The more I learn about Christianity, the less true it seems

[paul becke]

All three experiences are filtered. The fullest picture with the least restrictive filter is Christianity. This side of heaven, no man can see God as He is, and live ; although even in heaven, no human being nor angel will ever be able to plumb the infinite depths of the knowledge of God.

Buddhists, Hindus and other mainstream religions, all have claims to the truth, considered appropriate by God under is providential economy, pending the opportunity for their evangelisation by Christian preachers and teachers.

Pope Francis makes a distinction between proselytism and evangelism, advocating evangelism. Letting people know the truth for them to be able to make their choice, rather than trying to make a 'hard sell'. He held up Paul's preaching to the Athenians as an example - Paul acknowledging their piety towards their own gods, astutely recognising their statue to an unknown God as an opportunity to claim it for Christ and implicitly the Holy Trinity.

However, though some have questioned the permanence of the mass conversions by Billy Graham, I suspect Francis would applause the proselytism of such a master of that approach.

 

[paul becke]

A question I have asked multiple times in this thread:

Why were Jesus, his disciples and the Gospel writers immune to this process???

Foolishness, thy name is "leftrightleftrightleft". Obviously, because they didn't need to ! How could they have 'gilded the lily' about someone raising someone, already putrifying, from the dead !

 

[ScottA]

Who has a greater claim to truth, the Christian who experiences Christ or the Buddhist who experiences enlightenment? Or the Hindu who has visions of Krishna?

That is a fair question. If your question were, What is 2+2...3, 4, or 5? There is only one true answer, and I have already given you that answer: It is the Christian that has come to Christ.

 

[ContraMundum]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

Head vs heart.

A scientist tries to get the heavens into his head. A poet tries to get his head into the heavens. Which head will split?

Unless you live Christianity- properly, by serving God AND neighbour- you'll never really get it.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul re-interpreted the Jewish position to try to fit Jesus into the role, not the other way around. Jesus came (as the Messiah) and no "new era" was ushered in. Our current political leaders do not all look to Jesus for guidance or bow to him (Isaiah 2:4). Jesus (as Messiah) did not usher in a new utopia. Jesus did not bring a time of eternal joy and happiness to the Israelites (Isaiah 51:11). In fact, the Jews have suffered horribly even after the supposed "Messiah" came. Weapons of war were not destroyed once Jesus came (Ezekiel 39:9). Still plenty of guns, nukes, missiles out there today.

All this stuff deserves a thoughtful response and that is a lot of work. I hope and plan to get back to you on this, but cannot guarantee it.

Jesus didn't change anything by coming and living and dying and resurrecting.

Well this is clearly not the case in the general sense - Jesus has had an enormous influence on human culture. You must know this so I assume this is your way of asserting that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. Well, that remains to be seen in the sense that I suspect that no one has presented you with a compelling argument to the contrary.

Paul re-interpreted this by making everything spiritual...

Paul did nothing of the sort and I suspect you are being influenced by mainstream evangelicals who, in my view, have in the main generally deeply misunderstood Paul.

...and de-emphasizing some of the more awkward prophecies.

Well this remains to be seen.

 

[Strong in Him]

When I read the Gospels, I read an exaggerated story of a wandering preacher who was venerated by his followers after his death.

It's sad that you see it that way.
The question is, did you see it like that the first time you read a Gospel, before you had read all these scholarly books with people telling you what to believe? Or has someone told you about Jesus and put that spin on it?

Gospels were written decades after his death after the stories had developed and undergone mythologization.

I don't believe so.
Jesus died around 33 AD. Mark's Gospel was the first to be written, probably in the early or mid 60's. Yes that's still 30 years after the event, but the disciples would have told and retold the stories about Jesus, his parables, miracles and so on. There was a great oral tradition then - people learnt and memorised things long before they wrote them down and recorded them.

I'm told there are books that were written hundreds of years after the subject died, but people don't seem to question them.

This is a very standard and regular occurrence is pre-modern societies. Leaders are venerated by their followers and hearsay spreads rapidly to produce miraculous stories.

So you don't believe the Gospel accounts, or that God is able to do things which seem impossible or inexplicable? If that is the case, and you don't believe or trust the only book that reveals God and teaches his nature and his ways, then you are not very likely to understand the Christian faith. If - note, if - every time you see a Bible or hear of people urging you to read the Bible your mind says "mythological", "sensationalised claims", "hearsay - his followers trying to make him look good", then you will read everything in that light.

What would happen if you were to approach it with the attitude, "this is true; everything I ma about to read happened and God really did raise people from the dead"?

Why were Jesus, his disciples and the Gospel writers immune to this process???

There were plenty of people around when Jesus was performing his miracles; if they had not happened, or had been sensationalised in some way, they could have said so. At one point the Pharisees said that Jesus was doing powerful things in the power of the devil. They didn't believe he was who he said he was but they couldn't deny his ability to drive out demons and heal. On another occasion these Pharisees were so angry after Jesus raised a 4 day dead Lazarus from the tomb, that they tried to kill him.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that the risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 people, some of whom were still alive - in other words, "if you don't believe me; go and ask them." That holds true for all the things that Jesus did - he didn't do them in private, only for his followers, he did them in Galilee, Samaria, Capernaum, Jerusalem and other places.
I think if Peter and the others were saying, "hey, wow, Jesus did this" and there were people there who knew he had done no such thing, they would have ignored Peter or dismissed him as a liar.

 

[paul becke]

Head vs heart.

A scientist tries to get the heavens into his head. A poet tries to get his head into the heavens. Which head will split?

Unless you live Christianity- properly, by serving God AND neighbour- you'll never really get it.

Spot on. Spiritual truths are beyond the capacities of the unaided, worldly analytical intelligence of the most towering geniuses (and since they are invariably Judaeo-Christian, they will be the first to say so), even the most towering genius possible.

Merely, following what Aldous Huxley describes as the Perennial Philosophy, the basic precepts of the spirituality of the mainstream religions: love of God and neighbour, a degree of asceticism, especially of the will, modifies our minds, so that we are more able to understand spiritual things.

As for reading the Bible multiple times, LRLRL will never get anywhere near as much out of it as he should, unless he understands that God, the Christian God, is speaking to him personally through the words on the page.

 

[aiki]

In the OT the soul (nephesh) of man is said to be sad (Deut. 28:65), grieved (Job 30:25), in pain (Ps. 13:2), distressed (Gen. 42:21), bitter (Job 3:20), troubled (Ps. 6:3), and cheered (Ps. 86:4). Apparently, man's soul can experience a wide range of emotions. Along with referring to man as a living being, "nephesh" appears also to refer to the "inner man" within the human being. This is consistent with verses like:

2 Kings 4:27
27 ...And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her...

and,

"Psalms 42:6
6 O my God, my soul is cast down within me...

and,

Psalms 43:5
5 Why are you cast down, O my soul? and why are you disquieted within me?...

In the New Testament we read:

Matthew 10:28
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

This verse makes a clear distinction between the physical body and the soul and teaches that it is possible to kill the body without killing the soul.

Revelation 6:9-10
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

The souls crying out from under the altar are the souls of those who have been slain. Again, this indicates that the soul can exist independently of the body in a conscious state.

Luke 23:46-47
46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.
47 So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, "Certainly this was a righteous Man!"

The word "spirit" here is translated from the Greek word "pneuma," which has a variety of meanings in Scripture: wind, breath, life-spirit, soul, the spirit as part of the human personality, the spirit of God, the spirit of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Context rules out most of these meanings. It doesn't make sense for Jesus to commend his "wind" or "breath" to the Father. It doesn't make any better sense for Jesus to be committing "the spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit" to the Father. From a plain reading of the passage it is clear Jesus is committing his immaterial human soul or spirit to the Father.

Acts 7:59
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

If spirit means the life-force within Stephen that ceases to exist when the body dies, then Stephen's request here makes no sense. If this is the meaning of spirit, there is nothing for God to receive. Clearly, Stephen believed his spirit would survive the death of his body and be received by God.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

"...the term "sleep" is always applied in Scripture to the body alone, since in death the body takes on the appearance of one who is asleep. But the term soul sleep is never found in Scripture. And no where does the Scripture state that the soul ever passes into a state of unconsciousness." - Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 314.

Who is God bringing with Him on the Day of Resurrection? Those who "sleep in Jesus." That is, the souls of those whose bodies are "sleeping" in the grave and are about to be resurrected. And when the Lord shouts with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God, those bodies that are "dead in Christ" rise first and are reunited with the souls of those whom God has brought with Him. Again, we see here that the soul survives the death of the body and goes on to dwell with God.

Luke 20:37-38
37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'
38 For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."

As Jesus points out here, Moses believed that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not dead and gone, but living because God is "not the God of the dead but of the living." Jesus here directly refutes the belief of the Sadducees, which was that the soul died with the body. And he was not merely asserting that God was God over those to be later resurrected.

"Though the dead seem to us to be completely non-existent, they are actually living as far as God is concerned. Not that the tense of the word "live" is not future (which might suggest only that these dead will live at the time of their resurrection) but present, teaching us that they are living now. This holds true not only for the patriarchs but for all who have died. To suggest, now, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are nonexistent between death and the resurrection violates the thrust of these words, and implies that God is, with respect to these patriarchs, for a long period of time the God of the dead rather than the God of the living." - Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 316.

Philippians 1:21-23
21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell.
23 For I am hard pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.

How could being dead and thus non-existent be "gain" to Paul? Clearly, he did not think the "gain" of which he was speaking was the extinction of his soul with the death of his body, but the departure of his soul from his body to be with Christ. And Paul is not speaking here of a future resurrection. The aorist infinitive ("to live") is linked by a single article with a present infinitive ("to be with Christ"). Thus the infinitives belong together.

"The single article ties the two infinitives together, so that the actions depicted by the two infinitives are to be considered two aspects of the same thing, or two sides of the same coin." - Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses, pg. 317.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8
6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.
7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

The structure of these verses in the Greek communicates very clearly that Paul understood that dying (being absent from the body) meant being present with the Lord. And the word "with" in Greek suggests very close face-to-face fellowship or intimate relationship.

Selah.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

All this stuff deserves a thoughtful response and that is a lot of work. I hope and plan to get back to you on this, but cannot guarantee it.

It is the cornerstone of your thesis that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies and therefore the NT and OT mesh together very well.

So, if you believe Paul's reinterpretation is "entirely consistent" with the OT, then you should really go about addressing Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 51:11 and Ezekiel 39:9 amongst others I mentioned...

Well this is clearly not the case in the general sense - Jesus has had an enormous influence on human culture. You must know this so I assume this is your way of asserting that Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies. Well, that remains to be seen in the sense that I suspect that no one has presented you with a compelling argument to the contrary.

Jesus has had an enormous influence on our culture because Paul and others wrote about him. Jesus himself didn't change anything noticeably. He did not usher in an era of utopia where the Israelites live in harmony. Our national leaders do not all bow down to him. He lived and he died and nothing happened. It was only 30 - 100 years after he lived that anyone outside of Israel even knew who he was.

Paul did nothing of the sort and I suspect you are being influenced by mainstream evangelicals who, in my view, have in the main generally deeply misunderstood Paul.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how Paul didn't reinterpret the OT's prophecies in a more spiritual sense. For example, Paul would perhaps argue that all the kings of the world ultimately bow down to Christ at their death, even though they are not bowing down to them here and now.

Well this remains to be seen.

Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 51:11, Ezekiel 39:9...etc

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Obviously, because they didn't need to !

When you are evaluating a claim, it is unfair and biased to give one claim more credence than another simply because you believe the claim a priori.

If you looked at this from the perspective of a non-believer, you would see that the claims made by Jesus' disciples are no different than the claims of many followers of other spiritual leaders/gurus/messiahs.

So why would I believe one group's claim more than another? If one group is brushed off as liars and tellers of tall tales, then why is another heralded as the absolute divine truth of God?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Supposedly, if you seek, you will find. I have been poking at Christianity for many years and I have read a whole list of books from both sides. I have read the New Testament in full and all 4 Gospels multiple times. I have read Mere Christianity, Case For Christ, A Skeptics Guide To Faith amongst others. I have also read other critical books such as The God Delusion, The Rise of Christianity, and The Evolution of God. I have been open to Christianity and have no hostility towards spirituality. I have attended church semi-regularly. But, the more I learn, the more the following seems clear:

1) The Bible is not historically or literally accurate. There are parts that are likely based off true events and true people, but I would say the majority is either exaggeration, allegory, myth or poetry.

2) Jesus is not the literal "Son of God". I do not know what this means outside of some sort of metaphorical context.

3) Church sermons do not depend on the historical truth of the Bible. Many sermons that I have heard are simply literary analysis of a passage which is independent of the historicity of the passage. For example, just this past Sunday, the pastor at my church preached on Mark 5:21-43 in which Jesus heals a bleeding woman and restores a dead girl to life. He used this passage to talk about spiritual healing in our lives and even mentioned how the writer of Mark set up this story in such a way to contrast Jairus and the bleeding woman. The way he spoke made me realize that the historicity of the passage was irrelevant. You could provide the same literary analysis and spiritual application by reading any myth.

4) Christianity is a 2000-year old evolving misunderstanding; a group of conflicting opinions on God, Jesus, spirituality, and paganism. It was warped so thoroughly by the Roman empire, that it is difficult to try to reconstruct what the "original" Christianity looked like. We look at Jesus, Paul and the Bible through a 2000-year lens of history with all the associated theological and historical baggage.

Do as much outside searching on the Christian side as you have on the scholastic side. Read the missing 56+ apocryphal texts that were removed by HUMANS - the same type of entity you are. Then you determine their authenticity as your own agent responsible for your own soul before God.

I used to think that, but by the time I finished my thesis I was all but sure of His existence. Between the mathematical world, and the missing historical, anthropological and cultural texts I have read, there is much more to God, and much more to the campaign against His name.

For starters, before you go to apocryphal books or other texts, reread bible texts and look up every singe word in its respective Hebrew or Greek (even articles and conjunctions.) Ex. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means "Thou Shalt Not MURDER." So, when it seems God contradicts Himself (to no avail of people who campaign against His name,) look closer and things will become a bit clearer.

Christ - whose name is not Jesus (in Hebrew, your name matters) - is often marginalized by association for the sake of invalidating an entire spiritual belief structure.

 

[expos4ever]

It is the cornerstone of your thesis that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies and therefore the NT and OT mesh together very well.

I don't believe I ever claimed that fulfillment of prophecies was anything close to a 'cornerstone' - what I said was that Jesus story "completes" the Old Testament story in a very compelling way. Explicit "prophecies" I suggest are only a small part of that. But, yes, I would say that appropriate fulfillment of these prophecies must be demonstrated. I suspect we will wind up disagreeing about the "acceptable" ways of reading a prophecy, but we will see.

So, if you believe Paul's reinterpretation is "entirely consistent" with the OT, then you should really go about addressing Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 51:11 and Ezekiel 39:9 amongst others I mentioned...

Again, the weight of the case that I am immediately able to defend has relatively little to do with "atomic" prophecies, but is more based on "narrative" issues. Example: what does it really mean for Israel to bless the nations? Or what is real purpose of the covenant.

Jesus has had an enormous influence on our culture because Paul and others wrote about him.

Obviously; not sure what the point is.

He did not usher in an era of utopia where the Israelites live in harmony.

Let me ask you a question before I invest a lot of time: Are you open to the possibility that the Old Testament prophecies were never intended to be taken as literally as it appears you are seeing them? If you are not, then let's not waste each other's time. I maintain it is well within reason to understand that Old Testament writers were writing cryptically and, to some degree, metaphorically when they penned the prophecies. Let me illustrate by a simple example. In the Old Testament, the nation of Israel is promised the land of Palestine. I believe that this promise is really a "placeholder" for a richer, deeper promise: that a renewed and transformed human race will be restored to its "edenic" position as "rulers" (really caretakers) over all creation. So the Old Testament promise is a muted version of the real intent of the promise. That strikes me as an entirely legitimate interpretive move - it would be rigid oversimplification that the promise of Palestine to the nation Israel cannot be seen as anything other than a literal promise to be taken at face value.

If you are not at least open to my way of seeing things, we have exceedingly deep differences about how to read the Old Testament and I suspect we will not make progress.

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps you can elaborate on how Paul didn't reinterpret the OT's prophecies in a more spiritual sense. For example, Paul would perhaps argue that all the kings of the world ultimately bow down to Christ at their death, even though they are not bowing down to them here and now.

I suspect (but only suspect) that you understand Paul as saying "Jesus is lord, but not over this physical world, but rather over the interior "spiritual lives" of his followers" and, in so doing, is stretching the Messianic prophecies too far. Well, I would agree that such a position would be too much of a stretch. But I do not believe Paul is saying any such thing.

I think that Paul sees Jesus as a real king over this present world. And that he was enthroned 2000 years ago. But, consonant with the way Jews understood kingship, this claim is in no way invalidated by the fact that most human beings, and in particular, most governments will not acknowledge this. An American citizen can claim all s/he likes that they do not "recognize" or "accept" that Mr. Obama is President. But he is president nonetheless. More later, hopefully.

 

[razzelflabben]

When you are evaluating a claim, it is unfair and biased to give one claim more credence than another simply because you believe the claim a priori.

If you looked at this from the perspective of a non-believer, you would see that the claims made by Jesus' disciples are no different than the claims of many followers of other spiritual leaders/gurus/messiahs.

So why would I believe one group's claim more than another? If one group is brushed off as liars and tellers of tall tales, then why is another heralded as the absolute divine truth of God?

Really, I don't understand your claim here and would appreciate some clarity, even Pilate declared that HE, (Jesus) was without sin, he (Pilate) being a non believer, thus both sides. Likewise, crowds, that is presumably a crowd that is not there for a specific purpose, all saw Jesus ascending into heaven, that meaning that presumably it was a crowd made up of both believers and non believers.

Here is my point I guess if I have to narrow it down for clarity...Your argument would have value if and only if, only believers saw and understood what is being said. But that simply isn't the case. In fact, look at Paul, he was a persecutor of the believers, who testified to seeing God and that was enough to change his mind. Some here have been trying to tell you that you have to see God through the power or eyes of the Holy Spirit in order to see Him, you however, instead of understanding, try to argue that only believers can see HIm, which is totally contrary to what people are telling you about seeing Him....so how then, does this argument fit what is being discussed?

 

[razzelflabben]

A brief word about Lordship of Jesus Christ...context is vital to any real understanding of any given work, this is one of the literary rules we must use when reading and studying scripture if our interest in doing so is to find truth and not to justify our own bias. That being said, in context, Jesus is able to work in the physical world but the scriptures say He is about the spiritual Kingdom, in fact, scripture says that the ruler of this world is Satan. Paul is consistent in that teaching. IOW's throughout scripture, we see that whereas God is not above working in the physical world, He is Lord over the spiritual while giving temporary dominion of the earth or physical world to Satan himself. This teaching is consistent with both Paul's teaching and throughout the bible, that is all 66 books

Let me add that the Jews of the day did not understand, just like people today do not understand. In fact, some of the same thought processes that hinder us today were common back then and hindering their understanding, but if you actually study it, you see the consistency and teaching.

 

[expos4ever]

In the OT the soul (nephesh) of man is said to be sad (Deut. 28:65), grieved (Job 30:25), in pain (Ps. 13:2), distressed (Gen. 42:21), bitter (Job 3:20), troubled (Ps. 6:3), and cheered (Ps. 86:4). Apparently, man's soul can experience a wide range of emotions.

Of course, but this does not necessarily justify the conclusion that the soul is a "thing" that has consciousness that can exist apart from the body. Even in our culture, a person who believes s/he is nothing more than a "machine made of meat" can legitimately say "my soul is sad". They are speaking figuratively - using the word soul much as we use the word personality: People have "personalities". Does that mean that a personality can survive the death of the person's body. Not necessarily - the word personality does not describe a "real part" of us, distinct from our body: it is instead a word meant to refer to our syle of interacting with others.

 

[expos4ever]

A brief word about Lordship of Jesus Christ...context is vital to any real understanding of any given work, this is one of the literary rules we must use when reading and studying scripture if our interest in doing so is to find truth and not to justify our own bias. That being said, in context, Jesus is able to work in the physical world but the scriptures say He is about the spiritual Kingdom, in fact, scripture says that the ruler of this world is Satan.

The scriptures never say Jesus is a king over a "spiritual" realm to the exclusion of this real world (John 18:36 has been misunderstood due to a translation problem). And while the Scriptures indeed declare that Satan was the "ruler" of this world, they equally clearly declare that Jesus has toppled him from that position:

And He (Jesus) said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning

...a clear declaration that Satan has fallen from his position.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It's sad that you see it that way.
The question is, did you see it like that the first time you read a Gospel, before you had read all these scholarly books with people telling you what to believe? Or has someone told you about Jesus and put that spin on it?

I was introduced to Jesus at about the same time I was introduced to Yogananda Paramahansa, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Krishnamurti, Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yukteswar, Buddha and other Indian saints / gurus. All these people have followers who have made fantastical and miraculous claims about their leaders.

I have never seen any really compelling reason for Jesus to be any more special than them. So either

A) They all performed miracles and miracles are irrespective of religious faith. In this case, Jesus would be some sort of divine master who was able to somehow perform miracles alongside other similar healers / preachers / masters.
B) They were exaggerations or misrepresentations by followers who venerated them and placed their leader on a pedastal

I have not seen a compelling reason why Jesus was some sort of exception to be set apart from these other examples.

I don't believe so.
Jesus died around 33 AD. Mark's Gospel was the first to be written, probably in the early or mid 60's. Yes that's still 30 years after the event, but the disciples would have told and retold the stories about Jesus, his parables, miracles and so on. There was a great oral tradition then - people learnt and memorised things long before they wrote them down and recorded them.

So what about other miraculous wandering healers? Why is Jesus the exception?

I'm told there are books that were written hundreds of years after the subject died, but people don't seem to question them.

Yes this is indeed true. A common example is Alexander the Great. However, like Jesus, historians have been able to separate out the legendary from the historical. Historians also are skeptical of some of the details of Alexander's life (such as his campaigns in India).

What would happen if you were to approach it with the attitude, "this is true; everything I ma about to read happened and God really did raise people from the dead"?

Well, tautologically, if I approach a text believing it to be true, then I will believe it to be true upon reading it.

Not to be irreverent but just to highlight my point:
"What would happen if you were to approach [insert fictional narrative here] with the attitude, 'This is true; everything I am about to read happened.'"

There were plenty of people around when Jesus was performing his miracles; if they had not happened, or had been sensationalised in some way, they could have said so. At one point the Pharisees said that Jesus was doing powerful things in the power of the devil. They didn't believe he was who he said he was but they couldn't deny his ability to drive out demons and heal. On another occasion these Pharisees were so angry after Jesus raised a 4 day dead Lazarus from the tomb, that they tried to kill him.
In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that the risen Jesus appeared to more than 500 people, some of whom were still alive - in other words, "if you don't believe me; go and ask them." That holds true for all the things that Jesus did - he didn't do them in private, only for his followers, he did them in Galilee, Samaria, Capernaum, Jerusalem and other places.
I think if Peter and the others were saying, "hey, wow, Jesus did this" and there were people there who knew he had done no such thing, they would have ignored Peter or dismissed him as a liar.

I suggest you read about Swami Sivananda at this website. It is a very lengthy article and it details a whole variety of healings that Sivananda supposedly accomplished. They also discuss Jesus and his healings as well.

Read this article as if it is all true and all happened. What do you think?


I feel like people in the West do not realize the parallels between Jesus and Indian gurus simply because they are not exposed to it and have not heard the stories. These people that met Swami Sivananda believe whole-heartedly the things that happened to them and they believe just as strongly as the disciples of Jesus believed.

 

[expos4ever]

Acts 7:59
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

If spirit means the life-force within Stephen that ceases to exist when the body dies, then Stephen's request here makes no sense. If this is the meaning of spirit, there is nothing for God to receive. Clearly, Stephen believed his spirit would survive the death of his body and be received by God.

The problem is that Stephen could believe that his "spirit" while a real thing, would not exhibit or manifest consciousness until it was re-united with his resurrection body.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Really, I don't understand your claim here and would appreciate some clarity, even Pilate declared that HE, (Jesus) was without sin, he (Pilate) being a non believer, thus both sides. Likewise, crowds, that is presumably a crowd that is not there for a specific purpose, all saw Jesus ascending into heaven, that meaning that presumably it was a crowd made up of both believers and non believers.

You are missing my point.

It is not that only believers saw what happened. It is that only believers wrote about it.

All we have about Jesus' life and death is garnered from his followers who venerate and worship him.

So, you keep using examples of events which are described in the books written by his followers.

Did crowds see Jesus ascend into heaven? Or were stories exaggerated and changed and invented and then later recorded by his followers?

Also, what is the chapter and verse where Pilate claims that Jesus is sinless?

Here is my point I guess if I have to narrow it down for clarity...Your argument would have value if and only if, only believers saw and understood what is being said. But that simply isn't the case. In fact, look at Paul, he was a persecutor of the believers, who testified to seeing God and that was enough to change his mind. Some here have been trying to tell you that you have to see God through the power or eyes of the Holy Spirit in order to see Him, you however, instead of understanding, try to argue that only believers can see HIm, which is totally contrary to what people are telling you about seeing Him....so how then, does this argument fit what is being discussed?

Paul had a vision.

So did Mohammad. I assume you believe Mohammad's vision was false.

So did Joseph Smith. I assume you believe Joseph Smith's vision was false.

So did ...


What makes Paul the exception?