Why did Jesus need to die?

steve_bakr · Oct 4, 2011

doubtingmerle said:
A
I am glad you were open-minded about the resurrection in the past.

But I did not ask you if you have done this in the past. I have asked you if you would change your mind now if it turns out you are wrong about the resurrection. I notice that you have not answered that question.

Ah, I see, I could add nothing of value concerning the resurrection?

How do you know I have nothing of value to add? For I have been preoccupied with that subject for years, from both sides. One would think that, after all that study, I might have at least something of value to say.

I would not brag about the ability to think that 1 + 1 = 10,000.

If you could honestly believe that 1 + 1 = 10,000 regardless of the facts, then how do we know that anything you believe is based on facts? Are some of your current beliefs simply things that you chose to believe, even though the facts indicate otherwise?

Can you give me the name of a former dedicated, informed atheist who now believes the resurrection? Converting an uninformed person is not the same thing.

I can name several informed, dedicated Christians who now deny the resurrection.

Because you implied that millions of people that believe prove you are right. You ignored the millions who believe the opposite.

If a Ford salesman told you that Fords are proven to be best, for millions of smart people bought them, can you see this does not prove his point? (Hint: The GM salesman could make the same argument for his vehicles.)

It breaks my heart to read this. Can you please read it again, and think about what you have said?

I ask about a child--a child--who was perfect except that he once coveted a cookie. I ask if you think this child deserves to be tortured in hell forever. And you argue that this child deserves torture?

And so that child, who never even heard of Jesus, goes into hell screaming and begging for mercy? Do you hear the screams? "Daddy!" "Mommy!" "Help me!" He screams for all eternity. The flames surround his body. And what did he do to deserve this? He wanted a cookie so much that he coveted it.

What if he coveted his neighbors dog? Does it not matter that this child was a model child, perfect in every way except he once coveted his neighbors's dog? For that "sin" he screams without mercy for eternity? He is a child, for crying out loud. He wanted a doggie, for crying out loud. He coveted a doggie, for crying out loud. How can he possibly deserve to be tortured forever without mercy simply because he coveted a doggie? And you have told us that if a person is in torment in hell, that you would do nothing--nothing--to relieve the suffering, even if you could.

And so this child screams in eternal torment without mercy forever because he coveted a doggie?

Dear sir, with all due respect, if that is what your religion teaches, then I do not want your religion. If it is true I will acknowledge it, but I do so hope that this does not describe the state of reality.

doubtingmerle,

You and aiki have locked horns about this, as you both have extremely opposite views. But I have already told you that, in the Catholic view, such a child as you describe would not go to hell.

And those who have not heard of Christ would not necessarily go to hell, but would simply be judged by the contents of their hearts.

Even you, doubtingmerle, might not necessarily go to hell if you can't believe in Christ's resurrection. God judges each person according to their circumstances.

But you have picked, for the purpose of argumentation, someone with an extreme viewpoint to debate. And it seems you want to perceive Christians as dogmatic extremists when there is a wide variety of Christian points of view.

Peace

bling · Oct 4, 2011

doubtingmerle said:
And give the kid a doggie.

why not go back to my post 45 and pick it up from there.

aiki · Oct 4, 2011

But I did not ask you if you have done this in the past. I have asked you if you would change your mind now if it turns out you are wrong about the resurrection. I notice that you have not answered that question.

I am as convinced of the truth of the resurrection as you are about your views on the Synoptic Gospels. Are you holding your views lightly? Are you willing even to consider the possibility that you are wrong?

Ah, I see, I could add nothing of value concerning the resurrection?

How do you know I have nothing of value to add? For I have been preoccupied with that subject for years, from both sides. One would think that, after all that study, I might have at least something of value to say.

Given what you have already communicated, I have little interest in hearing more. I'm sure you think your ideas are valuable else you wouldn't hold them, but I don't want to get into a long debate about Q, the Gospel of Thomas, higher and lower textual criticism, and the various theories surrounding the relationship between the Gospels. I know what I believe on this issue, as you do, and have come to my view thoughtfully, as you have, and don't now wish to discuss it with someone who is, from the start, thoroughly decided in what they believe.

I would not brag about the ability to think that 1 + 1 = 10,000.

If you could honestly believe that 1 + 1 = 10,000 regardless of the facts, then how do we know that anything you believe is based on facts? Are some of your current beliefs simply things that you chose to believe, even though the facts indicate otherwise?

Please show me where I was bragging. I said you were easily impressed. That isn't bragging.

I also never said I could believe anything "regardless of the facts." I said I could believe anything if I chose to. But that choice would be informed by the facts pertinent to that choice, obviously. In fact, I say this quite plainly:

"Sure I can. I can believe anything - if I choose to. Usually, I come to this choice via an assessment of the facts in support of the particular belief."

See? So what's all this about believing anything regardless of the facts? Are you actually reading and considering what I'm writing, or just knee-jerk reacting?

Can you give me the name of a former dedicated, informed atheist who now believes the resurrection? Converting an uninformed person is not the same thing.

I can give you the names of a number of atheists who have recanted their non-belief in God and become deists or Christians:

Richard Morgan: (an atheist for over 25 years). Google him and you can find a vid clip or two of him explaining his conversion.
C.S. Lewis.: He was an avid and angry atheist as a young man.
Lee Strobel: A journalist determined to disprove Christianity finds himself converted as a result of his efforts.
Josh McDowell: An avowed atheist determined to dismantle the Christian faith is converted by his investigations into the Christian faith.
Antony Flew: A very well-known and vociferous advocate of atheism abandoned his atheism shortly before the end of his life as a result of simply "following the truth wherever it leads."
Marvin Olasky: an atheist and Marxist activist turned Christian.
Alister McGrath: atheist turned out-spoken Dawkins critic and Christian.

And so on. Have I converted you? No? I thought not. Don't know what the point of providing you with these names was, exactly...

Anywhoo....

And what about the millions who disagree with your book? For some reason you forgot to mention them.

Why would I mention them? My point wasn't about those who don't believe.

Because you implied that millions of people that believe prove you are right. You ignored the millions who believe the opposite.

Please show me from what I wrote where that implication appears. Here let me save you some trouble. I'll quote myself:

"Really, people change their minds all the time about what they believe. It's a very common occurence. Having one set of beliefs does not necessarily preclude adopting a different, even contradictory, set of new beliefs. This is illustrated every time someone comes to faith in Christ, which has happened millions of times."

Hmmm...I see me making a point about people changing their minds but I see nothing implying that Christianity is therefore right...

It breaks my heart to read this. Can you please read it again, and think about what you have said?

I will if you will.

I ask about a child--a child--who was perfect except that he once coveted a cookie. I ask if you think this child deserves to be tortured in hell forever. And you argue that this child deserves torture?

First of all, why are you arguing from an utterly fictional and impossible example? No such child exists or has ever existed. Second, where do I say your imaginary child deserves torture?

And so that child, who never even heard of Jesus, goes into hell screaming and begging for mercy? Do you hear the screams? "Daddy!" "Mommy!" "Help me!" He screams for all eternity. The flames surround his body. And what did he do to deserve this? He wanted a cookie so much that he coveted it.

I'm sorry but I can't really speak to what happens to fantastical fictional people...

What if he coveted his neighbors dog? Does it not matter that this child was a model child, perfect in every way except he once coveted his neighbors's dog? For that "sin" he screams without mercy for eternity? He is a child, for crying out loud. He wanted a doggie, for crying out loud. He coveted a doggie, for crying out loud. How can he possibly deserve to be tortured forever without mercy simply because he coveted a doggie? And you have told us that if a person is in torment in hell, that you would do nothing--nothing--to relieve the suffering, even if you could.

Again, I am not able to discuss these impossible figments of your imagination.

And so this child screams in eternal torment without mercy forever because he coveted a doggie?

It's your fantasy world; you decide.

Dear sir, with all due respect, if that is what your religion teaches, then I do not want your religion. If it is true I will acknowledge it, but I do so hope that this does not describe the state of reality.

Christianity has no teaching concerning the eternal destiny of impossible children existing in your imagination. If you want to object to Christianity on such a basis, go ahead. Just don't say this objection is a rational one.

Selah.

doubtingmerle · Oct 4, 2011

aiki said:
I am as convinced of the truth of the resurrection as you are about your views on the Synoptic Gospels. Are you holding your views lightly? Are you willing even to consider the possibility that you are wrong?

Huh? I have already told you I am open to changing my mind if shown evidence that I am wrong. For instannce in post 77 I said:

I said absolutely nothing about be[ing] unwilling to change my beliefs!!!

I am more than willing to examine the facts and change my mind where I am wrong. What could possibly make you think otherwise?

How can I spell it out more clearly to you? I have emphaisized this point. And yet you repeatedly say that I say the opposite, and then ask me again as though this subject just came up!!!!

I am open to evidence that shows I am wrong.

In the same post I asked you:

How about you? Are you willing to change your beliefs about religion if shown to be wrong? Are you willing to study the evidence that says the resurrection didn't happen? If it turns out you are wrong on the resurrection, would you change your mind?

And you have not told us you are open to such evidence, or that you would change your mind if shown to be wrong.

But you could easily change that. You could tell us you are open to evidence that opposes your view, and that you would change your mind about the resurrection if shown to be wrong.

Given what you have already communicated, I have little interest in hearing more. I'm sure you think your ideas are valuable else you wouldn't hold them. I know what I believe on this issue, as you do, and have come to my view thoughtfully, as you have, and don't now wish to discuss it with someone who is, from the start, thoroughly decided in what they believe.

And yet you tell me that my beliefs in the resurrection are wrong. How can you be certain that I am wrong, if you don't want to hear what I have to say?

Please show me where I was bragging. I said you were easily impressed. That isn't bragging.

Please show me where I said you were bragging. I was just telling you that the ability to believe things without facts is nothing to brag about. I did not say you were bragging.

I also never said I could believe anything "regardless of the facts." I said I could believe anything if I chose to. But that choice would be informed by the facts pertinent to that choice, obviously. In fact, I say this quite plainly:

"Sure I can. I can believe anything - if I choose to. Usually, I come to this choice via an assessment of the facts in support of the particular belief."

See? So what's all this about believing anything regardless of the facts? Are you actually reading and considering what I'm writing, or just knee-jerk reacting?

What a tangled web we weave!

Back in post #65 I said:

And yet you have offered no possible way of escape for the person who studies Mark 13-16 and the historical facts of that time period and concludes that those chapters are fiction. You have offered absolutely no way for such a person to escape hell, have you? If a person really, truly, honestly has come to the conclusion that those 3 chapters are fiction, then is there anything at all such a person could do to escape hell?

OK? This is what led to where we are at. I specifically told you that I really, truly, honestly have come to the conclusion that those chapters are fiction. And in response you told me to choose to believe.

Do you now see where you were asking something impossible? If I really truly honestly think the facts prove something is wrong, then I cannot at the same time believe that very thing is right.

Ok, now look at your statement saying you could choose to believe. It was in response to the question:

Can you choose to believe something you don't currently believe? For instance, can you choose to believe that Santa Clause lives at the North Pole and comes to bring you presents every year?

To which you responded;

Sure I can. I can believe anything - if I choose to. Usually, I come to this choice via an assessment of the facts in support of the particular belief

So you were clearly saying that you can choose to believe in Santa, something that is clearly wrong when you look at the facts. You were saying you can ignore the facts and choose to believe something that is clearly wrong.

So do you want to try this again: If you understand that the facts clearly prove that 1+ 1 does not equal 10,000, can you or can you not choose to believe that 1 + 1 = 10,000?

Please show me from what I wrote where that implication appears. Here let me save you some trouble. I'll quote myself:

"Really, people change their minds all the time about what they believe. It's a very common occurence. Having one set of beliefs does not necessarily preclude adopting a different, even contradictory, set of new beliefs. This is illustrated every time someone comes to faith in Christ, which has happened millions of times."

Hmmm...I see me making a point about people changing their minds but I see nothing implying that Christianity is therefore right...

Are you forgetting post #76? There you said:

I suppose, but no one's asking you to change your beliefs in a vacuum of reasons to do so. There is plenty of good evidence for the validity and reality of the Christian faith - enough to have persuaded scientists, doctors, philosophers, and millions of others from all walks of life to faith in Christ.

That is like saying Ford makes the best car because millions of smart people bought one. Millions of smart people bought something else also. The fact that millions of smart people have bought something does not prove it is right. The fact that millions of people believe something does not prove that an argument in favor of that position is right.

First of all, why are you arguing from an utterly fictional and impossible example? No such child exists or has ever existed.

The point is that the child committed a finite sin (provided you think coveting is really a sin.) Infinite punishment for a finite sin is not justice. It is wrong to torture a child eternally for a finite sin.

OK so in reality all children have commited more than one finite sin. Same argument. It is wrong to torture a child for eternity for any number of finite sins. Do you agree that it is wrong to torture a child for all eternity for living a finite life with only the sins of childhood?

Second, where do I say your imaginary child deserves torture?

You reponded to the specific question: "does he deserve to be tortured forever in eternal hell because he spent 3 seconds coveting a cookie?"

In response you argued that all sin is infinite, that one sin breaks the enitre chain of the moral code, and that God will punish. That sure sounds like an argument that the child should be tormented in hell forever.

But you can certainly clarify if you were not saying that. Does that child deserve eternal torment? You seem now to be saying you have no comment on whether that child deserves eternal torment.

I do have a comment: That child does not deserve eternal torment.

And your final answer to the question about whether that child deserves torment is that you have no comment?

aiki · Oct 5, 2011

Huh? I have already told you I am open to changing my mind if shown evidence that I am wrong. For instannce in post 77 I said:
I said absolutely nothing about be[ing] unwilling to change my beliefs!!!

I am more than willing to examine the facts and change my mind where I am wrong. What could possibly make you think otherwise?

How can I spell it out more clearly to you? I have emphaisized this point. And yet you repeatedly say that I say the opposite, and then ask me again as though this subject just came up!!!!

I am open to evidence that shows I am wrong.

Okay. What do you think is the likelihood of this happening? I mean, in light of the fact that you have spent as much time as you claim researching the matter, how likely are you to change your mind? I get the sense that you are willing to say you might change your mind although you doubt very much any cause to do so exists, or will ever exist.

Anyway, I am, like Antony Flew, willing to go wherever the truth takes me. It has, thus far, taken me straight to God. Should it take me elsewhere, I am willing to go.

Please show me where I said you were bragging.

I cannot believe 1 + 1 = 10,000. You can?!?!
That's an amazing talent you have there.

You think so? You're easily impressed.

I would not brag about the ability to think that 1 + 1 = 10,000.

Seems pretty clear to me you were trying to make out like I believed 1+1= 10,000 and was bragging about it. This may not have been what you intended to communicate, but, if so, you should have phrased your thinking more clearly.

Sure I can. I can believe anything - if I choose to. Usually, I come to this choice via an assessment of the facts in support of the particular belief

So you were clearly saying that you can choose to believe in Santa, something that is clearly wrong when you look at the facts. You were saying you can ignore the facts and choose to believe something that is clearly wrong.

See, this is why I think you aren't really considering what I'm saying. I don't say anything like I can "ignore the facts and choose to believe something that is clearly wrong." In fact, I was careful to qualify my remarks so that you wouldn't make this kind of an assertion. I wrote:

"Usually, I come to this choice via an assessment of the facts in support of the particular belief."

What I was trying to point out was that having a particular belief doesn't necessarily preclude adopting a different, even contradictory belief, in the future. Further, I was attempting to establish that belief isn't something entirely imposed on us, but that we choose what we believe - even if it is some fantastical idea like the existence of Santa Claus.

Do you now see where you were asking something impossible? If I really truly honestly think the facts prove something is wrong, then I cannot at the same time believe that very thing is right.

No, you can't. Not at the very same time. If you're going to maintain a logical, consistent point of view, one or the other belief must be released as false. But this is quite obvious, I think. So obvious I didn't bother to say so explicitly.

I do know of quite a number of people who hold contradictory viewpoints simultaneously. Very often, they are unaware they are doing so. Its not impossible to do this, then, just illogical.

I have also known people who thought one thing, given the facts, but when offered a different interpretation of the facts, changed their mind completely. The facts did not change, but their perception, their understanding, of those facts did and this had a profound effect upon what they chose to believe. So, I don't think it is necessarily true that taking one view of the facts absolutely prevents taking a different view of the same facts in the future. I say all this because I get the impression that you think your present belief, given your assessment of the facts, precludes any possible change of mind about those facts. I'm not so sure.

The point is that the child committed a finite sin (provided you think coveting is really a sin.) Infinite punishment for a finite sin is not justice. It is wrong to torture a child eternally for a finite sin.

I quoted from the Gospel of Luke in the hopes you would extrapolate from it to your theoretical child. In the parable of the servants, Christ clearly indicates that God's punishment of the sinner is contingent upon their knowledge of the truth. Certainly, a child's knowledge is not equal to an adult's and therefore the child holds diminished responsibility for his actions. God takes this into account in dealing with the child. If the child is so young that they are unable to comprehend the Gospel, or the concept of moral right and wrong, God does not hold them accountable for their ignorance of these things. I believe such a child God views as an innocent and thus free of the punishment of hell.

We are at total odds about the nature of sin. Given that you aren't a Christian, I can't really expect you take my view of it. It is quite natural for you to diminish the nature of sin; it is the human way. I have explained that all sin is ultimately committed against God who is infinite. As a result, our sin is not merely finite in its effect. You seem completely unable to think of your sin in this way. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Selah.

doubtingmerle · Oct 6, 2011

I have done a thorough review of the evidence for the resurrection, and my findings indicate it did not happen. Some have turned to threats of hell, demanding that I must change my beliefs or suffer eternal torture for disagreeing with them.

But threats of hell do not change a persons beliefs when the facts are found to lead in the other direction.

aiki said:
In light of the fact that you have spent as much time as you claim researching the matter, how likely are you to change your mind? I get the sense that you are willing to say you might change your mind although you doubt very much any cause to do so exists, or will ever exist.

I am open to any evidence that indicates I am wrong. In fact I hope I am wrong, for then I could fit in with the broad road around me that believes Christianity. My life would be a whole lot easier if I believed.

But as long as my review of the facts shows the resurrection did not happen, then I am left with those facts. Threats of hell to make me change my views will do nothing. I cannot believe somthing that I think is false. If you want me to believe it, you will need to show me where I am mistaken.

I am unlikely to start believing the earth is flat. I find the evidence to be too strong that it is round.

I am unlikely to believe the resurrection occurred. I find the evidence to be too strong that it is fiction.

Anyway, I am, like Antony Flew, willing to go wherever the truth takes me. It has, thus far, taken me straight to God. Should it take me elsewhere, I am willing to go.

Anthony Flew! He was an atheist. He certainly did not believe in the resurrection. So if you turn to Flew as your authority, you lose.

Yes, Anthony Flew did play with the idea of a deistic involvement in the origin of life, but that is a long way from what you are saying here. See Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of.

And I have seen your claims for folks like Stroble and McDowell, but it is doubtful they were formerly informed atheists. For they seem to be so unaware of the arguments that atheists make.

At any rate, I would gladly take on Stroble in a fair online debate on the resurrection. I do not think his evidence proves what he says it does.

Seems pretty clear to me you were trying to make out like I believed 1+1= 10,000 and was bragging about it. This may not have been what you intended to communicate, but, if so, you should have phrased your thinking more clearly.

Nobody here said that you thought 1 + 1 = 10,000, or said anything that suggested you currently believed that 1 + 1 = 10,000.

What I was trying to point out was that having a particular belief doesn't necessarily preclude adopting a different, even contradictory belief, in the future.

Yes, of course, it is possible to change one's mind if one gets new information. We agree.

I quoted from the Gospel of Luke in the hopes you would extrapolate from it to your theoretical child. In the parable of the servants, Christ clearly indicates that God's punishment of the sinner is contingent upon their knowledge of the truth.

Uh, Luke says if you didn't know you will be beaten with few stripes. It does not say you are exempt if you did not know.

Certainly, a child's knowledge is not equal to an adult's and therefore the child holds diminished responsibility for his actions.
God takes this into account in dealing with the child. If the child is so young that they are unable to comprehend the Gospel, or the concept of moral right and wrong, God does not hold them accountable for their ignorance of these things. I believe such a child God views as an innocent and thus free of the punishment of hell.

OK, but the Bible forgot to mention that children were exempt from hell?

And if God can make exemptions, then anybody who is in hell is there because God chose not to make an exemption? So God is not forced to keep people in hell? He could exempt them if he wanted to?

Perhaps he should exempt everybody. How do you like that idea?

If a child is old enough to know moral right and wrong, and covets a dog, does that make him deserving of eternal conscious torment in hell?

I think not. Coveting a dog does not merit eternal conscious torture.

doubtingmerle · Oct 6, 2011

bling said:
why not go back to my post 45 and pick it up from there.

Sorry, I don't have time to get into that now. Thanks for asking.

doubtingmerle · Oct 7, 2011

aiki,

We seem to agree that it is good to have an open mind. One should not approach the topic of religion with the attitude that he will force himself to believe what he chooses to believe, but rather, should be open to where the facts lead.

I have met a Muslim who wanted to study only the arguments for Islam. She was not interested in the arguments against Islam. We agree that this is wrong. One should be open to legitimate arguments that show one's view is wrong.

The same thing applies to Christianity. The important thing is not that we force ourselves to accept a particular view of the resurrection. The important thing is that we are open to the facts, and follow where the facts lead.

Some people say that we richly deserve eternal torment, and the only way out is if we have a particular view of historical facts in ancient Judeah. Specifically, we are told we need to believe the four gospels are historical. But what happens if we approach the gospels with an open mind, and find they are not historicial? One would think that, in that case, the best response would be to accept that conclusion that the facts have led to. Why couldn't God exempt those who find that history was a little different from your view?

After all, you seem to have accepted one exemption to the rule that all go to hell unless they believe certain things. You seem to accept that young children have an exemption. Do some mentally challenged adults also have an exemption? Do those who never heard have an exemption? Do people that lived centuries before Christ have an exemption? If all those people get exemptions, why can't there be an exemption for those who thoroughly studied the facts and came to a different conclusion about history from you?

I don't believe in eternal torment of hell. I think a loving God would find a way to make an exemption for anybody that wanted it, even to those who disagree with your view of history.

aiki · Oct 7, 2011

I have done a thorough review of the evidence for the resurrection, and my findings indicate it did not happen.

Others have done at least as thorough a review of the evidence as you (if not more so) and have concluded the exact opposite. It seems, then, that the evidence isn't really the issue but the person assessing the evidence.

Some have turned to threats of hell, demanding that I must change my beliefs or suffer eternal torture for disagreeing with them.

That's how you've decided to distill down what they are saying, but I doubt anyone explicitly said, "Agree with me or burn in hell." As a matter of doctrine, if you deny the resurrection, you remove yourself from the sole source of salvation, but this is just a matter of fact, not a strong-arm tactic to use against the intractable. If I say to you, "If you jump off that cliff without a parachute you'll die," am I warning you or threatening you? If a sign was posted stating this, you'd take it merely as a warning.
So why should you take it as a manipulative threat if someone fulfills the role of a warning sign in the matter of the jeopardy of hell under which you stand?

But threats of hell do not change a persons beliefs when the facts are found to lead in the other direction.

Again, the facts don't necessarily lead in only one direction. The facts of the resurrection have lead people in a number of directions. What conclusion a person may come to, then, isn't merely the inevitable result of the facts. Something else entirely is at play.

But as long as my review of the facts shows the resurrection did not happen, then I am left with those facts. Threats of hell to make me change my views will do nothing. I cannot believe somthing that I think is false. If you want me to believe it, you will need to show me where I am mistaken.

But, you see, you have been shown by those who have argued for the opposite conclusion from your own concerning the resurrection that you are mistaken. You refuse to believe they are correct. So, it isn't that you simply need to be shown where you are wrong. Really, what you need I think only God Himself can supply.

I am unlikely to start believing the earth is flat. I find the evidence to be too strong that it is round.

I am unlikely to believe the resurrection occurred. I find the evidence to be too strong that it is fiction.

Apples and oranges. One can circumnavigate the globe and literally see that the world is not flat. One can see photos and video footage of our world showing it is not flat. One, however, cannot travel back in time and witness the event of the resurrection for oneself. There is no video footage of it occuring. The accessibility of conclusive proof of the former fact is not comparable to that of the latter one.

Anthony Flew! He was an atheist. He certainly did not believe in the resurrection. So if you turn to Flew as your authority, you lose.

Since I never said Antony Flew was my authority, I'm not sure why you bothered to write this.

Uh, Luke says if you didn't know you will be beaten with few stripes. It does not say you are exempt if you did not know.

True.

The world and universe testify of the existence of God and to some degree reveal the nature of His character. Our conscience indicates something of God's existence to us as well. Consequently, no one can claim they were without at least some knowledge of their Creator.

OK, but the Bible forgot to mention that children were exempt from hell?

I think it is rather self-evident.

And if God can make exemptions, then anybody who is in hell is there because God chose not to make an exemption?

THe exemption is not arbitrary. The children in question were innocent. God's exemption of them is simply a recognition of this fact.

So God is not forced to keep people in hell? He could exempt them if he wanted to?

No, His holiness and justice require it of the unrepentant sinner.

Perhaps he should exempt everybody. How do you like that idea?

If it didn't make Him unholy and unjust, I'd like it just fine. BUt, then, I'm human and far too easy with my sin just as all humans are.

If a child is old enough to know moral right and wrong, and covets a dog, does that make him deserving of eternal conscious torment in hell?

Sin is sin.

Selah.

aiki · Oct 7, 2011

Some people say that we richly deserve eternal torment, and the only way out is if we have a particular view of historical facts in ancient Judeah. Specifically, we are told we need to believe the four gospels are historical. But what happens if we approach the gospels with an open mind, and find they are not historicial?

And what if an open-minded approach leads one to conclude that they are historical? You seem to think that your view is a foregone conclusion if one just keeps an open-mind. But this suggests a distinct bias, not an open mind.

Why couldn't God exempt those who find that history was a little different from your view?

Because in this case, we aren't talking about the sheer force of facts restricting us to a particular conclusion, but rather personal interpretation. God holds you accountable, not for the facts, but for what you do with them.

After all, you seem to have accepted one exemption to the rule that all go to hell unless they believe certain things.

Choosing to believe certain things and being incapable of understanding are not the same thing. A young child who is incapable of comprehending moral distinctions and/or the Gospel is not the same as one who with full understanding chooses to deny the truth. This seems rather obvious to me...

Do some mentally challenged adults also have an exemption?

I think so and for the same reason as a very young child.

Do those who never heard have an exemption?

No. See my last post.

Do people that lived centuries before Christ have an exemption?

Their circumstance is obviously different from those who live post-resurrection. See Hebrews 11.

If all those people get exemptions, why can't there be an exemption for those who thoroughly studied the facts and came to a different conclusion about history from you?

See every post I've written in this thread.

I don't believe in eternal torment of hell. I think a loving God would find a way to make an exemption for anybody that wanted it, even to those who disagree with your view of history.

Well, then you've got nothing to worry about, right? See you at the Last Judgment!

Selah.

doubtingmerle · Oct 9, 2011

aiki,

As I have explained to you, I differ with you on the resurrection. I have reached that conclusion based on my thorough examination of the facts. What if a person concludes the resurection did not occur based on a thorough examination of the facts? Then your religion offers no hope to that person, does it? Your religion says if a person doesn't agree with you on the resurrection, then he will burn in hell forever, and there is nothing that will stop it, correct?

As I have explained, the facts have led me to where I am. And you respond by denying that the facts have led me to where I am. Whatif, hypothetically speaking, a person really, really, truly, honestly believed that the resurrection did not occur, based on a thorough review of the facts. Then if, hypothetically speaking, a person came to that conclusion based on a thorough understanding of the facts, you know of no way for that person to escape hell, do you?

aiki said:
Others have done at least as thorough a review of the evidence as you (if not more so) and have concluded the exact opposite. It seems, then, that the evidence isn't really the issue but the person assessing the evidence.

Huh?

Others have done as thorough a review of the evidence as your scholars and have concluded the exact opposite as your scholars also! Did that never occur to you?

Does it seem to you, then, that your scholar's evidence isn't really the issue? For if finding people that disagree with you proves you don't have evidence, then you have just proved that your scholars don't have evidence!!!!!!!

The fact that others disagree with me does not prove I am wrong.

After all, some people disagree with me that the earth is round. That does not prove that I am wrong about the earth being round.

That's how you've decided to distill down what they are saying, but I doubt anyone explicitly said, "Agree with me or burn in hell."

But you explicitly agree with the statement, "Agree with me or burn in hell," yes? If I do not agree with you that the resurrection happened, then you think I will burn in hell, yes?

So why play games? You say I must agree with you on this issue or burn in hell, yes?

As a matter of doctrine, if you deny the resurrection, you remove yourself from the sole source of salvation,

In other words, if I don't agree with you on this, then I will burn in hell?

So why should you take it as a manipulative threat if someone fulfills the role of a warning sign in the matter of the jeopardy of hell under which you stand?

I didn't say it was a manipulative threat.

What I am saying is that, if the facts indicate to me that the resurrection did not happen, then saying I will go to hell unless I think the facts indicate "the resurrection happened" will not change my mind. You will need to show me where I am wrong, not tell me I will be tortured in hell unless I agree that you are right.

If somebody told you that you will burn in hell unless you think 1 + 1 = 10,000, then that person would be offering you no hope. For unless that person could offer facts to prove that 1 + 1 = 10,000 you could not believe it. If believers of 1 + 1 = 2 go to hell, then, knowing what you now know, you could not voluntarily become a "1 + 1 = 10,000" believer, could you?

Again, the facts don't necessarily lead in only one direction. The facts of the resurrection have lead people in a number of directions.

How do you know the facts have led people to believe in the resurrection? Could it not be that they have simply followed the broad way? After all, it is much easier in America if you believe in the resurrection then if you don't. Could it be that they are only looking at rationalizations to support their preconceived views?

Can you see that looking at rationalizations to support a preconceived views does not prove a person is right?

But, you see, you have been shown by those who have argued for the opposite conclusion from your own concerning the resurrection that you are mistaken. You refuse to believe they are correct.

And so you turn to personal attacks?

I tell you the truth. My opinions have come after intense personal study. It has nothing to do with refusing to believe.

Apples and oranges. One can circumnavigate the globe and literally see that the world is not flat. One can see photos and video footage of our world showing it is not flat. One, however, cannot travel back in time and witness the event of the resurrection for oneself. There is no video footage of it occuring. The accessibility of conclusive proof of the former fact is not comparable to that of the latter one.

And yet some people claim that this evidence actually shows that the earth is flat! Flat earth believers have remarkable ways of twisting the evidence to support their views.

One, however, cannot travel back in time and witness the event of the resurrection for oneself. There is no video footage of it occuring. The accessibility of conclusive proof of the former fact is not comparable to that of the latter one.

Exactly. So those who claim that the facts prove the resurrection happened are not telling it to me straight?

Since I never said Antony Flew was my authority, I'm not sure why you bothered to write this.

Why did I bother to write this? Because I was responding to what you said.

You had said, "Anyway, I am, like Antony Flew, willing to go wherever the truth takes me. It has, thus far, taken me straight to God. Should it take me elsewhere, I am willing to go. "

Since you turn to Anthony Flew as an illustration, and since Flew was an atheist who denyed the resurrection, then it seems very relevant to point that out.

So God is not forced to keep people in hell? He could exempt them if he wanted to?

Click to expand...

No, His holiness and justice require it of the unrepentant sinner.

But what about the person that does not agree with you on the resurrection? Why cannot God exempt that person?

I would think a holy and just God could exempt the person who disagrees with you on a question of history.

doubtingmerle · Oct 9, 2011

aiki said:
Some people say that we richly deserve eternal torment, and the only way out is if we have a particular view of historical facts in ancient Judeah. Specifically, we are told we need to believe the four gospels are historical. But what happens if we approach the gospels with an open mind, and find they are not historicial?

Click to expand...

And what if an open-minded approach leads one to conclude that they are historical? You seem to think that your view is a foregone conclusion if one just keeps an open-mind. But this suggests a distinct bias, not an open mind.

So you simply ignore my question and ask a different question? What happens if we approach the gospels with an open mind, and find they are not historicial? Shouldn't one then admit they are not historical?

The answer to your question is simple. If an open-minded approach leads to the conclusion that the gospels are historical, then we should believe them, of course. Why do you ask?

You seem to think that your view is a foregone conclusion if one just keeps an open-mind. But this suggests a distinct bias, not an open mind.

I see. And if somebody thinks that poeple with an open mind will conclude that the earth is round, then that person has a distinct bias, not an open mind?

Oh dear sir, I disagree. If a person thinks the facts lead to a conclusion, that does not prove that person has a closed mind.

Do people that lived centuries before Christ have an exemption?

Click to expand...

Their circumstance is obviously different from those who live post-resurrection. See Hebrews 11.

I see. So hundreds of people before Christ could escape hell without believing the gospels were historical? Then why cannot the person in the remote tribe claim the same excemption? For if people before Christ can claim the exemption to the rule that all-go-to-hell-unless-they-agree-with-aiki-on-the-resurrection, why can't rural tribesmen get the same exemption?

And if people before Christ were exempt from hell without agreeing with you on the resurrection, was their a mass loss of hope when the resurrection occured? For if before that could claim the special exemption from your rule about hell, did they all lose that exemption about 30 AD? So had they died in 20AD all would have been well, they could claim an exemption and escape hell? But if they died in 35 AD, that exemption didn't exist any more?

I would just let anybody who wanted an exemption from your rule have that exemption.

aiki · Oct 9, 2011

As I have explained to you, I differ with you on the resurrection. I have reached that conclusion based on my thorough examination of the facts. What if a person concludes the resurection did not occur based on a thorough examination of the facts? Then your religion offers no hope to that person, does it?

Without the resurrection, the Christian faith is futile. Paul the apostle explains:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise.
16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Your religion says if a person doesn't agree with you on the resurrection, then he will burn in hell forever, and there is nothing that will stop it, correct?

The statement, "If a person doesn't agree with you" makes it sound as though I have my own little sub-religion within the Christian faith for which I am contending. But my view is one espoused by the mainstream evangelical, Protestant Christian community for a long time now. The issue, then, isn't whether or not one agrees with me, but whether my views or those of someone else agree with what is plainly set out in Scripture. No one will suffer eternal torment because they disagree with me, but because they disagree with God's truth revealed in the Bible.

As I have explained, the facts have led me to where I am. And you respond by denying that the facts have led me to where I am.

No, I deny that those facts could have led only to your conclusion. The facts have led others to different, reasonable conclusions, so the facts themselves aren't by themselves responsible for your conclusion. Your interpretation of the facts is really what is at issue.

What if, hypothetically speaking, a person really, really, truly, honestly believed that the resurrection did not occur, based on a thorough review of the facts. Then if, hypothetically speaking, a person came to that conclusion based on a thorough understanding of the facts, you know of no way for that person to escape hell, do you?

Barring divine intervention, no. However, no one is ever saved except by such intervention. And if God could save millions of others, He can certainly save the hypothetical person you describe above, regardless of their present convictions about the resurrection.

Huh?

Others have done as thorough a review of the evidence as your scholars and have concluded the exact opposite as your scholars also! Did that never occur to you?

Of course it has. What's your point? My point was that if such disparity of conclusion is possible from the facts, then the facts themselves don't necessarily force a particular conclusion.

Does it seem to you, then, that your scholar's evidence isn't really the issue? For if finding people that disagree with you proves you don't have evidence, then you have just proved that your scholars don't have evidence!!!!!!!

I sincerely believe that completely opposite conclusions about the resurrection are held by scholars, not solely by virtue of the facts, but as a result of presuppositions that inform the investigation and assessment of those facts.

My point wasn't that the existence of people of an opposing view proved one's own to be wrong, but that their existence defies the claim that the facts have forced a particular conclusion. You seem to have missed this entirely.

But you explicitly agree with the statement, "Agree with me or burn in hell," yes? If I do not agree with you that the resurrection happened, then you think I will burn in hell, yes?

So why play games? You say I must agree with you on this issue or burn in hell, yes?

If anyone is playing games, it is you. Trying to put this whole matter on a subjective level by making it about whether or not people agree with me, is, I suspect, a ploy to diminish the force of my assertions. My beliefs are well-established in Scripture; they are not of my own devising.

As a matter of doctrine, if you deny the resurrection, you remove yourself from the sole source of salvation,

In other words, if I don't agree with you on this, then I will burn in hell?

Why is this re-phrasing necessary? Rephrasing as you want doesn't alter the fact of the doctrine I've explained above.

What I am saying is that, if the facts indicate to me that the resurrection did not happen, then saying I will go to hell unless I think the facts indicate "the resurrection happened" will not change my mind. You will need to show me where I am wrong, not tell me I will be tortured in hell unless I agree that you are right.

And as I pointed out, merely giving you the reasoning and arguments of those whose view is different from your own on this issue isn't truly sufficient to change your mind. I would be very surprised to find you were ignorant of these views since you claim to have thoroughly investigated the historicity of the resurrection. Nonetheless, your familiarity with these contrary views has not persuaded you to accept their arguments. My regurgitating them to you here, then, seems a pointless exercise. It will take more than being shown where you were wrong to change your mind. You have to be persuaded that you were wrong, which is a different matter entirely. Only God can do that, I think.

If somebody told you that you will burn in hell unless you think 1 + 1 = 10,000, then that person would be offering you no hope. For unless that person could offer facts to prove that 1 + 1 = 10,000 you could not believe it. If believers of 1 + 1 = 2 go to hell, then, knowing what you now know, you could not voluntarily become a "1 + 1 = 10,000" believer, could you?

I'm afraid this is a very poor analogy. Mathematical equations are not equivalent in nature to the question of the resurrection.

How do you know the facts have led people to believe in the resurrection?

How do you know the facts haven't led people to believe in the resurrection?

After all, it is much easier in America if you believe in the resurrection then if you don't. Could it be that they are only looking at rationalizations to support their preconceived views?

Can you see that looking at rationalizations to support a preconceived views does not prove a person is right?

Can you see this? It doesn't seem like it.

And yet some people claim that this evidence actually shows that the earth is flat! Flat earth believers have remarkable ways of twisting the evidence to support their views.

I've thought the very same thing about those who deny the resurrection.

Exactly. So those who claim that the facts prove the resurrection happened are not telling it to me straight?

I think that's more or less the conclusion you've come to, but it is obviously not the conclusion I have come to.

Since you turn to Anthony Flew as an illustration, and since Flew was an atheist who denyed the resurrection, then it seems very relevant to point that out.

My point involving Antony Flew wasn't about his belief in the resurrection but about his determination to follow the truth wherever it led. This guiding principle concerning truth I hold in common with Mr. Flew, not his view on the resurrection.

But what about the person that does not agree with you on the resurrection? Why cannot God exempt that person?

I would think a holy and just God could exempt the person who disagrees with you on a question of history.

Here's this "agreeing with me" stuff again. God doesn't send people to hell because they do or do not agree with me, but because they deny the truth. Why should God exempt from hell those who deny the very thing that makes escape from hell possible?

So you simply ignore my question and ask a different question? What happens if we approach the gospels with an open mind, and find they are not historicial? Shouldn't one then admit they are not historical?

I don't accept the question as it has been asked and I explain why.

I see. And if somebody thinks that poeple with an open mind will conclude that the earth is round, then that person has a distinct bias, not an open mind?

Again, you're making a false analogy. As I have already noted, these things are not analogous.

I see. So hundreds of people before Christ could escape hell without believing the gospels were historical?

LOL! Obviously, since the gospels did not yet exist!

Then why cannot the person in the remote tribe claim the same excemption? For if people before Christ can claim the exemption to the rule that all-go-to-hell-unless-they-agree-with-aiki-on-the-resurrection, why can't rural tribesmen get the same exemption?

Believing the historicity of the resurrection isn't, by itself, the way one is saved. And, quite obviously, God does not make agreeing with me the basis for exemption from Hell. Consequently, your question above makes little sense to me.

And if people before Christ were exempt from hell without agreeing with you on the resurrection, was their a mass loss of hope when the resurrection occured?

Again, your question makes no sense. How could people who lived and died before the resurrection agree that it had occurred?

For if before that could claim the special exemption from your rule about hell, did they all lose that exemption about 30 AD?

I have no idea what "special exemption" you're talking about. I said the circumstance concerning one's eternal destination was different pre-resurrection than it is post-resurrection. I never said anything about a "special exemption."

So had they died in 20AD all would have been well, they could claim an exemption and escape hell? But if they died in 35 AD, that exemption didn't exist any more?

????

I would just let anybody who wanted an exemption from your rule have that exemption.

"Your rule"? This ploy to make it sound like I'm arguing from my own subjective sphere of belief is rather obvious and lame. I'd appreciate it if you ceased this evident spin you are trying to put on the discussion.

I'm sure, being a sinful, finite, comparatively ignorant creature you would give exemptions willy-nilly. Thank goodness you aren't the one making the decision! I'd trust the justice of a perfect, holy, infinite omnipotent God over yours (or mine, for that matter) any day!

Selah.

doubtingmerle · Oct 11, 2011

aiki said:
Without the resurrection, the Christian faith is futile. Paul the apostle explains:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

How do you know I Corinithians belongs in the Bible?

And besides, I Corintinhians seems to describe a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.

The statement, "If a person doesn't agree with you" makes it sound as though I have my own little sub-religion within the Christian faith for which I am contending. But my view is one espoused by the mainstream evangelical, Protestant Christian community for a long time now. The issue, then, isn't whether or not one agrees with me, but whether my views or those of someone else agree with what is plainly set out in Scripture. No one will suffer eternal torment because they disagree with me, but because they disagree with God's truth revealed in the Bible.

Excuse me, but I have repeatedly said that you are following the broad way, the easy way in much of America. Few go against it in my neck of the woods.

So when I call your way the broad way, how can I be saying that only you follow it?

"You" in the north can be interpreted as plural. If you prefer I will say, "You all's rule".

I would just let anybody who wanted it have an exemption from the rule that you all seem to recognize: "All will have eternal conscious torment if they disagree with us on certain historical facts."

No, I deny that those facts could have led only to your conclusion. The facts have led others to different, reasonable conclusions, so the facts themselves aren't by themselves responsible for your conclusion. Your interpretation of the facts is really what is at issue.

Others have come to different conclusions, yes, but are those conclusions reasonable?

Others differ with me that the facts indicate the earth is round. Should we therefore state that their conclusions are reasonable?

Others differ with me about the source of the Book of Mormon. Does that make it reasonable to believe that the Book of Mormon was divinely given on golden plates?

I cannot understand how the fact that others differ with me proves that their conclusions are reasonable.

Barring divine intervention, no. However, no one is ever saved except by such intervention. And if God could save millions of others, He can certainly save the hypothetical person you describe above, regardless of their present convictions about the resurrection.

By forcing me to think something happened that I am quite sure didn't happen?

If he wants to save me from the torture in hell of which you speak, why doesn't he just save me from that torture? Why must he first force me to think something happened that I currently think didn't happen?

My point was that if such disparity of conclusion is possible from the facts, then the facts themselves don't necessarily force a particular conclusion.

Interesting. So since there is a disparity about the Koran and the Book of Mormon, therefore we can come to no conclusion about those books?

The facts may not grab me by the arm and physically force me to believe what they indicate, but when they clearly lead me to one conclusion, then my mind follows that conclusion which the facts most reasonably support.

I sincerely believe that completely opposite conclusions about the resurrection are held by scholars, not solely by virtue of the facts, but as a result of presuppositions that inform the investigation and assessment of those facts.

And the only way to resolve that is to review the facts. I have been there and done that. See http://www.christianforums.com/t7534255/ .

Why is this re-phrasing necessary? Rephrasing as you want doesn't alter the fact of the doctrine I've explained above.

Who is rephrasing? The original statement was, "Agree with me [aiki] or burn in hell." You complain that nobody actually said that, and you then rephrase that sentence with a new statement that basically says the same thing.

I do not think that people need to either agree with y'all about certain historical questions or suffer eternal torture.

So hundreds of people before Christ could escape hell without believing the gospels were historical?

Click to expand...

LOL! Obviously, since the gospels did not yet exist!

Why do you laugh?

Before the gospels were written, hundreds who had not heard were exempted from the eternal torture you describe.

But when the gospels were written, those same people then became destined to eternal torture without hope because they could not believe these books that they never heard of?

And you LOL about that?

Believing the historicity of the resurrection isn't, by itself, the way one is saved. And, quite obviously, God does not make agreeing with me the basis for exemption from Hell. Consequently, your question above makes little sense to me.

But if I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?

If somebody thinks Jesus was spiritually crucified in heaven, will that person be eternally tormented in hell? Does he need to believe Jesus had a physical body and came to earth to escape the eternal conscious torment you speak of?

Again, your question makes no sense. How could people who lived and died before the resurrection agree that it had occurred?

And how can people who never heard of Jesus believe the resurrection of Jesus occured?

And how can people who conclude that Jesus probably never existed on earth believe the resurrection occurred?

I'm sure, being a sinful, finite, comparatively ignorant creature you would give exemptions willy-nilly. Thank goodness you aren't the one making the decision! I'd trust the justice of a perfect, holy, infinite omnipotent God over yours (or mine, for that matter) any day!

I didn't say "willy-nilly" exemptions.

I would make the exemption from eternal torture be available to all who wanted it, regardless of how they answered certain questions on a history exam. I would not make answering questions on a history exam be a prerequisite for escaping eternal conscious torture.

aiki · Oct 11, 2011

How do you know I Corinithians belongs in the Bible?

How do you know it doesn't? 1 Corinthians has been part of the canon of the Bible formally and informally since Paul wrote it as a letter to the Corinthian church almost 2000 years ago. It's common usage by the early Christian church before its formal recognition as a part of the biblical canon, its authority derived from Paul's apostleship, its agreement with the doctrine of the Gospels and the OT - these are the prime bases upon which I know 1 Corinthians belongs in the Bible.

And besides, I Corintinhians seems to describe a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.

How do you determine that? In the passage from 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks repeatedly of Christ being raised from the dead in obvious reference to what is proclaimed in the Gospels. Nothing he writes in the passage suggests in any way that Paul is speaking of an entirely spiritual resurrection. This must be read into the passage, not drawn out of it. Verse 16 in particular is very suggestive of a physical, bodily resurrection. We know, also, that Paul believed in a bodily resurrection from other things he wrote:

Philippians 3:21
21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
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.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Very obviously, then, Paul believed that the resurrection from the dead was a bodily one, not something that happened solely on an immaterial, spiritual plane.

Excuse me, but I have repeatedly said that you are following the broad way, the easy way in much of America. Few go against it in my neck of the woods.

So when I call your way the broad way, how can I be saying that only you follow it?

"You" in the north can be interpreted as plural. If you prefer I will say, "You all's rule".

As I have pointed out, my view is Scripturally well-supported. It is, then, not merely my view, or even the view of many, but the revelation of God's Word. You seem very reluctant to make any such acknowledgement.

Others have come to different conclusions, yes, but are those conclusions reasonable?

They think so - just as you do about your own conclusions - else they wouldn't hold them.

Others differ with me that the facts indicate the earth is round. Should we therefore state that their conclusions are reasonable?

False analogy.

Others differ with me about the source of the Book of Mormon. Does that make it reasonable to believe that the Book of Mormon was divinely given on golden plates?

The strength of the evidence in favor of the resurrection is far greater than the evidence that Mormons can procure in support of their golden plates. As Paul speaking to Festus of the events of Christ's life, death and resurrection said, "These things were not done in a corner," which is the exact opposite of the situation concerning the angel Moroni and the golden plates.

Is it reasonable for a Mormon to believe the tale of how the Book of Mormon came to be? I don't think so. I don't think denying the resurrection is reasonable, either. It seems you and Mormons have something in common.

I cannot understand how the fact that others differ with me proves that their conclusions are reasonable.

As I clarified before, no one is suggesting that the mere existence of an opposing view to your own necessarily means your view is mistaken or theirs is correct. It does mean, though, that the facts don't force a single, undeniable conclusion.

By forcing me to think something happened that I am quite sure didn't happen?

Not force; persuade. God's powers of persuasion are much, much greater than your power of denial.

If he wants to save me from the torture in hell of which you speak, why doesn't he just save me from that torture? Why must he first force me to think something happened that I currently think didn't happen?

Well, obviously, because what you believe about the resurrection is false. God is a God of Truth. It is in His nature to establish Truth and expose lies. Saving you from hell involves, in part, saving you from the lies that lead to hell.

Interesting. So since there is a disparity about the Koran and the Book of Mormon, therefore we can come to no conclusion about those books?

No, I said that the facts don't force a single conclusion. In fact, one can come to more than one conclusion about these books.

The facts may not grab me by the arm and physically force me to believe what they indicate, but when they clearly lead me to one conclusion, then my mind follows that conclusion which the facts most reasonably support.

Which is exactly what the person who has come to the opposite conclusions says.

Why do you laugh?

Before the gospels were written, hundreds who had not heard were exempted from the eternal torture you describe.

But when the gospels were written, those same people then became destined to eternal torture without hope because they could not believe these books that they never heard of?

And you LOL about that?

I laughed about what you were asking because it seemed you were suggesting people were responsible for agreeing with existence of the non-existent.

As I pointed out before, God holds us accountable for what we know, not for what we don't. No person can say they had no idea that God existed because all of Creation proclaims Him. God holds each person accountable for what they do with that knowledge. Is God not able to impart the truth about Himself to a person cut off from access to the Gospel who desperately wants to know Him? I think He can. God is not confined by human limitations. He can do anything - including revealing the Truth of the Gospel to people who have no access to the Bible.

The problem is, most people suppress the knowledge of God that they have. They wish to live life their way, not under the authority of their Maker. It isn't that there are millions of people going to hell just because they were ignorant. People go to hell because they wish to exist separately from their Creator and willfully suppress the knowledge of God they have in order to do so.

But if I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?

No, not really. You will suffer eternal torment because you have sinned against the Almighty Creator of the Universe and have rejected the way of escape from hell He has offered you.

If somebody thinks Jesus was spiritually crucified in heaven, will that person be eternally tormented in hell? Does he need to believe Jesus had a physical body and came to earth to escape the eternal conscious torment you speak of?

The belief you describe above is not in accord with Scripture. How far is one able to depart from the Truth before one is condemned by it? Not far at all, I think.

And how can people who never heard of Jesus believe the resurrection of Jesus occured?

God.

And how can people who conclude that Jesus probably never existed on earth believe the resurrection occurred?

God.

I would not make answering questions on a history exam be a prerequisite for escaping eternal conscious torture.

Neither does God. See above.

Selah.

doubtingmerle · Oct 12, 2011

aiki said:
How do you know it doesn't? 1 Corinthians has been part of the canon of the Bible formally and informally since Paul wrote it as a letter to the Corinthian church almost 2000 years ago. It's common usage by the early Christian church before its formal recognition as a part of the biblical canon, its authority derived from Paul's apostleship, its agreement with the doctrine of the Gospels and the OT - these are the prime bases upon which I know 1 Corinthians belongs in the Bible.

Uh, who wrote the rule that said that any book that meets those criteria belongs in the Bible? Y'all wrote that rule?

Well other people have had different ways of selecting books, and they came up with a different set of holy books.

How can you be sure that your rules for selecting God's books are the correct rules? How do you know you have the correct books?

How do you determine that? In the passage from 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks repeatedly of Christ being raised from the dead in obvious reference to what is proclaimed in the Gospels. Nothing he writes in the passage suggests in any way that Paul is speaking of an entirely spiritual resurrection. This must be read into the passage, not drawn out of it. [SNIP]
1 Corinthians 15:42-44
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Just as I said. I Corinthians refers to the raising of a spiritual body. It says nothing about Jesus raising in a physical body.

As I have pointed out, my view is Scripturally well-supported. It is, then, not merely my view, or even the view of many, but the revelation of God's Word. You seem very reluctant to make any such acknowledgement.

How do you know that everything in the 66 books of the Bible is God's Word? Could it be that the books that are included in scripture don't belong there? If it is a human collection of books that don't belong, how can you say that every book in that set is God's Word?

The strength of the evidence in favor of the resurrection is far greater than the evidence that Mormons can procure in support of their golden plates. As Paul speaking to Festus of the events of Christ's life, death and resurrection said, "These things were not done in a corner," which is the exact opposite of the situation concerning the angel Moroni and the golden plates.

Huh? There were multiple witnesses who say they saw the golden plates. We have their written statements.

We do not have the writings of one person who says that they saw the risen Christ or the empty grave. (Paul's claim that he saw Jesus in a vision is not the same thing.)

I doubt if either event happened.

As I clarified before, no one is suggesting that the mere existence of an opposing view to your own necessarily means your view is mistaken or theirs is correct. It does mean, though, that the facts don't force a single, undeniable conclusion.

Straw man. Nobody said the facts about the resurrection force a single, undeniable conclusion.

The facts don't force a single undeniable conclusion about a round earth either. As I explained to you, some people take the facts, and work them out as though they actually support a flat earth.

But I find that the evidence against the flat earth and the resurrection is so strong, that I think both are false.

Is God not able to impart the truth about Himself to a person cut off from access to the Gospel who desperately wants to know Him? I think He can. God is not confined by human limitations. He can do anything - including revealing the Truth of the Gospel to people who have no access to the Bible.

That totally avoids the question. Many have died without ever hearing the gospel story.

Your words indicate that, if dwellers in a remote Pacific island died in 25 AD, they had a chance to escape hell, using the exemption from hell available for those before Christ. After 35 AD, they lost that exemption, and everybody on their remote island lost that chance of escaping hell.

For nobody came to their remote island to tell them the story.

Or are you going to now say they too can escape those torments without actually hearing and believing the story?

People go to hell because they wish to exist separately from their Creator and willfully suppress the knowledge of God they have in order to do so.

I don't think anybody would pass up the oppportunity to know about the creator. They differ with your opinions on who that creator is and what he wants for them, but they don't want to be separated from the creator, if he exists.

But if I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?

Click to expand...

No, not really. You will suffer eternal torment because you have sinned against the Almighty Creator of the Universe and have rejected the way of escape from hell He has offered you.

Huh? I did not say "you say I will be tortured because I don't agree about certain facts of history".

I said, "if I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?"

So are you now saying that I don't need to think the resurrection happened in order to escape hell?

doubtingmerle · Oct 12, 2011

aiki said:
????

I think I know why you found this question so confusing. You broke my post up into little tidbits with comments about each statement. But somehow you seem to have missed the forest for the trees. If you will look at the whole post in context, rather than breaking it into segments, I think it will be clear what I was asking.

aiki · Oct 13, 2011

Uh, who wrote the rule that said that any book that meets those criteria belongs in the Bible? Y'all wrote that rule?

Read again what I wrote:

1 Corinthians has been part of the canon of the Bible formally and informally since Paul wrote it as a letter to the Corinthian church almost 2000 years ago. It's common usage by the early Christian church before its formal recognition as a part of the biblical canon, its authority derived from Paul's apostleship, its agreement with the doctrine of the Gospels and the OT - these are the prime bases upon which I know 1 Corinthians belongs in the Bible.

I don't see any problem with these things serving as a basic criteria for a particular book's inclusion into the canon of Scripture. They are not arbitrary standards, as you seem to want to imply. The early Christian Church recognized the authority of the apostles as speaking for God in matters of doctrine and theology. The early Church (not the RC church but the Body of Believers) decided by their common use of them which books were divinely inspired and ought to be recognized as part of the Canon of Scripture. The books acknowledged as canonical were in accord with one another doctrinally and theologically as well, which seems a necessary feature. Thus, the approach to the canonization of the books of the Bible rests largely upon the choice the Early Christian Church made about which books commended themselves to believers as divinely inspired and spiritually authoritative.

Well other people have had different ways of selecting books, and they came up with a different set of holy books. How can you be sure that your rules for selecting God's books are the correct rules? How do you know you have the correct books?

See above.

There has to be some criteria upon which the canon was chosen or else any book whatever could be included. And the criteria that was relied upon seems to me to be perfectly reasonable and appropriate. You are free to disagree, of course, but you'd be obliged, then, I think, to show how the criteria is legitimately inappropriate.

Just as I said. I Corinthians refers to the raising of a spiritual body. It says nothing about Jesus raising in a physical body.

You really don't seem to know how to handle Scripture interpretation properly. You have divorced the passage at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15 from the rest of the chapter in which Paul goes on to explain that the resurrection from the dead is a raising of the physical body in a transformed or glorified state. This is why I quoted from the end of the chapter:

1 Corinthians 15:42-44

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Paul is very clear that the resurrected Christ has a body:

Philippians 3:20-21
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

If Christ's resurrection was a purely spiritual event, he would not have a body; for the spiritual, by definition, is immaterial. It does not make sense, therefore, to suggest that Christ's resurrection was an entirely spiritual one when Paul clearly states that the believer's resurrected body will be like Christ's resurrected body.

As I have pointed out, my view is Scripturally well-supported. It is, then, not merely my view, or even the view of many, but the revelation of God's Word. You seem very reluctant to make any such acknowledgement.

How do you know that everything in the 66 books of the Bible is God's Word? Could it be that the books that are included in scripture don't belong there? If it is a human collection of books that don't belong, how can you say that every book in that set is God's Word?

This is an obvious deflection of my question. Whether or not you think the canon is legitimate makes no difference to my point that my beliefs are derived from the books constituting that canon.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God for several reasons:

1. Historical/archaeological/cultural accuracy.
2. Incredible thematic unity despite being written over 1500 years by 40 different people on 3 different continents in 3 different languages.
3. Survivability and popularity.
4. Fulfilled prophecy.
5. Profound impact upon societies and cultures.

Huh? There were multiple witnesses who say they saw the golden plates. We have their written statements.

We do not have the writings of one person who says that they saw the risen Christ or the empty grave. (Paul's claim that he saw Jesus in a vision is not the same thing.)

I doubt if either event happened.

The 3 and then 8 witnesses to the Golden Plates are, compared to the public appearance of the resurrected Christ to hundreds of people, a secret and suspicious affair.

And both the apostle John and Matthew were eye-witnesses to the events recorded in the Gospels. In any case, we are no more obliged to doubt or discard the second-hand reports of Mark and Luke simply because they are second-hand than we are the daily news reports that come to us almost entirely second-hand via t.v. and the newspapers.

Straw man. Nobody said the facts about the resurrection force a single, undeniable conclusion.

The facts don't force a single undeniable conclusion about a round earth either. As I explained to you, some people take the facts, and work them out as though they actually support a flat earth.

Some people do this with the fact(s) of the resurrection, too.

I disagree that the facts concerning the sphericity of the Earth lead to more than one conclusion. I explained why in earlier posts.

Is God not able to impart the truth about Himself to a person cut off from access to the Gospel who desperately wants to know Him? I think He can. God is not confined by human limitations. He can do anything - including revealing the Truth of the Gospel to people who have no access to the Bible.

That totally avoids the question. Many have died without ever hearing the gospel story.

But no one (who isn't mentally deficient) has died without an awareness of God's existence and a rudimentary understanding of His nature revealed in Creation. Those who acted upon that knowledge positively and searched for God, are those to whom He has revealed Himself - with or without a Bible or a Christian handy. God is not limited to the presence of either of these things in order to share the Gospel with someone who desires to know the truth. Your assertion assumes that those who died without ever hearing the Gospel wanted to know but were prevented by the lack of a Bible or some human person to tell them about it. Your assertion also seems to assume that without these two things, God is utterly incapable of communicating the Gospel to a genuine seeker of truth, which is obviously false.

I don't think anybody would pass up the oppportunity to know about the creator. They differ with your opinions on who that creator is and what he wants for them, but they don't want to be separated from the creator, if he exists.

I disagree. I think people, if they want a god at all, want a god who is ultimately just a reflection of themselves. THey want a god who conforms to their way of thinking and their sense of morality rather than the reverse. They want a god who can be controlled and even ignored if desired. Most certainly they don't want a god who will impinge in any significant way on the achievement of their goals. Paul the apostle writes,

Romans 1:18-25

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

But if I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?

No, not really. You will suffer eternal torment because you have sinned against the Almighty Creator of the Universe and have rejected the way of escape from hell He has offered you.

Huh? I did not say "you say I will be tortured because I don't agree about certain facts of history".

I said, "if I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?"

So are you now saying that I don't need to think the resurrection happened in order to escape hell?

Did you play these same semantic games in arriving at your conclusions about the resurrection? I hope not.

"Because" is implicit in the first form of your statement. In any event, what I wrote is what I meant. If you refuse the Gospel, you refuse the sole means of your salvation from hell.

Selah.

doubtingmerle · Oct 14, 2011

aiki,

So you are now saying that I don't need to think Jesus died and rose again to escape hell?

I have asked you twice if you think I need to agree with you that certain facts of history occurred to escape hell. Twice you have denyed that I need to do that!!!!!

OK, so I don't need to agree with you that Jesus died and rose again to escape hell? I don't need to agree that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God to escape hell? I can believe these things are wrong and escape hell?

Once more here is that statement that you have denied twice:

If I disagree about certain facts of history, you say I will be tortured in hell forever, yes?

The claimed history I am referring to is the incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection of Jesus.

And you are going on record as saying I don't need to agree with you that these events happened in history in order to escape hell?

Wow! Because the whole point of this tangent was whether I need to believe those things to escape hell. And now you have said twice that I don't need to agree on these historical things to escape hell.

Is that your final answer? We don't need to believe the gospel story is historical to escape hell?

aiki said:
Read again what I wrote:

1 Corinthians has been part of the canon of the Bible formally and informally since Paul wrote it as a letter to the Corinthian church almost 2000 years ago. It's common usage by the early Christian church before its formal recognition as a part of the biblical canon, its authority derived from Paul's apostleship, its agreement with the doctrine of the Gospels and the OT - these are the prime bases upon which I know 1 Corinthians belongs in the Bible.

I don't see any problem with these things serving as a basic criteria for a particular book's inclusion into the canon of Scripture. They are not arbitrary standards, as you seem to want to imply. The early Christian Church recognized the authority of the apostles as speaking for God in matters of doctrine and theology. The early Church (not the RC church but the Body of Believers) decided by their common use of them which books were divinely inspired and ought to be recognized as part of the Canon of Scripture. The books acknowledged as canonical were in accord with one another doctrinally and theologically as well, which seems a necessary feature. Thus, the approach to the canonization of the books of the Bible rests largely upon the choice the Early Christian Church made about which books commended themselves to believers as divinely inspired and spiritually authoritative.

I see, so your faith and trust is in the Early Christian Church? You trust that they got it right when they selected certain books? There were fallible men, yes? Fallible men make mistakes, yes? How can you be sure they were not mistaken?

How can the criteria that a book was written by Paul, etc., prove that a book belongs in a set of books that are God's Word? Couldn't a book meet these criteria without being God's Wod?

You really don't seem to know how to handle Scripture interpretation properly. You have divorced the passage at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 15 from the rest of the chapter in which Paul goes on to explain that the resurrection from the dead is a raising of the physical body in a transformed or glorified state. This is why I quoted from the end of the chapter:

1 Corinthians 15:42-44

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.
43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Huh, I quoted these verses and commented on them in the post you responded to. How can I be said to be ignoring them?

They seem to describe a spritual resurrection, not a physical resurrection.

Yes, Paul refers to Christ's body, but he says it is the church. Paul doesn't necesarily mean a physical body when he refers to a body.

As I have pointed out, my view is Scripturally well-supported. It is, then, not merely my view, or even the view of many, but the revelation of God's Word. You seem very reluctant to make any such acknowledgement.

Click to expand...

How do you know that everything in the 66 books of the Bible is God's Word? Could it be that the books that are included in scripture don't belong there? If it is a human collection of books that don't belong, how can you say that every book in that set is God's Word?

Click to expand...

This is an obvious deflection of my question. Whether or not you think the canon is legitimate makes no difference to my point that my beliefs are derived from the books constituting that canon.

Huh? Your words (in red above) are not a question. How can I be said to be deflecting a question, if your words were not a question??????

And I clearly responded to what you said. For if you are going to claim that since a book or chapter is included in that set that you refer to as scripture, that thererfore it must therefore be God's Word, you must first prove that everything in that set of books you call "scripture" is God's Word. You have not yet done that.

+
I believe the Bible is the Word of God for several reasons:

1. Historical/archaeological/cultural accuracy.
2. Incredible thematic unity despite being written over 1500 years by 40 different people on 3 different continents in 3 different languages.
3. Survivability and popularity.
4. Fulfilled prophecy.
5. Profound impact upon societies and cultures.

My response:
1. What about the global flood? That was not historical.
2. How can one book say God approved of Jehu's massacre, and one say he disapproved? How is that unity? 2 Kg. 10:30 and Hos.1:4.
3. Popularity does not prove a book is God's Word.
4. I haven't yet found an impressive fullfilled prophecy. Can you show me one, please?
5. The gasoline engine also had a profound impact on society.

The 3 and then 8 witnesses to the Golden Plates are, compared to the public appearance of the resurrected Christ to hundreds of people, a secret and suspicious affair.

How do you know he appeared to hundreds? We have no record of them saying they saw it.

And both the apostle John and Matthew were eye-witnesses to the events recorded in the Gospels. In any case, we are no more obliged to doubt or discard the second-hand reports of Mark and Luke simply because they are second-hand than we are the daily news reports that come to us almost entirely second-hand via t.v. and the newspapers.

How do you know Matthew and John wrote those books? We have no record that anybody claimed that before 180 AD.

If the book of Matthew was written by a disciple, why does "Matthew" copy from Mark with minor alterations every time he repeats a story that is in Mark? Wouldn't he want to sometimes give his own view without copying?

If the book of John was written by a disciple, why is his book so completely incompatible with the other gospels?

I disagree that the facts concerning the sphericity of the Earth lead to more than one conclusion. I explained why in earlier posts.

Yes, we agree the earth is a sphere.

But some people think the earth is shaped like a pancake with the north pole at the centler. When people fly around the globe, they say those people fly around that pancake. When pictures show the earth is round, they claim the lens distorts the picture.

They have interpretations of those facts, but their interpretations are wrong.

Can you understand that just because a person offers interpretations of facts, that does not prove his interpretations are rational?

Likewise, one cannot say that since some people interpret the facts as proving there is a resurrection, that does not prove their interpretation is rational.

But no one (who isn't mentally deficient) has died without an awareness of God's existence and a rudimentary understanding of His nature revealed in Creation. Those who acted upon that knowledge positively and searched for God, are those to whom He has revealed Himself - with or without a Bible or a Christian handy. God is not limited to the presence of either of these things in order to share the Gospel with someone who desires to know the truth. Your assertion assumes that those who died without ever hearing the Gospel wanted to know but were prevented by the lack of a Bible or some human person to tell them about it. Your assertion also seems to assume that without these two things, God is utterly incapable of communicating the Gospel to a genuine seeker of truth, which is obviously false.

You agree that many millions have died without being told the gospel story, yes?

Is it possible that one of those millions would have believed if he had been told the story?

If they never heard the story, then you say they will burn in hell, yes? But if they lived before Jesus, then you say they could escape hell without believing the gospel story, yes?

Suppose twins were born in a remote island in 10 BC, and both faithfully followed God as they knew him, but neither had heard of Jesus. One twin died in 10 AD, one in 40 AD. Does the twin who died in 10 AD escape hell, for he was faithful to what he knew, and there was no requirement in 10 AD to believe in the death and resurrection? But the twin who died in 40 AD burn in hell forever, for times had changed, and now people had to believe the story to escape hell?

aiki · Oct 14, 2011

So you are now saying that I don't need to think Jesus died and rose again to escape hell?

I have asked you twice if you think I need to agree with you that certain facts of history occurred to escape hell. Twice you have denyed that I need to do that!!!!!

Simple intellectual assent to the fact of Christ's death and resurrection is not enough to be saved. It is a start, perhaps, but by itself is insufficient to obtain salvation. As the apostle James remarked, "Even the demons believe and tremble."

If you think all that is needed for salvation is agreement with the fact of Christ's resurrection, then I most certainly do not agree. There is more to gaining salvation than that.

I see, so your faith and trust is in the Early Christian Church? You trust that they got it right when they selected certain books? There were fallible men, yes? Fallible men make mistakes, yes? How can you be sure they were not mistaken?

How can you be sure they were mistaken? Just because someone is fallible doesn't necessarily mean they get everything wrong.

How can the criteria that a book was written by Paul, etc., prove that a book belongs in a set of books that are God's Word?

Couldn't a book meet these criteria without being God's Wod?

Could a book meet the criteria that was used to establish the canon of Scripture and not be God's Word? Are you thinking of some particular book or merely asking a theoretical question? I think it is very unlikely that a book meeting the criteria for acceptance into the canon of Scripture is not God's Word. The purpose of the criteria is, in part, to prevent what is not God's Word from being accepted as canonical.

Huh, I quoted these verses and commented on them in the post you responded to. How can I be said to be ignoring them?

They seem to describe a spritual resurrection, not a physical resurrection.

Yes, Paul refers to Christ's body, but he says it is the church. Paul doesn't necesarily mean a physical body when he refers to a body.

I said you were ignoring them? Where? I said you didn't know how to properly intepret them.

As I explained, neither the immediate nor broader context of Scripture supports what you are suggesting.

In the passage(s) in question Paul is not referring to the Body of Believers, the Church. He is plainly speaking of each believer's resurrected body that will be like Christ's post-resurrection, glorified body.

Huh? Your words (in red above) are not a question. How can I be said to be deflecting a question, if your words were not a question??????

Statement, then. Regardless, my remark about your deflection still stands.

And I clearly responded to what you said. For if you are going to claim that since a book or chapter is included in that set that you refer to as scripture, that thererfore it must therefore be God's Word, you must first prove that everything in that set of books you call "scripture" is God's Word. You have not yet done that.

It is this sort of reasoning that helps me understand how you came to your erroneous conclusions about the resurrection.

Whether or not I have proved that what I call Scripture is God's Word makes no difference to my point, which was that my beliefs about the resurrection are derived from Scripture. I remarked on the origin of my beliefs and you fussed in response about the origin of Scripture. These are not the same thing. Even if Scripture is not God's Word, I still derive my belief about salvation, etc. from it, not from myself.

My response:
1. What about the global flood? That was not historical.
2. How can one book say God approved of Jehu's massacre, and one say he disapproved? How is that unity? 2 Kg. 10:30 and Hos.1:4.
3. Popularity does not prove a book is God's Word.
4. I haven't yet found an impressive fullfilled prophecy. Can you show me one, please?
5. The gasoline engine also had a profound impact on society.

1. What about all the historical/ archaeological facts the Bible presents that have been found to be true?
2. The first passage commends Jehu for obeying God's command concerning the destruction of Ahab and his house, the second condemns Jehu for not obeying God in all else.
3. No, popularity alone does not. But taken in concert with the other points I mentioned, it is suggestive of the divine nature of the Scripture.
4. I can show you a fulfilled prophecy that I think is impressive. But what I find impressive and what you find impressive are not necessarily the same thing. Really, it is enough that a prophecy is fulfilled. Whether or not it impresses you is quite beside the point.
5. The impact of the gas engine upon society is quite different from the one the Bible has had. Apples and oranges - again.

How do you know he appeared to hundreds? We have no record of them saying they saw it.

This is what Paul reported in 1 Corinthians 15:4-6.

How do you know Matthew and John wrote those books? We have no record that anybody claimed that before 180 AD.

This is what was held to be true by both Tradition and the Early Church Fathers. All affirm that Matthew is the author of the gospel bearing his name. Papias, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen, to name a few, all unanimously agreed to Matthew's authorship of his gospel.

There is also good internal evidence, evidence within the gospel itself, in support of the belief that Matthew the one-time tax collector wrote it. (He evidences a knowledge of both Aramaic and Greek, which is consistent with being a publican, he mentions money more than any other author of a gospel and uses three terms for it found only in his gospel, which is consistent with his being a tax-collector, and he displays a significant knowledge of Jewish Scripture and doctrine.)

If the book of Matthew was written by a disciple, why does "Matthew" copy from Mark with minor alterations every time he repeats a story that is in Mark? Wouldn't he want to sometimes give his own view without copying?

This similarity but with small differences seems quite to be expected since they are writing of the same events and person but are two different writers.

If the book of John was written by a disciple, why is his book so completely incompatible with the other gospels?

It is not "completetly incompatible" but its focus is distinctly different from the other Gospels. John seems far more interested in the deity of Christ, than in the mere recording of events leading up to his resurrection.

But some people think the earth is shaped like a pancake with the north pole at the centler. When people fly around the globe, they say those people fly around that pancake. When pictures show the earth is round, they claim the lens distorts the picture.

They have interpretations of those facts, but their interpretations are wrong.

Who and where are these people?

Can you understand that just because a person offers interpretations of facts, that does not prove his interpretations are rational?

Of course. Can you?

Likewise, one cannot say that since some people interpret the facts as proving there is a resurrection, that does not prove their interpretation is rational.

It doesn't prove their interpretation isn't rational, either. So, what's your point?

Is it possible that one of those millions would have believed if he had been told the story?

I'm not willing to speculate with you on this.

Suppose twins were born in a remote island in 10 BC, and both faithfully followed God as they knew him, but neither had heard of Jesus. One twin died in 10 AD, one in 40 AD. Does the twin who died in 10 AD escape hell, for he was faithful to what he knew, and there was no requirement in 10 AD to believe in the death and resurrection? But the twin who died in 40 AD burn in hell forever, for times had changed, and now people had to believe the story to escape hell?

You can ask this question with as many different scenarios as you like, but my answer remains the same. See my last post.

Selah.

Why did Jesus need to die?

Christian

Regular Member

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

I'll think about it.

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency