Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Have you read them? Which ones? Why weren't they helpful to you? Could you take one, such as the ontological argument, and show why you find this unsatisfying?
Consider that almost every one of the disciples suffered martyrdom. If it was a lie that Jesus rose from the dead, why would they choose to die for a lie?
There is more evidence for the suffering of the disciples than any other event that far back in history.
I don't know how pitiful of a defense that is but it does show exactly how much interest the atheist truly has.....spoon feeding is not learning.....What isn't helpful is you telling me to go look things up. If an atheist comes to Christian forums, goes to the apologetics area, and all they can do is just tell him to go somewhere else, then that is a pitiful defense of Christianity.
First one to post!
Woohoo!I confirm that 'yes' you were the first to post.
I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.
What is your argument for why this God exists though?
It sounds like you are saying that there is no good reason to believe in God apart from personal revelation. Is that correct?
How do we know you exist?I'm less interested in "knowing God" and more interested in knowing whether he exists.
That's not completely accurate. Many Christians, including myself, believe that while the Bible may be inspirited, it was not all dictated by God. There are, for example, about 100 major contradictions.
I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.
All we have is eyewitness testimony and the transformation of the disciples' lives. Quite literally nothing else. But consider that their eyewitness testimony is given to us second-hand, and is decades old by the time it appears in print. In today's world there are eyewitnesses who claim to have seen Elvis after his death; these testimonies are first-hand and given immediately, making them categorically better than the testimony of the disciples, and yet we dismiss Elvis sightings without even a shrug.
Is there a method of logical scrutiny that we can apply which will result in reasonably accepting the resurrection as plausible while simultaneously deeming Elvis sightings, alien abductions, Big Foot, etc as implausible?
You have to understand that some of these things is longer than would be comfortable in a thread. We could quote 12 pages of something or have you go there and read it. Or did you want to be spoon-fed?What isn't helpful is you telling me to go look things up. If an atheist comes to Christian forums, goes to the apologetics area, and all they can do is just tell him to go somewhere else, then that is a pitiful defense of Christianity.
We know that, when Peter was going to be crucified in Rome for his faith, he asked to be crucified upside down. We know from Scripture that James was put to the sword for his faith. (Whether they were given the opportunity to recant doesn't really matter). Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia. He witnessed in present-day Turkey and was martyred for his preaching in Armenia, being flayed to death by a whip. Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers, they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: “I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it.” He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he died. The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church there. Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded. The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the evil Emperor Nero in Rome in A.D. 67. There are traditions regarding the other apostles as well, but none with any reliable historical or traditional support.Clearly you haven't devoted much time in researching your beliefs.
As I was being raised Christian, I, just like you, was led to believe that the eyewitness apostles willfully died for their testimony and refused the opportunity to recant and go free. This is very powerful testimony, much more powerful than that of the 9/11 hijackers because those hijackers never professed first-hand knowledge of Islam.
I then discovered that this is a complete lie. There is no actual documented claim - whether in the Bible, in noncanonized texts, in Christian tradition, or even in secular history - which claims that the disciples were actually given the opportunity to go free if only they recanted their faith. We have no dialogue, and barely even any details of what actually happened.
Yes, because that's what happened.I always imagined a Roman saying, "Recant your faith or you will be tortured and executed," but the line of questioning could've just as easily been something along the lines of, "You were preaching the gospel, weren't you? Deny this, and you'll be tortured until you admit to it. You will be executed at the end regardless of what you say." In either case, it would be recorded that the disciple "died for his faith."
Except for the countless catacombs of martyred Christians in Rome...So really we do not have the "Why die for a lie?" argument. The actual claim does not even exist, aside from being a pulpit invention, so belief in it is entirely unwarranted even if one is Christian. What evidence do we have then for the resurrection? Most like to say eyewitness testimony and the empty tomb. But claiming that a man rose from the dead necessitates that his grave is empty merely as a basic element of the claim itself, and no one external to the eyewitnesses verified that the grave was actually empty, so the empty grave does not count as additional evidence.
So because people were busy doing and waited until they slowed down a bit to relate their story means that it's a lie? It's quite different than Elvis sitings There was little in the way of media back then. People remembered what's important.All we have is eyewitness testimony and the transformation of the disciples' lives. Quite literally nothing else. But consider that their eyewitness testimony is given to us second-hand, and is decades old by the time it appears in print. In today's world there are eyewitnesses who claim to have seen Elvis after his death; these testimonies are first-hand and given immediately, making them categorically better than the testimony of the disciples, and yet we dismiss Elvis sightings without even a shrug.
Aside from the fact that it's recorded in history? Also in Scripture, don't forget Stephen's martyrdom at the hands of Paul. He saw Jesus sitting on a throne in heaven.So my simple question is this:
Is there a method of logical scrutiny that we can apply which will result in reasonably accepting the resurrection as plausible while simultaneously deeming Elvis sightings, alien abductions, Big Foot, etc as implausible?
Not tradition. Recorded by their disciples. There are lots of accounts of martyrdom. But even in the OT, dying for Jerusalem was dying for your faith.Really? Such as what, Catholic tradition?
Given your model for what is valid testimony, you then deny all history from the same era, before and after. Alexander really did not conduct all those conquests. Caesar really did not write the Gallic Wars. It is an untenable position unless you are willing to adopt your testimony model for all human history.
Can't wait to hear about them.
Can you give the bibliograhy on the above quote....Well, for starters, you might try 2 Sam. 21:19. In Hebrew, it states clearly that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. Some translations gloss over this, by inserting the words "brother of." But there is no "brother of" in the Hebrew texts. So who killed Goliath? David? Elhanan? Also, you might look carefully at the Genesis account of creation. There are actually two contradictory chronologies presented there. I have included, below, my critique of the situation with Genesis.
When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.
Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.
Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled
“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from two different time periods.
Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.
There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.
There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.
Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.
Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.
How do we know you exist?
Frankly we 'know' by you typing on a device and posting it to this server. How do we know Nihlist virus actually communicated something different and somehow someone on the CF staff did not alter your words and we are not really reading the thoughts and opinions of the true NV?
We are both employing some degree of faith. This faith is informed objectively in that we all trust what we type is then presented to others on this forum. Other than that taking your approach, I don't know you 'exist.' Meaning I don't know if you are truly a person or some forum bot spouting out canned data.
Can you give the bibliograhy on the above quote....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?