If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[WindStaff]

Windstaff, what are you trying to achieve here? How can you claim to know the reason for every person choosing to become an atheist? There are many different reasons, and most of them are honest ones, as far as I can tell.

"Reasons", as in what they tell you after they leave Christianity. The reality is that God's grace is not something you just walk out the door on due to some frivolous skepticism on religion. There's always something deep seeded in dissent from Christ.
You even believing otherwise says a lot about how you perceive God, not that I have ever actually realized you were even religious in the first place by your posts. I only just noticed you have a cross icon_

 

[WoundedDeep]

And there are no NT writing contained in the Dea Sea Scrolls. Of course, if you can show me some texts from the NT that are also contained in the DSS, I'd be happy to have a look.

A lot of claims, no sources. And he has a definite bias.

Erm. You obviously didn't look at the whole article, because the author DID mention sources, and even pointed out the scroll's name/label that echoed what was written in the NT.

Well, I consider a source to be more accurate if it was actually written AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IT DESCRIBES.

At the time of the events? Do you expect a writer or a reporter to be standing at every single event that happens in history at the very second the event occurs to record them down? Imagine how tiring it will be if historians are required to walk around the earth, be at a place, and record something that happens at the very second it happens!

Isn't it more reasonable that as long as the historian lived and witnessed the event, his writings are then accurate even if he decides to record it decades later?

By the way, you have barely even looked at the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls that DO echo the NT. Your claims are wholly unsubstantiated and it seems you expect me to spoonfeed you everything.

 

[WoundedDeep]

"Reasons", as in what they tell you after they leave Christianity. The reality is that God's grace is not something you just walk out the door on due to some frivolous skepticism on religion. There's always something deep seeded in dissent from Christ.
You even believing otherwise says a lot about how you perceive God, not that I have ever actually realized you were even religious in the first place by your posts. I only just noticed you have a cross icon_

Let's not be presumptuous here Windstaff. We are to be meek in spirit, firm in the truth and loving to one another. Be careful of pride and dissensions, both of which are sin that needs repenting.

 

[Kylie]

Erm. You obviously didn't look at the whole article, because the author DID mention sources, and even pointed out the scroll's name/label that echoed what was written in the NT.

My point was that the DSS were written BEFORE the NT. It would be perfectly plausible for the writers of the NT to be aware of what was in the DSS and incorporate it into their writings.

At the time of the events? Do you expect a writer or a reporter to be standing at every single event that happens in history at the very second the event occurs to record them down? Imagine how tiring it will be if historians are required to walk around the earth, be at a place, and record something that happens at the very second it happens!

Yes, you are quite right. It is foolish of me to expect the Egyptian civilisation to record the numerous plagues or the deaths of all the firstborns. It is foolish of me to expect that when Jesus fed the crowds with just a few fish and a few loaves that someone there would write it down. It is foolish of me to expect the Romans to keep records of the people they executed.

Isn't it more reasonable that as long as the historian lived and witnessed the event, his writings are then accurate even if he decides to record it decades later?

You are 23. Can you write a reliable account of what happened on your 13th birthday? No using home videos or photographs, as these things didn't exist for the people living at the time of Christ. You may interview people who were there and use your own memories. Would this give an accurate account of the day?

By the way, you have barely even looked at the texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls that DO echo the NT. Your claims are wholly unsubstantiated and it seems you expect me to spoonfeed you everything.

Please. The DSS were written BEFORE the NT. How do I know that it isn't the NT echoing the DSS? It's a very easy thing for someone to say, "This old scroll talks about a person who is the messiah who will be crucified, so let's write in our stuff that this guy we claim is the messiah is crucified." It's called a postdiction.

 

[WoundedDeep]

My point was that the DSS were written BEFORE the NT. It would be perfectly plausible for the writers of the NT to be aware of what was in the DSS and incorporate it into their writings.

What? The reason why the NT exists is because specific writings of DSS are established to be writings of Jesus' followers! What on earth are you talking about when you say DSS was written before the NT??

Yes, you are quite right. It is foolish of me to expect the Egyptian civilisation to record the numerous plagues or the deaths of all the firstborns. It is foolish of me to expect that when Jesus fed the crowds with just a few fish and a few loaves that someone there would write it down. It is foolish of me to expect the Romans to keep records of the people they executed.

Did they record them at the very second of the event, or later on after the witnessing of the event? You still don't seem to understand the absurdity of your reasoning.

You are 23. Can you write a reliable account of what happened on your 13th birthday? No using home videos or photographs, as these things didn't exist for the people living at the time of Christ. You may interview people who were there and use your own memories. Would this give an accurate account of the day?

What? So you believe that grown adults like Jesus' disciples could not have the mental capability to remember what they have witnessed and record it accurately a few years/decades later? If that is your reasoning, I have nothing to say. We probably shouldn't believe in any Holocaust accounts either since no one recorded it at the very moment when the Holocaust happened. Maybe even Hitler was a myth since clearly no one was recording things about him and his life until years/decades later.

Please. The DSS were written BEFORE the NT. How do I know that it isn't the NT echoing the DSS? It's a very easy thing for someone to say, "This old scroll talks about a person who is the messiah who will be crucified, so let's write in our stuff that this guy we claim is the messiah is crucified." It's called a postdiction.

The writings of the DSS that echoed the NT ARE the writings of Jesus' disciples. I hope I don't need to repeat it like I did already with so many statements.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What's rude is your presumption that they haven't, or weren't fully convinced, and therefore were not sincere or devout.

I made no such presumptions. I am making a factual statement that whether a person has experienced God and is convinced of God's existence has nothing to do with whether he/she was raised in a Christian family. I did not say whether someone is sincere or devout. Still, there doesn't seem to be a reason for feeling offended unless you do believe you have experienced God in your life. If so, what then makes other people's writings against God's existence more convincing than your own experience?

How do I know what you're trying to do? Because I've seen it done before: a Christian encounters a former Christian and dismisses or belittles his/her previous devotion, or worse still, claims that they were never a Christian at all.

The fundamentals of Christianity is about having a relationship with God. Just because someone calls himself a Christian does not automatically make him a Christian. Jesus Himself said a person's faith is identifiable by his/her fruits/deeds. If someone calls himself a Communist yet his actions oppose the beliefs of Communism, clearly he is a fake. The same is said for people who calls themselves Christians.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I made no such presumptions. I am making a factual statement that whether a person has experienced God and is convinced of God's existence has nothing to do with whether he/she was raised in a Christian family. I did not say whether someone is sincere or devout. Still, there doesn't seem to be a reason for feeling offended unless you do believe you have experienced God in your life. If so, what then makes other people's writings against God's existence more convincing than your own experience?

After seriously contemplating my faith, I realised that I was probably mistaken.

The fundamentals of Christianity is about having a relationship with God. Just because someone calls himself a Christian does not automatically make him a Christian. Jesus Himself said a person's faith is identifiable by his/her fruits/deeds. If someone calls himself a Communist yet his actions oppose the beliefs of Communism, clearly he is a fake. The same is said for people who calls themselves Christians.

All that is required to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son. That's it. Whether or not someone is a good Christian is another matter entirely.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Did you then, have things you prayed about, that you knew for sure was answered?

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What do you find that is not believable?

Humor me, so I can back you further into the a corner which says you basically left your religion out of chosen ignorance.

You can't accept Christianity because it doesn't make you the master of your own fate.

Humour you? Why? You're being presumptuous and rude. I don't owe you anything, and I can see now that there is nothing I can say that will convince you that I left Christianity behind because I no longer believed in its doctrines. You're convinced that your religion is somehow special, so special in fact that no one would ever consider leaving. Cults have a high opinion of themselves as well. "Why would anyone want to leave our utopia?!"

 

[Kylie]

What? The reason why the NT exists is because specific writings of DSS are established to be writings of Jesus' followers! What on earth are you talking about when you say DSS was written before the NT??

Can you show me evidence that the people who wrote the NT parts of the DSS were the people that were walking around with Jesus?

Did they record them at the very second of the event, or later on after the witnessing of the event? You still don't seem to understand the absurdity of your reasoning.

What are you talking about? I'll accept it as long as you can show that they come from people who were there at the time the events happened and were written relatively soon after the event.

What? So you believe that grown adults like Jesus' disciples could not have the mental capability to remember what they have witnessed and record it accurately a few years/decades later? If that is your reasoning, I have nothing to say.

So is that a yes or a no?

We probably shouldn't believe in any Holocaust accounts either since no one recorded it at the very moment when the Holocaust happened.

Yeah, it's not like the Germans running the camps didn't keep written records. It's not like there were mass graves or anything of the people they killed. It's not like the soldiers who liberated the camps didn't write reports.

Not until years later, at least.

Please.

Maybe even Hitler was a myth since clearly no one was recording things about him and his life until years/decades later.

Yeah, it's not like Hitler wrote a book or anything, or wrote speeches, or signed orders, or produced artworks, or served in the First World War or anything like that...

The writings of the DSS that echoed the NT ARE the writings of Jesus' disciples. I hope I don't need to repeat it like I did already with so many statements.

Like I said, prove it was those disciples who wrote it? Did they include bylines, perhaps?

 

[Roonwit]

Doesn't mean that the traditions are true, either.

No, but I think the burden of proof is on those who want to argue a case other than taking things at face value.

And I have to wonder why no one apparently held this view prior to this time.

We have no records from before that time. It's not like there are records that attribute it to some other person, or that don't attribute it at all. The very first records we have available to us attribute it to Luke. It is never attributed to anyone else. And just because that record dates to (I think) the 140s AD doesn't mean that no-one before then knew of the gospel of believed it was by Luke, only that if there is any written testimony of that fact then it is lost to us. The most we can say is that Papias in 110AD probably wasn't aware of Luke, otherwise he would have mentioned it along with Matthew and Mark. But that was in the era when people were only just starting to think about gathering apostolic scriptures together into some kind of New Testament canon, so there is no reason why every book would have been widely known.

Irrelevant. I've seen people write stories claiming to be a friend of Harry Potter's.

Are you serious, or is this another product of your busy day? You cannot compare the gospel writer to a writer of fan-fiction.

Roonwit

 

[Kylie]

No, but I think the burden of proof is on those who want to argue a case other than taking things at face value.

The burden of proof lies on those who insist that there is more going on than there is evidence for.

We have no records from before that time. It's not like there are records that attribute it to some other person, or that don't attribute it at all. The very first records we have available to us attribute it to Luke. It is never attributed to anyone else. And just because that record dates to (I think) the 140s AD doesn't mean that no-one before then knew of the gospel of believed it was by Luke, only that if there is any written testimony of that fact then it is lost to us. The most we can say is that Papias in 110AD probably wasn't aware of Luke, otherwise he would have mentioned it along with Matthew and Mark. But that was in the era when people were only just starting to think about gathering apostolic scriptures together into some kind of New Testament canon, so there is no reason why every book would have been widely known.

Seems to be a lot of stuff going on for Augustus, who lived around the time. Surely if there are such records of him, then there would be records of the Son of God as well, and what people thought of him.

Are you serious, or is this another product of your busy day? You cannot compare the gospel writer to a writer of fan-fiction.

I am comparing the writer of one thing I consider fiction to the writer of another thing I consider fiction. My point was that the simple fact that it was written from the point of view of a particular person does not mean the author actually WAS that person.

 

[Roonwit]

The burden of proof lies on those who insist that there is more going on than there is evidence for.

That would be you then.

Seems to be a lot of stuff going on for Augustus, who lived around the time. Surely if there are such records of him, then there would be records of the Son of God as well, and what people thought of him.

Augustus was the Roman Emperor. Everyone was writing about him. Jesus was a Jewish peasant whose followers were mostly peasants. In the early years spreading the gospel orally was more urgent than writing long books about it. The writings we have are mostly letters, until apologetics gets going in the mid 2nd century, which is about what we would expect, I think.

I am comparing the writer of one thing I consider fiction to the writer of another thing I consider fiction. My point was that the simple fact that it was written from the point of view of a particular person does not mean the author actually WAS that person.

But you are confusing genres and authorial intentions. Seriously, every so often I think I am having a serious discussion, and then someone throws in a point like this one and I come to suspect that you are just having a laugh.

Roonwit

 

[variant]

No, but I think the burden of proof is on those who want to argue a case other than taking things at face value.

By that standard we are committed to every religious faith.

Augustus was the Roman Emperor. Everyone was writing about him. Jesus was a Jewish peasant whose followers were mostly peasants. In the early years spreading the gospel orally was more urgent than writing long books about it. The writings we have are mostly letters, until apologetics gets going in the mid 2nd century, which is about what we would expect, I think.

Jesus supposedly had a very large following, was so radical that that he had to be killed (supposedly the actual teachings that survive from the time seem to agree with him) and rose from the dead.

There are even tales in the Bible of such things like:

52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Which you would think people would take note of.

The first documents that we get about this come from at least 20 years after the events and we get few if any contemporary mentions.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Yeah, it's not like the Germans running the camps didn't keep written records. It's not like there were mass graves or anything of the people they killed. It's not like the soldiers who liberated the camps didn't write reports.

Clearly, you don't know anything about the holocaust. How about you show me the records the Germans made about their concentration camps? (Assuming they exist) How about you show me that whatever records about the Holocaust was written at the very second the Jews were killed? If you can't, your reasoning is wrong.

Yeah, it's not like Hitler wrote a book or anything, or wrote speeches, or signed orders, or produced artworks, or served in the First World War or anything like that...

Then you must be totally unaware that an autobiography about Hitler called Mein Kampf exists. Well, that's unfortunate. And even Hitler's own autobiography was not written by himself, but based on his oral account to someone close. Your statement shows you have no background knowledge at all.

Like I said, I'm not here to spoon feed information. For your sake, you should prove or disprove DSS texts that echo the NT yourself.

 

[WoundedDeep]

After seriously contemplating my faith, I realised that I was probably mistaken.



All that is required to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son. That's it. Whether or not someone is a good Christian is another matter entirely.

If you read the Acts when Peter preached the Gospel openly to the Jews, the first group of Jews were first pricked in their conscience, then they were asked to repent, and last they believed in the Gospel. This is and had always been the biblical salvation. If there was no repentance, there was no salvation.

Repent and be saved. This is the biblical command for salvation itself. Nothing to do with a good or bad Christian.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I mean for instance you prayed about an urgent need, and God answered it and supplied you with it.

Take me for an example, I prayed for my family so that the domestic violence could stop. My father was a bad tempered and controlling man for years. God stopped it years later with no effort on my part or my parents' part. My father became a mild tempered man as well. That is an answered prayer.

 

[bhsmte]

If you read the Acts when Peter preached the Gospel openly to the Jews, the first group of Jews were first pricked in their conscience, then they were asked to repent, and last they believed in the Gospel. This is and had always been the biblical salvation. If there was no repentance, there was no salvation.

Repent and be saved. This is the biblical command.

All words, which some people after acquiring knowledge come to understand, they can't reconcile it as believable any longer.

Do you believe you're beliefs are infallible?

 

[Roonwit]

By that standard we are committed to every religious faith.

Not so. The vast majority of claims made leave absolutely no evidence to explain. But this is one that does, and so we have to explain it.

Eastern religions don't rely on historical truth claims. For Islam, the only historical truth claim I really need to cast doubt on is that the experiences that Muhammad had in the cave were not actually the Angel Gabriel - whether he was lying or deluded or visited by a false angel, we can have absolutely no way of telling - but everything else in the development of Islam is just sociology.

But with the resurrection, there are a number of strands of evidence, all pointing in the same direction, and all difficult to explain without a basis in actual fact.

Jesus supposedly had a very large following, was so radical that that he had to be killed (supposedly the actual teachings that survive from the time seem to agree with him) and rose from the dead.

But he was completely unknown outside Palestine in his lifetime, and Palestine itself was considered an unimportant backwater of the Empire.

The first documents that we get about this come from at least 20 years after the events and we get few if any contemporary mentions.

I have my doubts about the historicity of that pericope. That doesn't detract from the bigger question of whether Jesus rose from the dead.

Roonwit

 

[WoundedDeep]

Not so. The vast majority of claims made leave absolutely no evidence to explain. But this is one that does, and so we have to explain it.

Eastern religions don't rely on historical truth claims. For Islam, the only historical truth claim I really need to cast doubt on is that the experiences that Muhammad had in the cave were not actually the Angel Gabriel - whether he was lying or deluded or visited by a false angel, we can have absolutely no way of telling - but everything else in the development of Islam is just sociology.

I did studies on Islam, and found the experience of Muhammad entirely unbiblical if you compare it to the biblical experience of revelation of God to His prophets. Muhammad was literally strangled by the "angel Gabriel" the first time the "angel" came to him, almost committed suicide after that horrifying experience and was forced to deliver a message that the "angel" claimed to be from their god. All evidences suggest that Muhammad was oppressed by a demonic spirit, and his revelations were of a demonic origin. Not to mention that the Quran contains texts that motivates hatred against the Jews and Christians.

Consider the hatred against Christians and Jews by those who profess Islam in the Middle East today, it is not difficult to understand what spirit is motivating that hatred.