My Journey From Being an Atheist to an Agnostic to an Calvinist Christian

[TomZzyzx]

Is there a scientific answer for someone raising form the dead?

Why would there be if it is a supernatural event?

 

[bhsmte]

Is there a scientific answer for someone raising form the dead?

What is your evidence that anyone has risen from the dead?

Is it a book? If so, you aren't relying on objective means.

Granted, if you want to believe that on faith, help yourself.

 

[Faith Unites]

The only objectivity we have would be in the historicity of the text. However, we can also track the growth of the early church. Though we may not be able to prove that a resurrection occurred, there is sufficient proof that people believed He was. If you are looking for reasons to reject the resurrection story you can certainly find them. As for me, I will accept it. IMHO it is far more reasonable than the swoon,stolen body, body switching, mass hallucination, stolen story, legend believing alternatives. Faith? yes. Blind faith? no.


http://www.risenjesus.com/top-10-myths-about-jesus-resurrection

 

[bhsmte]

The only objectivity we have would be in the historicity of the text. However, we can also track the growth of the early church. Though we may not be able to prove that a resurrection occurred, there is sufficient proof that people believed He was. If you are looking for reasons to reject the resurrection story you can certainly find them. As for me, I will accept it. IMHO it is far more reasonable than the swoon,stolen body, body switching, mass hallucination, stolen story, legend believing alternatives. Faith? yes. Blind faith? no.


Top 10 Myths About Jesus' Resurrection | Risen Jesus, Inc.

Legit historians would disagree with you, to them, any other explanation makes more sense than someone rising from the dead.

A historians job is really quite simple, they follow a method, to determine; "what is the most likely explanation" for past events. A miracle, by definition, is always the least likely explanation.

Of course, I don't see a problem with people taking this on faith, but those who claim it is objectively likely, are only fooling themselves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The only objectivity we have would be in the historicity of the text. However, we can also track the growth of the early church. Though we may not be able to prove that a resurrection occurred, there is sufficient proof that people believed He was. If you are looking for reasons to reject the resurrection story you can certainly find them. As for me, I will accept it. IMHO it is far more reasonable than the swoon,stolen body, body switching, mass hallucination, stolen story, legend believing alternatives. Faith? yes. Blind faith? no.


Top 10 Myths About Jesus' Resurrection | Risen Jesus, Inc.

So your reason to believe it is the fact that people back then believed it?

I guess you also need to believe then that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Islam, fyi, spread a lot faster then christianity did. Since you think that means something...

 

[Faith Unites]

Like I said in my post, you can't historically prove a miracle. However, you can verify the historicity of the text and follow the growth of the early church. There is no faith required.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said in my post, you can't historically prove a miracle. However, you can verify the historicity of the text and follow the growth of the early church. There is no faith required.

And, how much research have you done on the historicity of the NT, from qualified historians?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Like I said in my post, you can't historically prove a miracle. However, you can verify the historicity of the text and follow the growth of the early church. There is no faith required.

You can also verify the historicity of Muhammed, his companions and the quran (which, fyi is historically more accurate then the bible in my experience) and the growth of the early caliphate (which, fyi, was leaps and bounds faster then christianity).

It seems to me that the reasons you give can be used to believe just about any religion.

 

[Faith Unites]

I never said anything about growth speed. I said the early church is trackable. Christ performed miracles in public. Muhammed had a vision in a cave by himself. But I can see the similarities are striking.

 

[bhsmte]

I never said anything about growth speed. I said the early church is trackable. Christ performed miracles in public. Muhammed had a vision in a cave by himself. But I can see the similarities are striking.

Did the people who supposedly witnessed these miracles give first hand accounts that would be considered direct eye witness accounts? The answer to that is no, it was written down by unknown authors, decades after the events supposedly took place. Not the best criteria to give credibility to the same.

 

[Faith Unites]

Did the people who supposedly witnessed these miracles give first hand accounts that would be considered direct eye witness accounts? The answer to that is no, it was written down by unknown authors, decades after the events supposedly took place. Not the best criteria to give credibility to the same.

In classical antiquity it is actually a pretty amazing time frame. But I'm sure you already knew that. Most of that generation would have still been around to stomp out the bs.

 

[bhsmte]

In classical antiquity it is actually a pretty amazing time frame. But I'm sure you already knew that.

What is also amazing is;

-anonymous authors
-no originals of the gospels
-stories that appeared centuries later, that were no where to be found in the oldest copies
-Several verses being added to Mark (centuries later), so it would match up better with the other gospels
-the gospels providing different accounts of Jesus
-John, which is thought to be the least reliable of the 4 gospels, being the only one who mentions Jesus claims to be God, yet somehow, Matthew, Mark and Luke, somehow forgot this important point.

 

[Faith Unites]

So what variation doesn't have Jesus being resurrected?

 

[bhsmte]

So what variation doesn't have Jesus being resurrected?

Did I say a variation had Jesus not resurrected?

You see though, John was written much later than the first gospel and was farther removed from the time Jesus lived, yet, it was the only one that claims Jesus said he was God. Why do you think that is?

John also has the story of the adulteress and the "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" story and that has been shown to be no where to be found for centuries in the oldest copies of John. Why do you think that is?

 

[Faith Unites]

Did I say a variation had Jesus not resurrected?

You see though, John was written much later than the first gospel and was farther removed from the time Jesus lived, yet, it was the only one that claims Jesus said he was God. Why do you think that is?

John also has the story of the adulteress and the "he who is without sin should cast the first stone" story and that has been shown to be no where to be found for centuries in the oldest copies of John. Why do you think that is?

Throughout the new testament Jesus forgives sins and in the sermon on the mount He is judging the hearts of the people in Nazareth. When taking in the Jewish context we see that these are thing only God can do and He is being blasphemous. He is calling Himself God nonetheless. Some texts have an aorist tense of pisteusete so it could be that John is targeting those who have not heard. Others have it as pisteuete (or to continue believing). If the former is the case it makes since why John 8:7 is added later. First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Philemon, and Romans all talk about the deity of Christ. These were all written before the first gospel.

 

[now faith]

In other words: "Do not discuss how I am wrong."

No not to discuss how you are wrong but simply show you that all were not Cannites.
Since this is the premise of your entire argument,I have provided a text from the Bible that shows the post flood divisions in population.

What have you provided to support your theory on the children of Israel being Gentile and Cannite?

As well during all of your post in debate and here you make statements but fail to site reverence.

Who,what,where,were these outlandish discoveries based on?

Your contradictions in scripture what text are you using?

I simply do not need to defend unfounded allegations when you ignore the generational text I provided.

Nice dodge still waiting on your view or other evidence on Cannites.

 

[now faith]

Wait, do you not understand what it means to not be Christian?

I wouldn't necessarily say conspiracy, though. I'm sure there were ancient people who actually believed the things they came up with, since they lacked the scientific answers.

That is a fair question,quite possibly I do not.

I cannot transpose my spiritual understanding to others.

I cannot convince a person bound by temporal knowledge that there is deeper understanding
From something they cannot touch or see,and expect them to respond in a positive way.

I can only hope they at a given time will say: there has to be more to life than I know.

 

[BL2KTN]

It's early and I'm on my phone... when and if I am ready to explain "Cannites", I'm sure Faith will read it with all due reference.

 

[now faith]

Ahhh I get it I miss spelled a word well shame on everything you got me,so you can hang up from who ever is coaching you.

 

[BL2KTN]

No not to discuss how you are wrong but simply show you that all were not Cannites.

The word is "Canaanites, not Cannites. Everyone in the area of Canaan were Canaanites, including Hebrews. Genetic testing shows Hebrews were no different than the Canaanites they lived amongst as far as lineage is concerned. Obviously this contradicts the Hebrew bible's genealogies, which were constructed to make them seem more autonomous.

Since this is the premise of your entire argument,I have provided a text from the Bible that shows the post flood divisions in population.

The flood didn't happen, the story of it in the bible is a rip-off of The Epic of Gilgamesh, and you'll find a formal debate in my signature in which I showed the Bible is not the inspired word of God.

What have you provided to support your theory on the children of Israel being Gentile and Cannite?

Further evidence can be found in the very genealogies. The Canaanites worshiped a god named El, just like the Hebrews (who were also Canaanites) did. If people knew of El before the Canaanites existed, then this wouldn't make sense. But the people in the bible are actually named after El from the beginning of time. Imagine that... the earliest peoples are named after a Canaanite god invented around 3,000 BC!

Abel, Mehujael, Mahalalaeel, Methusael.

In fact, even Israel literally means, "May El Persevere".

As well during all of your post in debate and here you make statements but fail to site reverence.

The word is "reference," and I typically don't find references unless asked because this is all very elementary to me. I don't wish to get bogged down doing references that most people can just Google if they are unaware.

Who,what,where,were these outlandish discoveries based on?

I don't know what outlandish discoveries you're referring to.

Your contradictions in scripture what text are you using?

I have a degree in Biblical Studies - I know from first hand knowledge that the bible is highly contradictory.

I simply do not need to defend unfounded allegations when you ignore the generational text I provided.

The generational text in the bible is fictional all through Genesis.

Nice dodge still waiting on your view or other evidence on Cannites.

Canaanites.