Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[TillICollapse]

If someone believes Matthew 28:16-20 to be authentic, after his resurrection, Jesus did send his 11 apostles to evangelize the Gentile world.

But not in Matthew 10, which is what I was referencing.

 

[agua]

....
Appealing to the idea that since it's in the Bible, or was used early on in the history of the religion, therefore it's in the Word of God, seen to be used in an approving way, and therefore it's hard to argue that Jesus doesn't want it to be used for His followers ... that type of reasoning leads back down the rabbit holes of "But it's in the Bible and this is what it means," rationalizing, which then leads to the obvious. I could connect some dots and turn around and say that Jesus was referring only to Jews or some such, or only those who claim to be "followers of the Way", or only to those whom He was speaking to in that very moment, or "the true disciple" and that even those who say ,"Lord, Lord" are not referring to Christians because when they use the term "Lord" they are actually referring to some other idol, and on and on (I'm not doing any of this, just stating examples). I realize the poster I questioned didn't say that "Jesus says," and then attempt to quote him verbatim, however.

Here lies the problem when people with differing views of the Bibles veracity discuss these matters. To accept the Bible is approved and endorsed by Yahweh implies that all scripture writers are in agreement with Yahweh, and therefor Jesus.

We can see in several instances where Jesus mentions that there were people inside His group of followers that were "wolves in sheeps clothing" etc and he also describes "tares amid the wheat". This concept continues in the letters from Paul and Peter, which is why there's the inspection of the Christians condition ( followers of Christ ) inside the Body. In saying this Jesus said that we should becareful not to be mistaken in this area because we may remove some wheat by mistake.

The people who cry "Lord Lord" include these tares, wolves etc imo, and identify as members of the Body of followers.

 

[FredVB]

Why is there yet perception of sin, and guilt among humanity? How does that or certain other ways of valuing things ethically, or belief that we truly love, serve evolutionary purposes? Everything is explained with Yahweh God being real.

 

[RDKirk]

On the other hand, the Bible itself says that the disciples were called by that term very early in church history, so if the Word of God uses it in an approving way and if it is almost as old as the church itself, it's pretty hard to argue successfully that Jesus doesn't want it to be used for his followers or that it developed only much later in time.

Yes. But moreover, in that time to operation in the name of someone meant you had the authority to do so--it essentially meant you were claiming to be that person, like having a general power of attorney. These days, we toss around "in the name of Jesus" pretty glibly. In those days, it was a very serious claim to have that kind of authority.

 

[TillICollapse]

Here lies the problem when people with differing views of the Bibles veracity discuss these matters. To accept the Bible is approved and endorsed by Yahweh implies that all scripture writers are in agreement with Yahweh, and therefor Jesus.

I think you are stating this as your view, right ? This last sentence ? Or are you stating the last sentence as being the problem ? I may be missing what you're implying.

We can see in several instances where Jesus mentions that there were people inside His group of followers that were "wolves in sheeps clothing" etc and he also describes "tares amid the wheat". This concept continues in the letters from Paul and Peter, which is why there's the inspection of the Christians condition ( followers of Christ ) inside the Body. In saying this Jesus said that we should becareful not to be mistaken in this area because we may remove some wheat by mistake.

The people who cry "Lord Lord" include these tares, wolves etc imo, and identify as members of the Body of followers.

Yes. But moreover, in that time to operation in the name of someone meant you had the authority to do so--it essentially meant you were claiming to be that person, like having a general power of attorney. These days, we toss around "in the name of Jesus" pretty glibly. In those days, it was a very serious claim to have that kind of authority.

I personally try to treat it this same way. I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of Jesus/God/etc, unless I was given permission to do so and had their authority to do so. If I spoke otherwise, I would make sure it was clarified properly that I was speaking on my own, or that I was assuming or speaking an opinion, or exploring possibilities, etc. I would hopefully not presume to give the appearance I had authority which I did not have. Not just for my ownself, but out of respect for all involved and misrepresenting or misleading.

 

[agua]

I think you are stating this as your view, right ? This last sentence ? Or are you stating the last sentence as being the problem ? I may be missing what you're implying.

I'm saying thatif you accept the Bible as the Authoritive Word of God then you accept every writers position is in agreeance with Yahweh, and consequently Jesus. If you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God then you can pick and choose what you want, from it.

I personally try to treat it this same way. I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of Jesus/God/etc, unless I was given permission to do so and had their authority to do so. If I spoke otherwise, I would make sure it was clarified properly that I was speaking on my own, or that I was assuming or speaking an opinion, or exploring possibilities, etc. I would hopefully not presume to give the appearance I had authority which I did not have. Not just for my ownself, but out of respect for all involved and misrepresenting or misleading.

Ok. Are there any scriptures that you accept are the authoritive word of God, at all. If so can you quote them for me ?

Also do you accept that Jesus gave Authority to the OT scriptures, that he quoted ?

 

[agua]

Yes. But moreover, in that time to operation in the name of someone meant you had the authority to do so--it essentially meant you were claiming to be that person, like having a general power of attorney. These days, we toss around "in the name of Jesus" pretty glibly. In those days, it was a very serious claim to have that kind of authority.

I also think we can see the power of operating in Jesus' name, even today. We can also see when people who claim to operating in His Name, present incongruent information with His teachings, and therefor aren't; and in the same manner we can identify false prophets, I suppose.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm saying thatif you accept the Bible as the Authoritive Word of God then you accept every writers position is in agreeance with Yahweh, and consequently Jesus. If you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God then you can pick and choose what you want, from it.



Ok. Are there any scriptures that you accept are the authoritive word of God, at all. If so can you quote them for me ?

Also do you accept that Jesus gave Authority to the OT scriptures, that he quoted ?

Okay ... I'll reference something RDKirk said in a previous post concerning information ... considering the scriptures, I view them on a "need to know" basis. I'm not all or nothing with them. Each book, each line, each quote, etc and so forth ... stands on it's own merit.

I believe in revelation: that would be in short, that information and insight can be given to an individual in a way that probably the average believer in "supernatural" stuff (although I find the term a misnomer) would recognize as a "spiritual" origin. IMO, if I want to understand whether or not "God" endorses something in the scripture, God can speak on His own behalf and give insight, clarification, revelation ... or not. All other attempts to understand, be it scripture or otherwise ... are speculation, perhaps digging, guessing, reasoning, etc ... but are not necessarily the same as receiving the "seal of approval" or direct clarification by God, so to speak. One of my fav sig quotes used in this forum which I reference often, "Religion must let God must speak for Himself." I already had that mindset before I read it and saw another person using it.

IOW, God Himself has the final say over His own words, if He chooses to clarify or not. Same with Jesus. We treat each other the same way as well (ideally, I suppose). When it comes to scripture, or anything ... I view it as a need to know. If there is a revelation concerning scriptures in particular, or anything concerning life in particular, that stands on it's own or it doesn't. Otherwise ... understanding what God wants, thinks, meant by what He said or didn't say, is as I referenced above ... speculation, guessing, reasoning, etc. I'm not saying a person can't understand a truth, but it's still not the same until it has "God testifying on behalf" of the one claiming the understanding. If you have received a revelation, or authority to understand something ... it should reflect in reality. Reality will testify on your behalf. There will be evidence of what you've claimed to have as a revelation, or knowledge ... reflect in reality.

To quote scriptures I think I may have received revelation on or not ... would be out of context. Not my style typically. I am very much a "hands on" type of person ... I tell stories sometimes, but in general, I have a "Show, not tell," mentality. You or I experience something and draw our own conclusions based on the experience. Hands on. So to begin to go over what I think I may have had "revelations" concerning as it points to scripture ... context. This wouldn't be the context I would throw something like that out on the table. It would be nothing more than anecdote, or hearsay perhaps, to do so I believe. Which sometimes is cool, again, depending on context ... and sometimes not.

ETA: In case it wasn't clear, I don't accept the "Bible" as the authoritative Word of God. I would accept God's words as His authoritative words. If one of the current Bibles in existence is an "all or nothing" level authoritative tome of what I recognize to be "God", then I'm not privy to that information yet. So I don't go beyond that. I don't have a personal vested interest in verifying any particular book's authenticity, or historical accuracy, etc. There are certain aspects I DO have an interest in ... some of what it says concerning "supernatural" beings, that would include "God", "GOD" the "Lord" the "LORD", Yahweh, El, Elohim, etc ... whether each aspect can be traced back to a myth origin or not, if it does, okay. If not, okay. At this point, my sun doesn't rise and set on it's reliability or authenticity, or whether it's just a huge collection of Hebrew mythology derived from Akkadians, etc.

 

[createdtoworship]

This was posted in a message to a guy regarding apologetics, but hopefully it applies here-

Godbless, and enjoy....and happy resurrection day....HE IS RISEN!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

when someone says that you can't prove the Bible, or God....they are right. We can prove some of it beyond a reasonable doubt, but not empirically. God calls it faith for a reason. It is this faith that we defend. God doesn't need gospel preachers or apologists, as His angels can do that. And on angel will preach the everlasting Gospel over the earth, before the end. God doesn't need that part. He doesn't even need worship or love, as He has the trinity to fellowship, and angels to worship Him. He has all He needs in Him self. So I ask him what I can offer? and the truth is, nothing. My job is basically not needed. But that is why I do this. Because I don't have to. I simply do it because of what was given me, and to offer my life, my mind and everything To God.

Now when I say we can't prove God or the Bible Empirically, there are some ways we can present a fairly good case for items such as the Resurrection, the empty tomb, and other facts of the Bible and God. But one may always nit pick and find a way around it, that is why Jesus never went the way of apologetics primarily. It's a depressing path for sure. Mainly because Jesus obviously doesn't want us to do it. He wan'ts us to teach the Bible, the actual words have power. The profesy etc. And the Gospel of power. But regardless, I know that many are wanting to go the route of apologetics. I recommend charlie Cambel, He is pretty Good. But I do recommend a young earth perspective, and/or teaching against Bible Contradictions, and/or teaching against athiesm. But apologetics, is something of a defensive. It makes to many assumptions for being an alleged "logic proof" theory. God wan'ts people to have faith, not Blind faith but faith.

Today is easter, and Christ was asked for a sign.....He said..."an evil and wicked generation seeks after a sign, none shall be given you accept the sign of jonah."

He could have said, Heck yeah, let's do some fire works, here, and some Grave cracking here, and some Healing there, and some blind healing and resurrecting of various peoples relatives. No, He did that enough, but only to those he chose to see it. Sometimes we are making God do miracles for the non believer. They don't need a dog and pony show from God, they need conviction.

But the sign of Jonah is the one legitimate proof that God actually gave on demand. And notice that out of the many things in the Bible, all the places, the artifacts, none of it attests to the diety of Christ. Accept one thing. The Garden tomb still exits...

today:

Now How many tombs do you know of reading in national geographic, that are "hewn from stone", and that were "sealed with a round stone"

not many,

I think of one, and most people think of only one at this point.

but there is more...

they found the garden tomb stone as well:

and it fits:

above pictures came from this site:

https://atrueott.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/the-church-of-the-holy-sepulcher-vs-the-garden-tomb/

So basically the sign of jonah, the only sign given to the wicked generation, is the only empiricle evidence we have today regarding Jesus supernatural aspect.

There is no other explanation for the garden tomb, why is it empty:

if I made a tomb out of solid rock, I would use it, if not me, someone I loved.

but no one has used it, it's still empty!

it's like the world knows the truth.

but again this is not empirical truth. It is compelling yes. But it is possible that someone of another religion made a tomb for their God, and chose not to use it. OR someone made a tomb later just to counterfeit the truth of Jesus. it is possible, but not probable. But because of these other theories regarding the tomb. We can't call it empirical. Actually no history is empiricle, no eye witnesses exist, (unless it's modern history). and I suspect we were not there to see it, so it's not validated scientifically. Not proven. But even the sign of jonah was not meant to prove God and the Bible. There are other things for that. It was a sign. And the sign is still compelling yet today. 2000 years later. No one dares make that tomb a cemetary for a loved one. They are scared. And rightly so. It's a fear of God people have, and if not God, the many religious of the world. If not the jews, in Jerusalem, the Islamic, if not them, then the Christians of the world.

it's a holy place. Because it's the only sign Jesus gave.

again, I ask how many tombs to you know of, made of solid rock, with a round stone, and sealed?

(there are pictures of iron pins that date back to time of Christ, in some of those sites, here is a few other sites:

Jesus Christ's Tomb and Crucifixion Site Rediscovered

"Fascinating New Discoveries That Reveal the Location of Jesus Tomb", Page 1"


Now I like the picture above because it shows a chock for the round stone, that it could not roll away by itself. and a iron pin hole where it was sealed, and evidently sheered off by extreme force. A 1" iron pin is not easily sheered thats for sure. and they found the tomb stone as well.

again this all validates the sign of Jonah.

I am not saying that we don't need faith to believe in the Bible or Christ, that is a critical aspect to Believing. You have to want it though, and no amount of evidence will convince a wicked generation that Jesus is real.

thats why apologetics fails.

I think creationism, ID, etc are better investments of time.

I also think that Bible Contradictions are a good investment of time. (they are volumes out about these, but they need work) they are by far not exhaustive enough.

But apologetics itself, I gave up on long ago.

here is why:

this was a study done by barna.....kids leave the church in college years, not because they don't believe in God (which is what apologetics is), but mainly because they don't believe in the Bible, a college professor mentions evolution, or a Bible contradiction, makes fun of christianity etc. Some make it a few weeks, others months, but few make it four years.

they are only deceiving themselves, why go through the anguish?

they were not trained in ID, or Biblical Creationism.

their doubts festered, and boiled into a fire of disbelief. Satan steals the seed before it was truly grounded. They came from Christian families who took them to sunday school for 18 years, what happened?

they were not prepared.

Here is source material:


https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

(note the other reason why they left the church was because of legalistic, or strict parents)

 

[agua]

Okay ... I'll reference something RDKirk said in a previous post concerning information ... considering the scriptures, I view them on a "need to know" basis. I'm not all or nothing with them. Each book, each line, each quote, etc and so forth ... stands on it's own merit.

I believe in revelation: that would be in short, that information and insight can be given to an individual in a way that probably the average believer in "supernatural" stuff (although I find the term a misnomer) would recognize as a "spiritual" origin. IMO, if I want to understand whether or not "God" endorses something in the scripture, God can speak on His own behalf and give insight, clarification, revelation ... or not. All other attempts to understand, be it scripture or otherwise ... are speculation, perhaps digging, guessing, reasoning, etc ... but are not necessarily the same as receiving the "seal of approval" or direct clarification by God, so to speak. One of my fav sig quotes used in this forum which I reference often, "Religion must let God must speak for Himself." I already had that mindset before I read it and saw another person using it.

IOW, God Himself has the final say over His own words, if He chooses to clarify or not. Same with Jesus. We treat each other the same way as well (ideally, I suppose). When it comes to scripture, or anything ... I view it as a need to know. If there is a revelation concerning scriptures in particular, or anything concerning life in particular, that stands on it's own or it doesn't. Otherwise ... understanding what God wants, thinks, meant by what He said or didn't say, is as I referenced above ... speculation, guessing, reasoning, etc. I'm not saying a person can't understand a truth, but it's still not the same until it has "God testifying on behalf" of the one claiming the understanding. If you have received a revelation, or authority to understand something ... it should reflect in reality. Reality will testify on your behalf. There will be evidence of what you've claimed to have as a revelation, or knowledge ... reflect in reality.

To quote scriptures I think I may have received revelation on or not ... would be out of context. Not my style typically. I am very much a "hands on" type of person ... I tell stories sometimes, but in general, I have a "Show, not tell," mentality. You or I experience something and draw our own conclusions based on the experience. Hands on. So to begin to go over what I think I may have had "revelations" concerning as it points to scripture ... context. This wouldn't be the context I would throw something like that out on the table. It would be nothing more than anecdote, or hearsay perhaps, to do so I believe. Which sometimes is cool, again, depending on context ... and sometimes not.

ETA: In case it wasn't clear, I don't accept the "Bible" as the authoritative Word of God. I would accept God's words as His authoritative words. If one of the current Bibles in existence is an "all or nothing" level authoritative tome of what I recognize to be "God", then I'm not privy to that information yet. So I don't go beyond that. I don't have a personal vested interest in verifying any particular book's authenticity, or historical accuracy, etc. There are certain aspects I DO have an interest in ... some of what it says concerning "supernatural" beings, that would include "God", "GOD" the "Lord" the "LORD", Yahweh, El, Elohim, etc ... whether each aspect can be traced back to a myth origin or not, if it does, okay. If not, okay. At this point, my sun doesn't rise and set on it's reliability or authenticity, or whether it's just a huge collection of Hebrew mythology derived from Akkadians, etc.

I need to cut to the chase and simplify, to be sure I know how you refer to your beliefs, and why.

Since you don't specifically cite any scriptures as the authoritive Word of God, how can you ever use any teachings from Jesus as God's Word. ie. has Jesus spoken to you at any stage and told you what He teaches, or what to believe ? ETA. if you suggest each scripture stands on it's own merit, how do you decide if it's meritorious or not ( truth/useful ).

Secondly do you accept that there is only one true identity Jesus Christ, regardless of what you and I believe about Him ?

 

[bhsmte]

Most faith systems demand blind obedience and blind trust in its god, precepts, doctrines, and commandments ... would you say it is wrong for an individual to demand personally verifiable evidence for a faith system?

There are different types of evidence.

There is personal experience evidence, which only applies to the person who has the experience and there is objective evidence, that is there for all to see and points on one direction.

I have yet to see anyone who claims to have objective evidence of a God, have that argument hold up to scrutiny.

If someone desires objective evidence of a God, they most likely are a non believer.

 

[SuperCloud]

I respect philosophy--it helps sharpen your personal thinking--but I usually don't like doing philosophy.

There are different schools of Buddhism. Some like the Tibetan make use of prayer flags and at times put on masks to ritually scare demons away.

The Dali Lama in Tibetan Buddhism is supposed to be a figure similar to the divine Christ, the Buddhist Bodhisattva that was a god living in one of the regions of heaven, but choose to be reincarnated as a human to help relieve humanity of suffering. These concepts all require some level of faith.

In some schools of Buddhism--Japanese Zen perhaps--it suffices to practice the dharama or follow the dharama, and perhaps faith is not needed because the pupil can very for themselves what works or does not work for them.

In religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam faith is required.

Asian Buddhist never colonized most of the non-Asian and non-Buddhist earth, so, that is one reason they never spread as much as Christianity and Islam. With Buddhism being the 3rd great missionary religion. Judaism and Hinduism not being.

Possibly additional reasons are certain characteristics of Asian cultures, including Asian Buddhist cultures themselves. Expectations on girls and women can be particularly harsh. By Western standards anyways. I was rather appalled reading a memoir required by a course I took on the History of the Vietnam War. Composed by a young Vietnamese-American raised Buddhist by his Buddhist parents. The parental treatment of the daughter who exhibited Tom-boyish traits (and I think later cam out as lesbian) was harsh.

But moving away from the impoverished Southeast Asian countries to a Developed nation like Japan, which is almost entirely Buddhist, you can see a very strict culture too. Probably not as "oppressive" on girls and women as Vietnam but it can be very strict in maintaining "traditions" nonetheless. More so than the liberal West.

And communism probably hampered the growth of Buddhism too. The atheists in Cambodia carried out a genocide and tried to wipe Buddhism out of Cambodia. China of course, has reduced the influence of Buddhist monks and the Dali Lama in Tibet. And China has raised the material living standards in Tibet and brought in creature comforts and more modern day Tibetans feel they no longer want the theocracy Buddhism to rule over their country again.

These are probably some of the reasons Buddhism--as missionary as it was--never spread as far as Christianity or Islam.

 

[ananda]

There are different types of evidence.

There is personal experience evidence, which only applies to the person who has the experience and there is objective evidence, that is there for all to see and points on one direction.

I have yet to see anyone who claims to have objective evidence of a God, have that argument hold up to scrutiny.

If someone desires objective evidence of a God, they most likely are a non believer.

I think you're right.

I think God/Nirvana/Ultimate Reality/whatever you want to call it has made it a very personal journey for each person ... and made it a drive to look within oneself instead of without (external evidence, guidance, authorities, or scripture).

 

[TillICollapse]

I need to cut to the chase and simplify, to be sure I know how you refer to your beliefs, and why.

Since you don't specifically cite any scriptures as the authoritive Word of God, how can you ever use any teachings from Jesus as God's Word. ie. has Jesus spoken to you at any stage and told you what He teaches, or what to believe ?

Again, context. And again ... I like to let people draw their own conclusions. If I believe what I recognize as "God" or even "Jesus" or "the Spirit" for that matter, is or isn't showing me something, I may or may not say as much. Typically, I don't. I rarely label something one way or another or proclaim one way or another ... I let others conclude what they conclude based on the reality of the situation, if they conclude or notice anything at all. Those from the sidelines draw their conclusions, those involved draw their own, etc. As with anything in life. If I believed I had authority to speak on God's behalf, I may say as much. If I didn't ... I have at times speculated, or given my opinion, however it's my experience that people often conflate the two in regards to other people, and sometimes themselves. I don't like to encourage that. If I'm not satisfied that the person I'm dealing with will be able to listen to me when I separate out my opinion from my "fact", then I may not give my speculation, opinion, or state my belief on a topic. I am a fan of letting an event speak for itself, and each person drawing their own conclusions and THEN we go from there.

So having said all of that ... if I believed Jesus told me something to believe, or taught me something for example ... I wouldn't assume it applied to everyone. That's part of what a "revelation" is imo ... it applies to the one whom something is being revealed to. If it applies to others, then it can be revealed to them as well. Otherwise, I don't presume it necessarily means that others are required to believe it or some such. And like I said, if I did think it applied to others ... I may wait and see if reality reflected as much or not.

"ETA. if you suggest each scripture stands on it's own merit, how do you decide if it's meritorious or not ( truth/useful ).

Again, revelation context, as it regards "God specifically".

Whether ANYthing in life is useful or truthful, it arguably stands on it's own merit. If aspirin is useful for long term prevention from heart attacks, stands on it's own merit. If I tell you there is an apple on my kitchen table, that stands on it's own merit. If there was a city that existed at some point in the past named Sodom, that stands on it's own merit. Corroborating evidence can tell us this or that, data compiled over time, etc and so forth. Similiarly, if a source claims to have some information concerning such topics ... that information can be corroborated as well. Or not. Perhaps the information is true, but has little corroboration ... or perhaps it's completely untrue. Perhaps there is an abundance of evidence to support it.

Concerning all of the above ... what an individual claims about a thing, stands on it's own merit as well. I believe this applies to "God".

Whether or not Sodom existed, is one thing. What a document says about it, is another. What I say about it is yet another. What "God" may say about it, is yet another. They all stand on their own. A document may be true or false, what I say may be true or false, and what a person recognizes as "God" saying may be true or false (for the sake of this convo let's assume "God" isn't simply a delusion and figment of imagination).

So take a scripture. Let's say a scripture can, in some fashion, be shown to be historically accurate. That will stand on it's own merit. What I think it says about it ... is yet another matter. I may be correct in my assessment, or incorrect. And what "God" says about it, is yet another. It's either correct, or incorrect, etc. What I'm trying to point out, is that even if a document can be shown to be historically accurate ... it doesn't mean we necessarily know what "God" has to say about it. The fact or fiction of it, is it's own matter. Even if it's complete fiction lol, "God" may have an opinion on it. See what I'm saying ? We have opinions on fiction all the time. We use fiction to convey ideas, concepts, experience. So as it concerns scripture, as I said ... I'm not generally interested in the historicity of the documents. Whether they can be verified or not historically, or whether or not they are complete works of borrowed evolved myths, or which verses can be trusted or not, etc. Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not ... depends on context lol. I've already tried to approach it as though it was all true, for example ... a few attempts at some of the suggestions in the NT, fell flat. I'm not into a lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize something, so right there, that "experiment" didn't pass. I believe many non-believers share similar stories: prayers they prayed, scriptures they trusted ... nada. So placing my faith in my own ability to interpret the Bible: not so much. Fail. Even if I were told by what I recognize to be "God" directly: "The entire standard Protestant Bible, KJV version, can be trusted 100%," I still wouldn't rely on my own understanding. I would want to know "God's" opinion above all others It's rather simple, imo. All others would take second place. If He's the one claiming it's His words, then I want to know HIS thoughts. I'll consider others, but ultimately, they may only be a placeholder until further clarification comes. In my own life, actual experience has value ... not just thoughts about the experience and interpretations of others. If it's God's, let Him "own" it. If He doesn't, why would I want to straw-man God on something He may not be claiming lol ?

Secondly do you accept that there is only one true identity Jesus Christ, regardless of what you and I believe about Him ?

Probably.

 

[TillICollapse]

There are different types of evidence.

There is personal experience evidence, which only applies to the person who has the experience and there is objective evidence, that is there for all to see and points on one direction.

I have yet to see anyone who claims to have objective evidence of a God, have that argument hold up to scrutiny.

If someone desires objective evidence of a God, they most likely are a non believer.

Hey dude ! Was waiting to see you post the last couple of days ... had a question for you

Totally unrelated to this topic and thread: what is the term for withholding punishment and treating that as though it was a "reward" ? For example: "Your reward, is that you don't get beaten today." I was sure there was a term for this (perhaps a psych related term) but I didn't know what it would be. I asked another poster, and they answered, but wanted to see if you came up with a different answer as well (if you wish to answer that is).

 

[agua]

...Again, context. And again ... I like to let people draw their own conclusions....

....Probably.

Ok this is really all I need to know, for my record.

 

[agua]

There are different types of evidence.

There is personal experience evidence, which only applies to the person who has the experience and there is objective evidence, that is there for all to see and points on one direction.

I have yet to see anyone who claims to have objective evidence of a God, have that argument hold up to scrutiny.

If someone desires objective evidence of a God, they most likely are a non believer.

I think you have the problem that evidence is subject to the burden of the observer. For instance I accept that the Universe is evidence of a Creator.

What burden do you place upon Yahweh, to show you that He exists ?

 

[smaneck]

Today is easter, and Christ was asked for a sign.....He said..."an evil and wicked generation seeks after a sign, none shall be given you accept the sign of jonah."

Dear Gradyll,

There are three very different versions of what Jesus said on this occasion. Presumably you are referring to version found in Matthew:

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".
Matthew 12.39-40.

The problem with this account is that if we accept the traditional story of the crucifixion and the resurrection Jesus was buried at most two nights and barely over a day. Here is the version found in Mark 8, reputed to be the oldest Gospel:

"11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side."

Then we have version found in Luke 11:

"29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here."

Here it is Jonah's preaching that signifies the sign, not his being swallowed by a whale.

Accept one thing. The Garden tomb still exits...

And why would we accept this over the traditional site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

Now How many tombs do you know of reading in national geographic, that are "hewn from stone", and that were "sealed with a round stone"

Actually, tombs hewn from stone are fairly common. As far as sealed with a round stone, I see no evidence that this was the case with this particular tomb. But then I really don't know that round stones sealing a tomb were particularly unusual.

they found the garden tomb stone as well:

There see no real evidence that the stone was connected with the tomb. It is located in Jordan, not Jerusalem, after all.

Also, I have more than a problem with your source which appears to be A True Ott. His PhD is supposedly from the American University in nutrition, not archaeology. But here is bigger problem. The American University only offers a Master's degree in nutrition, not a PhD. More disturbing is the assertions I found on his website that Simon Magus founded the Catholic Church. I've also heard that Mr. Ott is behind a number of conspiracy theories such as the swine flu being the result of a bio weapon and the Great Recession the result of the Chinese no longer buying US assets. He claims the Obama finally gave the Chinese eminent domain over the US to repay our debts. But what I found most disturbing with this at the bottom of his article:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hexagram.jpg

It shows the Star of David and encourages us to connect the thirteen evil dots. A rather nasty piece of antisemitism, don't you think?
Not a very credible source, if you ask me.

 

[TillICollapse]

Ok this is really all I need to know, for my record.

What record is that ?

 

[smaneck]

It shows the Star of David and encourages us to connect the thirteen evil dots. A rather nasty piece of antisemitism, don't you think?
Not a very credible source, if you ask me.

Speaking of antisemitism, I found something even more disturbing about this A True Ott who you got your stuff on the resurrection from. He apparently believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic source. Here is what he wrote:

"First of all it clearly shows the POWER the EDOMITE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) wields in “programming” their own private gang of enforcers in order to keep the Goyim (human livestock) in line. The atheist, power-mad, Khazar anti-Christians seek a dominant police state in America – which then is just a small step away from the Soviet CHEKA “police” who truly terrorized and murdered millions of Russian CHRISTIANS.
Think about it folks. What makes the SPLC qualified to prepare this “mandatory” police training course? The “Us vs. Them” mentality is an integral part of the “Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion” marching orders of the Bolsheviks “Jews” – a document which of course the SPLC disparages by falsely declaring it to be a “forgery” and a “fraud”."
https://atrueott.wordpress.com/2013...khazar-edomites-are-training-law-enforcement/

Scary.