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.
Ask yourself how that very brief description of James' death refutes the idea that James completely fabricated the resurrection or the idea that the resurrection was invented decades after Jesus' death.
Would you care to share the details of Peter's death?
Do you have the names and addresses of those eyewitnesses? or only stories of testimonies?The New Testament is not a collection of 'stories'. They are testimonies.
If you do invent a time machine, go back to before the flood and video the aliens that helped with the building of the pyramids. Or were the pyramids built after the flood?What other evidence can one gather? Should I invent a time machine..
Do you have the names and addresses of those eyewitnesses? or only stories of testimonies?
I love the condescending tone. Do you feel that it makes your assertions more convincing?Why don't you read while I write little one,
I do know that, but it's not my problem.in case you didn't know documentation and oral traditions were the only form of historicity from then,
...your interpretation of the Bible...now if you don't want to believe that's fine, but you will get the truth from me because I am not nor will I be afraid or ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and since Gods word
Not in the absence of evidence to show that it comports with observations of reality.isn't good enough for you to believe
...if you cherry-pick and reinterpret as needed...even though every prophecy has come to pass 100%,
Belief is not a conscious choice. I cannot simply believe what I want to believe. How about you?and most every place mentioned has been found and exactly how it was listed IN the bible your blood is on your own head and not required at my hands, you may believe just exactly what you want,
You should note that the CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, i.e., the defense of the Christian faith against arguments, objections or attacks from non-Christians. Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers.but if I were you Id leave me alone
What flood?,,,,OH YEAH and pre-flood is my speciality,
Really? What colour were they? Green? Grey?the fallen weren't exactly aliens,
That's a new one. Were the Egyptians sealed in there too?the great pyramid was built before the flood then sealed
I wouldn't know where to start on that one.and is a prophecy of Christ itself, yeah you may wanna do some real research then come at me,
I feel that Christian love already.but I promise you one thing, you may leave in a sling
If you have nothing nice to say, come sit by me.but you will definitely learn how everything points to the truth of Christ, and since I have nothing nice to say,
And to you.Good day to you.
It depends; are we are discussing the existence of an ancient human philosopher, such as Socrates, or are we contemplating a mysterious brainless intelligence that remains undetectable by any objective measure to date, yet is claimed to do have created this universe, govern what I should (or shouldn't) have on my head, with whom I can have sex, the fabrics I can wear, the food I eat, and polices the thoughts in my head?Do you need those things to deduce any other history?
It is my understanding that the books have been lost to the dusts of time, and we only have hand-written copies. Preserved they were not.And, half the NT was written by Paul, and much of the rest by other disciples. The book of Acts was by an anonymous eyewitness. Revelation is the only book that isn't a testimony, but rather prophesy by John of Patmos.
These books have been preserved since the time they were written.
Concerning the Romans: We know that Polycarp was given the opportunity to curse Christ, and subsequently he would go free. That's second century. We know other Christians were given that option in later persecutions as well, so we have the pattern that the Romans generally followed. What evidence do you have that they went against the pattern in the case of the Twelve?As I was being raised Christian, I 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.
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."
So then either you believe in aliens and Big Foot or else by your own admission your belief in Jesus is entirely biased and unwarranted.
Not that I can see.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?
As I was being raised Christian, I 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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
Obviously, they couldn't dismiss a possibility that he may have just been a prodigy of cleverness. Perhaps some were faking, or weren't all as they thought to have been. Human skepticism knows little bounds.
Dying and coming back to life three days later however is not something a mortal human can do.
Did anyone put a gun to those people's heads and inquire? All the apostles were willing to die, and they did. The blood of the saints secure their testimony.
I'm sorry, was that in your original challenge?
I am not obliged to argue against new lines
of inquiry that are off topic.
Ask yourself how that very brief description of James' death refutes the idea that James completely fabricated the resurrection or the idea that the resurrection was invented decades after Jesus' death.
So really we do not have the "Why die for a lie?" argument.
It is said that it was not from whooping cough.
It was related to his adherence to his beliefs.
Are all you people serious, I really thought this was a Christian forum and you don't trust the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there are over 500 documented accounts of people seeing Christ after the crucifixion, the 12 apostles were a group of cowards in hiding until Christ appeared to them and later gave them the Holy Spirit then they were bold as lions.
But too faith is a choice, and it comes from the heart, I cant tell you what to believe even if I know it to be true, so believe what you want.
Good day
Do you need those things to deduce any other history? And, half the NT was written by Paul, and much of the rest by other disciples. The book of Acts was by an anonymous eyewitness. Revelation is the only book that isn't a testimony, but rather prophesy by John of Patmos.
These books have been preserved since the time they were written.
Concerning the Romans: We know that Polycarp was given the opportunity to curse Christ, and subsequently he would go free. That's second century. We know other Christians were given that option in later persecutions as well, so we have the pattern that the Romans generally followed. What evidence do you have that they went against the pattern in the case of the Twelve?
Concerning the Jews: They let Peter and John go on the condition that they no longer teach the Gospel. Furthermore, the martyrdom of Stephen was at a Sanhedrin meeting after he confessed to it. Reading Acts 7, it is very unlikely that the Sanhedrin would have tortured him into confessing if he had denied it instead.
Whatever you said, you failed the purpose of your OP (if there was one).
I do not care if my believe is biased to you or not. You need to give me a reason to be care about it.
Not that I can see.
Besides your original questions, we also have these, among others: How do you know who the real writers of the ancient books were? How do you know that various authorities did not decide to rewrite those books? How do you know for sure that your reading of those books are uncorrupted and proper? How do you know that the writers of the books are in fact stating the truth? How do you know that the books chosen by somebodies in the past to be included were the correct books? How do you know that the books weren't written as fictional stories for children?
Saying that they were all given the final choice to recant or die is overstating the case. People die for lies all the time, but they don't tend to die for something that they were in a position to know was a lie. If they knew it was a lie, then what did they have to gain by spreading it? Why risk imprisonment and/or death, especially after other apostles were starting to be imprisoned and/or killed off? The remaining apostles had the opportunity to recant long before they reached the recant or die scenario.
Again, Joseph Smith died as a result of spreading his beliefs. There are many here who believe that Joseph Smith knew full well that he was lying about it all. So you have to ask yourself, "What does being martyred prove? What are the specific circumstances of each death?"
I'm confused as to why you would think that is comparable.
Some have suggested that many of Paul's teachings are different than Jesus'.... the Romans were trying to stamp out Christianity, then you must explain why they allowed Paul to write letters to the churches for the purposes of directing and organizing their activities.
Some have suggested that many of Paul's teachings are different than Jesus'.
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?