reality of our universe?
Abiogenesis has not been repeated despite attempts to do so inthe laboratory, and its no good saying that one day science will conquer, and life will be formed in the test tube.
It just hasn't happened despite the scientists claiming to have replicated conditions on Earth eons ago. And of course, Abiogenesis is supposed to have come about without the assistance of clever men in white coats.
But as for the beginning, science cannot explain that, and I do not believe that philosophers would even give legitimacy to the question of the legitimacy of asking the question in the first place, such is its complexity.
Oh yes ... in my opinion, (just in case Wizard is still looking in!)
Jack - Spot on.
The bible predicts conditions for the end times that must have been pretty alien to its contemporaries. Fire and brimstone and destruction, in days when they fought with bows and arrows. Now, for the first time in human history, we have the means to destry the Earth with nuclear weapons. The means that the bible predicted were right.
The one world religious political system of the antichrist is only possible, with the mark of the beast, which is a neat way of describing the technology used to control very aspect of a society, that we now have for the first time in human history.
I cannot spend longer on this right now, as duty calls, or rather will call in a few minutes.
The bible predicts conditions for the end times that must have been pretty alien to its contemporaries. Fire and brimstone and destruction, in days when they fought with bows and arrows. Now, for the first time in human history, we have the means to destry the Earth with nuclear weapons. The means that the bible predicted were right.
The one world religious political system of the antichrist is only possible, with the mark of the beast, which is a neat way of describing the technology used to control very aspect of a society, that we now have for the first time in human history.
I cannot spend longer on this right now, as duty calls, or rather will call in a few minutes.
Intellectual surrender a-go-go, Theland!
The reason Behe is desperate to find irriducible complexity is because his 'science' is agenda-led. He and his cronies believe in God and creationism, therefore he only works on problems that he thinks are going to produce results that support that view. The problem, as already stated, is that what happens is he gets to a point where he cannot conceive of a way a given biological process could have arisen and declares therefore God must have done it. And then a proper scientist finds how such a process could have arisen and Behe looks stupid. Repeat ad nausem.
So, because we haven't cured cancer yet, there's no cure for cancer? That is essentially what you are arguing. Doesn't that look stupid when expressed in that way? I know you won't agree with that notion, that you'll support cancer reasearch.
Yet that is what your contention is saying: We can't solve something with science at present, therefore it is ludicrous to suggest we can in future.
A clearly preposterous position to take, particularly when discussing something like abiogenesis where everyone on the scientific side of the debate is entirely open about the (entirely obvious) fact that the fact that life has arisen on Earth was an extremely unlikely event requiring a very improbably set of variables.
The reason Behe is desperate to find irriducible complexity is because his 'science' is agenda-led. He and his cronies believe in God and creationism, therefore he only works on problems that he thinks are going to produce results that support that view. The problem, as already stated, is that what happens is he gets to a point where he cannot conceive of a way a given biological process could have arisen and declares therefore God must have done it. And then a proper scientist finds how such a process could have arisen and Behe looks stupid. Repeat ad nausem.
So, because we haven't cured cancer yet, there's no cure for cancer? That is essentially what you are arguing. Doesn't that look stupid when expressed in that way? I know you won't agree with that notion, that you'll support cancer reasearch.
Yet that is what your contention is saying: We can't solve something with science at present, therefore it is ludicrous to suggest we can in future.
A clearly preposterous position to take, particularly when discussing something like abiogenesis where everyone on the scientific side of the debate is entirely open about the (entirely obvious) fact that the fact that life has arisen on Earth was an extremely unlikely event requiring a very improbably set of variables.
Well I'll leave in a minute.
I take your point Waldo, and yes, I do support cancer research as you say.
I also believe science will answer certain legitimate questions about which we haven't the foggiest idea.
But the big question is not, I believe even legitimate for science to attempt, as the starting point is quite simply, "Nothing."
Now I really must leave. Speak later I hope.
I take your point Waldo, and yes, I do support cancer research as you say.
I also believe science will answer certain legitimate questions about which we haven't the foggiest idea.
But the big question is not, I believe even legitimate for science to attempt, as the starting point is quite simply, "Nothing."
Now I really must leave. Speak later I hope.
You have the 4 canonical gospels and the (several) Gnostic gospels which all refer to the teachings of Jesus. But you say that is not evidence of a historical Jesus. You have the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of Josephus, Roman historians and whoever was literate enough to put pen to paper at the time who didn�t mention Jesus, but many would accept that as evidence he didn�t exist.
Maybe he did exist, maybe he didn�t, maybe one day we will know the exact truth, but until that time you either have faith that he did or recognise it as a possibility. If you deny the possibility then it is likely that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Maybe he did exist, maybe he didn�t, maybe one day we will know the exact truth, but until that time you either have faith that he did or recognise it as a possibility. If you deny the possibility then it is likely that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
We are indeed level pegging in contemplating the ultimate Theland - it's just as far as I can see you've added in an "intermediary".
You can't contemplate something coming out of nothing unless it happens to be a conciousness that you've called God
Surely it's simpler to believe that the universe came from nothing rather than God came from nothing and created the Universe?
What's to stop me believing a robot called Sparky came from nothing that created God that created the Universe.
"It's turtles all the way down"
You can't contemplate something coming out of nothing unless it happens to be a conciousness that you've called God
Surely it's simpler to believe that the universe came from nothing rather than God came from nothing and created the Universe?
What's to stop me believing a robot called Sparky came from nothing that created God that created the Universe.
"It's turtles all the way down"
-- answer removed --
jno - Life after death is not the atttraction you seem to believe it is for Christians, for this one at least.
We don't share the same, "Love of death," that the jihadist islamofascists appear to adore, with the promise of seventy two virgins, free Jaffa cakes and a lottery ticket that comes up every week!
We are to live our lives to the full, here and now, and not hasten our end in any way.
We don't share the same, "Love of death," that the jihadist islamofascists appear to adore, with the promise of seventy two virgins, free Jaffa cakes and a lottery ticket that comes up every week!
We are to live our lives to the full, here and now, and not hasten our end in any way.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Uk Diplomats Meet Rebel Leader In...
News2 mins ago
Inflation Rockets By 13% In A Sigle...
News3 mins ago
This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News8 mins ago
