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.
I think this slippery road is what they are mainly afraid of... that you will finish with "do we even need literal Jesus"?
The evidence for Jesus does exist. It is just not as well supported as some Christians claim. But what little evidence that does exist only supports the existence of a natural Jesus. Not a supernatural Jesus.And there was, in fact, a literal (historical) Jesus. If being made in God's image means man was made to walk uprightly (figurative for righteously), then it's no coincidence he also literally walks uprightly? Maybe the one mirrors the other.
But what little evidence that does exist only supports the existence of a natural Jesus.
Only according to those who don't accept God's word as authoritive.Sorry, but if one does that then one in effect refutes the entire Bible. If you say "It is all true or none of it is true" then finding one event that did not happen as told in the Bible and the whole thing falls apart. And there are quite a few events that did not happen as told in the Bible.
That would be on heck of a wire.Is a conduit to the Father super-natural?
Except when one looks at the evidence it is not that convincing."little evidence" ? There is so much evidence, that "it's not even an issue for scholars of antiquity" ~Bart Erhman (an agnostic)
Why should anyone accept the Bible, which you do not even know is "God's word" as authoritative. You may believe it to be God's word, but I am very very sure that you cannot support that claim. You can only believe it. Believing is not knowing. If you knew that it was God's word you could support your belief with a rational argument.Only according to those who don't accept God's word as authoritive.
As I said if you pick and choose why would you choose to believe the crucial part?
Is a talking snake less likely than a man rising from the dead?
Sometimes bears walk uprightAnd there was, in fact, a literal (historical) Jesus. If being made in God's image means man was made to walk uprightly (figurative for righteously), then it's no coincidence he also literally walks uprightly? Maybe the one mirrors the other.
Except when one looks at the evidence it is not that convincing.
"little evidence" ? There is so much evidence, that "it's not even an issue for scholars of antiquity" ~Bart Erhman (an agnostic)
This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.Why should anyone accept the Bible, which you do not even know is "God's word" as authoritative. You may believe it to be God's word, but I am very very sure that you cannot support that claim. You can only believe it. Believing is not knowing. If you knew that it was God's word you could support your belief with a rational argument.
Since we can show events such as Noah's Ark never happened with evidence why would one believe something that is not supported by reality?
Only according to those who don't accept God's word as authoritive.
As I said if you pick and choose why would you choose to believe the crucial part?
Is a talking snake less likely than a man rising from the dead?
No, you are wrong. There are over 300 verses that were reinterpreted after the fact, but when read in context they are not about Jesus. By the way, quote mining works both ways. If you can quote mine the Bible to support Jesus others can quote mine the Bible to disprove God. Both parties are wrong when they do this.This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.
Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word. There's over 300 prophecies that were foretold and came true just in Jesus. We know approximately when some of them were written and it was long before Jesus lived on this earth.
It's rational to believe that is evidence of the Bibles authority. Jesus himself used the Bible as an authority also so his followers should follow his example.
Actually he is an atheist. He has even admitted that, though he likes the term agnostic better. His conclusion is that he probably existed, and I do agree. But the evidence for him is not as strong as Christians claim. Ehrman would have agreed with everything that I said. In fact he has made all of those claims himself. I did not say or imply that Jesus did not exist. I merely pointed out that the evidence is not as strong as Christians like to believe. And of course Ehrman does not think that Jesus did miracles or rose from the dead. In fact he will point out that Jesus was probably not buried in a tomb. In those days part of the punishment of Roman crucifixion was leaving the body up and putting it in a public grave. Hebrew crucifixion was different. They would take the body down and bury it. Roman crucifixion is known much better than Hebrew crucifixion, but they both did exist.It's convincing to this agnostic scholar. So what you really mean is that it's not convincing to you.
This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.
Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word.
There's over 300 prophecies that were foretold and came true just in Jesus. We know approximately when some of them were written and it was long before Jesus lived on this earth.
It's rational to believe that is evidence of the Bibles authority. Jesus himself used the Bible as an authority also so his followers should follow his example.
So it was just coincidence that he fullfilled 300 prophecies? The odds are astronomical no matter the original contextNo, you are wrong. There are over 300 verses that were reinterpreted after the fact, but when read in context they are not about Jesus. By the way, quote mining works both ways. If you can quote mine the Bible to support Jesus others can quote mine the Bible to disprove God. Both parties are wrong when they do this.
Here is a challenge, please pick your best prophesy that when read in context was about Jesus.
But now they had a new understanding of what was being said because they saw the fullfillment.And the people who wrote about Jesus had all of those prophecies laid out in front of them.
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?