I fear we are getting off topic. Go read your post #245, because that is where this confusion all started.
In post #245 you said: "The events actually happened."
When you said this, I (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that you meant that "the events as recorded in the Gospel accounts actually happened in historical reality including Jesus' existence, deity, crucifixion, resurrection, miracles etc."
To which I responded:
"That is the question, isn't it?"....for more context, what I was saying is: "The real question (of this thread) is whether all those events actually happened as described in the Gospels." There is no doubt that some of them did, but your claim that "the events actually happened" seems to imply that you believe that all the events actually happened.
Please correct me if I am mistaken about what you were trying to say.
before I directly answer your question, let me put a couple questions out for you....I am currently writing a detective mystery series at the request of my children. Throughout the mystery, are clues as to how to catch the culprit. Do you think that the clues are the all conclusive story? or are they just clues to what actually happened? Does a detective know all the details before accusing and taking the issue to court, or just enough to make a viable case?
Here is another riddle me batman question...In science, think about the scientific method, every conclusion is based o what happened this time, but next it may not. So, when we bounce a ball, we expect it to hit the surface it is aimed at and rebound, right? But the scientific method does NOT assume it will happen each time, it deduces, or iow's science says, based on our observations, the viable conclusion here is that X is true. Do you believe in the scientific method?
The significance of the questions are this....I have studied and researched and found only one viable conclusion to the evidence presented. So, yes, I believe every word, but not because I am blind to the doubts of questions that remain but rather because I lay down the evidence, explore it and say, there is only one viable conclusion. Your posts try to portray this idea that you are enlightened even though you have confessed to not having looked at all the evidence. The scientific method, the detective narrative all have an element of doubt built into them, and yet, we make conclusions even with those doubts, why? Because the evidence is strong enough to make the conclusion that X happened. This is no different than the Christ.
(emphasis mine)
I'm not moving the goal posts. This thread has always been firmly planted in my doubts and concerns about the deity and resurrection of Jesus as well as the historical reliability of the Bible (and the Gospel accounts specifically). I'm not "changing the claim" or any such thing.
I'm not suggesting that your changing that goal post, but rather the one in which you claim to be open minded enough to hear the truth. You see, doubts and concerns are part of each and every persons decision to follow Christ (otherwise it is just what is taught) The Brethren have a very well used saying...you have to count the cost and follow anyway...my husband's family were missionaries in Nigeria and those believers have and still are facing severe persecution. The christians of the bible days faced severe persecution for their faith and beliefs, it is not something to take lightly, thus it is a natural part of the learning process to doubt and question. However, when you say, I am open minded to the truth, just show me and you are shown evidence then say, ah no, you didn't show me evidence to X that is changing your goal post. When you are shown the answer and ignore that answer, that is not being open minded...this is what I am talking about. Either you are open to explore your doubts and concerns and many here are willing to help you do that, or, you are not being as honest as you claim and just want to wallow in your doubts rather than to understand where they come from and what the responses are. Your posts claim one thing but show something else. I don't play that game, so if you continue to converse with me, keep in mind I won't go easy on you, I will be honest and blunt and take you at your word that you are being open minded and in that, I will hold you to it.
The article you posted does not demonstrate that other major religions agree with you. All the examples cited in that article also dispute the exact same things I am disputing: the deity and resurrection of Jesus and the historical reliability of the Bible. So I'm at a loss as to what exactly that article was supposed to show.
that is obvious...your claim was that billions of people (and keep in mind that previously when you brought up that billions of people disagree with Christianity that I said that since the bible says that will be true and tells us why that is, that it is just evidence that the bible is truth and you ignored that claim) don't believe that Jesus is real. I showed that that is not true, they do believe in the historical person Jesus, the disagreement is in who He is/was....just like I demonstrated. Now, I am sure you did not express what you wanted to, but that is not for me to read into your posts as I have just explained. As to the rest of the issue, the one you wanted to make, the rest of the articles dealt with that. You take one article that directly answered your question and call foul because it didn't answer what you wanted to claim all the while ignoring the articles that did answer what you wanted to claim and then say you are being open minded? Do you know what open minded is?
Now, let's summarize just for clarity....1. most religions of the world acknowledge that Jesus existed and many of them even claim He did miracles though not all. 2. In direct answer to your claims, yes, most of the world acknowledges the historic nature of the Jesus of the Bible. 3. Your intended claim was that of death and resurrection which again was evidenced through eye witness accounts and science. A. the death is not very well questioned, in fact, it is pretty well documented, but in order to understand some of this, let's talk about another incident in history....do you know about and believe in the children's crusades of 1212? It is a historic event. I did research on the children's crusades because, yes, I wrote a book about it, long story. Now, few historians doubt the event, some question some of the accounts because of various reasons, but that something happened that was at least similar to the accounts is not questioned. Added to the historic records, is the way the event was carried into history through things like stories and songs. But here is the kicker, there is less historical evidence of this historic event that is not questioned than there is historic evidence to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ and yet we doubt Christ but not the Children's crusades, why? Why would we change the criteria for what we accept is truth just because it involves God? That doesn't make any sense. B. there is historic and scientific evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, which again is more than we have for many historic events that we take as truth, why the double standard, or do you doubt everything that is uncomfortable for you to believe in? You know, like the holocaust, the children's crusades, the civil war, American Indian history, dinosaurs, etc. Do you only believe what is convenient, or do you base your beliefs on evidence? It's an important question for everyone claiming to be open minded. And just for the record, I don't care if you are open minded or not, that is your call and I'm okay with whatever you decide you want to be, but don't come here and tell us you are open minded then pick and choose varying degrees of proof you require based on your chosen bias.
I don't have time to read these at the moment, but I will take a look later.
No! A million times no! That is not what I am saying.
--->>>>All I'm saying is that you cannot say "The events actually happened" when there is so much disagreement on what actually happened. <<<----
why not? I have looked at the evidence and find only one viable conclusion, that being true, why can't I claim that the events actually happened? I was hit by a train once, long story, there is evidence, I was there, there is record and yet you would rail at me for claiming it happened, why? Your argument doesn't make any sense. Most of the people that disagree with the events happening, have never looked at the evidence. Unless or until the evidence is viewed, disagreement is absolutely meaningless. Just like you trying to deny I was hit by a train without ever looking at the evidence. I'm sure that if you try you can find dozens of people that doubt I was hit by a train, but none of them would have looked at the evidence, making their testimony meaningless. Which is the argument I previously presented to you and you ignored. So, how many of the people who have actually looked at the evidence do you present that were not convinced? In fact, the most common argument against many of the books that look at some of the evidence is that the authors were convinced by the evidence therefore it couldn't be valid....lol...really, convincing evidence isn't valid because it's convincing....that argument just makes me laugh...oh well. SHow all your billions of people who have looked at the evidence and are still not convinced, I'm interested to see those stats.
I really am struggling to know if I can make this much clearer.
I think you are reading too much into my statements.
I've edited the above quote to draw attention to my main point: I don't see how Jesus is particularly unique and I haven't really seen anyone show me exactly how he is unique.
what are your criteria for "unique" it's a rather broad concept, especially since most people claim that we are each unique and your billions of people that doubt the resurrection mostly agree that Jesus was unique, so you need to narrow down what you mean by unique if you want anyone to address it.
Why don't you believe in and follow Yogananda Paramahansa? Please answer this question because I am sincerely interested.
I already answered and you ignored, but because I have tested and found Jesus to be the only one that offers testable truths.
Let's talk about meditation as per yogananda paramahansa, from where I come from, meditation isn't even going to touch the surface of the healing that I need in order to be a rational, contributing human being. So, if meditation isn't enough to bring healing, and Jesus is enough to bring that healing (you know, testable) why would I follow yogananda paramahansa which proves to be less than truth when Jesus who evidences truth is sitting there waiting to be followed?
I'm not even sure why you would wonder about that, we test X and find it evidences as truth, we test Y and find it evidences false, why then would we choose Y over X? I don't understand why you would even make that choice....please, it's a serious and honest question I am asking you. When test says X is truth and Y is lie, why would I want to choose Y over X?
I don't appreciate this presumptiveness. I did read the articles and I addressed the article explicitly:
"Almost the entire length of the article is about the Shroud of Turin which is purported to be an image of Jesus Christ. Firstly, I don't see how such a shroud would prove that he was resurrected, as it would only prove that he died and was wrapped in a cloth. I do concede that the evidence does suggest that the shroud is from the 1st century and various lines of evidence point to Palestine"
and yet, you confessed to not having looked into the evidence. You see, based on our current scientific methods, the shroud testifies to much more than just a death, it also testifies to a resurrection....very interesting stuff, well worth the study. But I already said all of that and someone who is being open minded wouldn't pretend it wasn't said.
What was the documentary?
I'm sorry but I just really don't understand. The only way I've been able to "understand" Shakespeare is either via experiencing his live action plays or intellectually interpreting and dissecting the scripts.
exactly...you don't know Shakespeare...our son though, understands with his inner most being, in fact, his teachers have told him he could easily be from that era the way he writes, he has a poetic old english flare that translates into an understanding with more than just his mind or intellect or even experience, he understands because it speaks to him deep within, to his inner most being.
Belief of the heart is a belief with our will, our inner most being.
I simply don't know what you mean to "understand" Shakespeare via your will or your inner most being.
Nor do I know what it means to "understand" a recipe via your will or your inner most being.
Either I'm not understanding the analogy, or I don't understand your terminology.
okay, fair enough, let's try this another way....let's say you want to do something and you want it so badly that every fiber of your being craves it. IT goes way beyond you just convincing yourself it would be wise, but it goes deeper.
Maybe it is something that you can convince yourself isn't good for you, but, you still desire it, that is your will or heart...let's see, another example, how about will power when you are dieting? that would be coming from your will not just your mind.
It really isn't that hard a concept, see if the above helps and if not, try to be more specific so I better understand exactly what the problem is.
Point to an occasion where I've done this. I don't appreciate these accusations....
I'm honestly not playing games. And I am sadly discouraged that so many people have insinuated that I am playing games or being insincere. I'm addressing the points being made and trying to clear up confusion or miscommunication and trying to stay on topic.
I showed you specifically where it sounds like you are being insincere and you ignored that post, so there is no reason to do it again only to be ignored again....just know that I won't play games with you
