Resha Caner
Expert Fool
No.
There were multiple factors, but, yes, that was a very significant one.
I have.
When not interacting, I trust he is still there.
Upvote
0
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.
Are you insinuating He was resuscitated by someone, or was never truly dead to begin with?
When you state 'serious spiritual push back', is that what directly lead you to the belief Jesus's claim is real?
When you state you trust God, do you claim to interact with Him?
Or, you trust that He is there, even though you do not apprehend direct contact from Him?
The Story has the ring of truth.
Faith is belief in God, first. Or a moment of belief, a leap of faith.
From that, once it becomes ongoing faith (see below), one becomes able then to begin to hear Christ, that is actually hear His words more fully, and get so much more, from His words in the gospels, past only the superficial or the parts that wouldn't be understandable to begin to get it. 'Ears that hear'.
The first testing (and this was before faith) I did was of the instructions on how to live from Christ, beginning with "love your neighbor as yourself" -- doing it literally with the (until that time) strangers that lived immediately next door to me on both sides. That works spectacularly well, and I thought I must have been sorta lucky and tried it again in new locations, and again it works wonderfully, and I also began testing other things He instructed such as forgiving and even in time trying the radical and unlikely sounding "love your enemy" which was very difficult to do in the first minutes. And worked so well it was just...astounding, These things can be (were for me) like one buys a lottery ticket and it pays $100,000 or something like that. Or 4 tickets, and each pay out amazingly. It just works. Just success after success from these various instructions. That was convincing that Jesus knew very well what He was talking about, far more than I'd imagined or guessed at first, in fact perfectly, and that made me finally begin to wonder about the other things He had said, about God...
See? So I tested that finally, by seeking God. That's the leap of faith, when it's for real. "You will seek me and you will find me when you seek me with all of your heart."
-- It's for real, I found out. So, that was the testing I did. These are things anyone could try. Sometimes I've used a metaphor to say it's sorta (or can be) like leaving the familiar, and sailing into the unknown. It's...a leap of faith.
But before one sails off into uncharted water, they should read the words from the Guide, the one Who knows the way best, Jesus of Nazareth, and listen the best they possibly can. That points you in the right direction.
No.
There were multiple factors, but, yes, that was a very significant one.
I have.
When not interacting, I trust he is still there.
Now I have an interest in Peter and Paul also.For the most part, though, I focus on the Incarnation rather than the Resurrection, so the sorts of questions I'm looking at are different. Less evidentiary in nature.
God intentionally does not allow easy evidence to be available, because the repeated requirement in scripture is said to us to be faith first.
So I expect never any obvious evidence.
Zero verifiable evidence to my knowledge that a disinterested person could examine, as if God were inert or only an object in nature.
And that fits scripture. Because He wants those with that are willing to humbly repent and trust Him -- "faith", a leap of faith -- to seek Him.
God isn't inert, nor is He willing to let just anyone connect with Him, regardless of their attitude and choices.
But when a person does that sincere humble seeking, to humbly seek God in a leap of faith, then what I found out, as have others, is that then He lets us connect.
That's what fits the scriptures.
So, there will never be proof first. You have to humbly have faith first.
There's no way to manage or control God and force it to be a way you prefer.
A couple of other issues:
(1) Typically the criminals who were crucified were fed to birds or stray dogs or simply thrown in the garbage pile, because this made the punishment more dreadful.
(2) Paul's authentic epistles are the earliest NT writings, and there is no mention of an empty tomb. Skeptical historians suspect that the story of the empty tomb was invented after Paul wrote.
Of course these are not smoking guns.
This is a direct answer to precisely this question, alone: "what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? "This kind of goes all the way back to post #19.
This was already addressed in post #23.
I'm going to try to circle this back a bit... In regards to the OP, what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? And as a precursor, let's just say your provided chosen evidence is presented to a generic theist/other. - Someone whom is a genuine seeker/other of God.
Are you quite possibly suggesting that the 4 Gospels are works of legendary tales? Meaning, as oral tradition was passed on, and stories were re-told again and again, stuff got added?
First off, I'm not sure what specific claims of other messiah's you're specifically referencing, so you'll need to actually do so.What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?
Because God doesn't want those that don't....trust ("faith" means trust in God basically) and love...quite evidently, by the exact wordings in scriptures. That would be the answer from the bible as an overall altogether whole. And that really makes sense. You can see it if you considered if you were an eternal being and considering who to let into your household/city/heaven as a permanent resident forever (for the the "age to come" literally in some renderings). You'd not just let anyone in like saying: here come get treasure for free even if some were....dangerous, or slanderers, or malicious, or very prejudiced, etc.But isn't that a stupid way of doing things? Why not allow us to make an informed decision?
Our "free will" (whatever that actually means) would not be compromised by certain knowledge of God's existence because Satan had certain knowledge and he rebelled along with a third of heaven. The Bible is full of characters who had certain knowledge and still rebelled. Nearly every character who spoke with God argued with him. The Jews saw him manifest in reality and lead them from Egypt, then built a golden calf and pretended it was him.
So the lack of evidence for a resurrection is not something you can just spin into a positive for your religion. That's just absurd.
This is a direct answer to precisely this question, alone: "what do you feel is the most compelling evidence to support the claims of a resurrection? "
I'm below directly answering precisely that question.
Having confirmed so much of what Christ said, I finally took a leap of faith to seek God, and He is findable when you seek under the conditions He says. Then what happened is a lot of confirmations over time. That helps build faith, but the main spark of faith is first to read what Christ said.
How could we even ask something like: "Was Christ resurrected?" without hearing what He himself said?
Because God doesn't want those that don't....trust ("faith" means trust in God basically) and love...quite evidently, by the exact wordings in scriptures. That would be the answer from the bible as an overall altogether whole. And that really makes sense. You can see it if you considered if you were an eternal being and considering who to let into your household/city/heaven as a permanent resident forever (for the the "age to come" literally in some renderings). You'd not just let anyone in like saying: here come get treasure for free even if some were....dangerous, or slanderers, or malicious, or very prejudiced, etc.
You'd, even just for only practical reasons alone, pick people that are going to be able to enjoy living together. In just practical reasons alone, that will mean people that can love others.
Just mere pragmatism -- what works and what does not work -- will indicate that requirement. If you try to think of the bible as being in part about what it says it is about, reconciling and living with God, then...well, it can make a lot more sense then.
Yes, and probably things were written down in pieces and then collected together and edited. My pet theory is that the hypothesized Q sayings gospel was actually an earlier version of Matthew written in Aramaic (in accordance with what Papias wrote about Matthew). Later, somebody decided to improve Matthew by absorbing the narratives from Mark and translating the sayings to Greek, but they continued to call the gospel Matthew.Are you quite possibly suggesting that the 4 Gospels are works of legendary tales? Meaning, as oral tradition was passed on, and stories were re-told again and again, stuff got added?
Thus far, I see nothing further than conformation bias. It's easy to 'connect dots' when you already want something to be true. I trust I do not need to delve into how this works? As you respond, it's quite possible you are swan diving head first into such bias, and it's classic definition?.?.?
"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning."
EasyI'll ask it right now. Did Jesus come back to life after death? Even an Orthodox Jew might argue that if Jesus did rise from the dead, does not necessarily mean He IS the Messiah.
In my case, I'm not even really asking for this much. I'm simply asking how do you know Jesus rose from the dead? <period>
If you were to 'prove' that He did, I could THEN ask you to prove that not only did he come back to life, but is God.
I'm only asking for the evidence that He came back to life.
Now, if your head was 'held to the fire', what evidence do you feel is most compelling for the claim/assertion of a resurrection?
Sorry, but no. You can't just completely ignore my points, assert your own points, and then say it makes sense. You actually have to address my counterpoints. And I don't even need to address yours because I've done enough to show that your belief system doesn't make sense. Adding stuff that does make sense to a system that doesn't make sense still leaves you with a system that doesn't make sense.
I have to call you on this bluff.
If you've not tried posting as an atheist, you haven't seen how ugly Christians can be.
As I've said many times, Christ called for you to love your enemies. Back then, that literally meant people who wanted to cut your eyes out. Christians today not only fail to love people who merely are critical of their beliefs on the internet in a non-personal way, but they spew unmitigated hatred at them. How badly does that fail your criteria here?
Well, taking what you're saying here as fact, I'd expect most self-identified Christians to end up in hell right alongside me.
First off, I'm not sure what specific claims of other messiah's you're specifically referencing, so you'll need to actually do so.
But I think Paul's conversion is strong testimony. I think Mary Magdalene's testimony is strong.
And I think the testimony of the life lived by the apostles who went on to devote their lives to the furthering of the Gospel and their willingness to die as martyrs represent strong testimonies to them truly seeing a risen Christ.
Originally you asked what convinced me. I don't understand how that would change if I was put under pressure. Are you asking if I would recant under pressure? I have no idea.
Or are you asking more generally what would be convincing to others? I don't think there is a general answer.
So ... not sure what to say.
I utterly bypassed these kinds of questions an elegant way, without even considering such. Here's how:Yes, and probably things were written down in pieces and then collected together and edited. My pet theory is that the hypothesized Q sayings gospel was actually an earlier version of Matthew written in Aramaic (in accordance with what Papias wrote about Matthew). Later, somebody decided to improve Matthew by absorbing the narratives from Mark and translating the sayings to Greek, but they continued to call the gospel Matthew.
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?