Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[WoundedDeep]

What do you suppose is a more likely explanation when a body goes missing?
1) That it was moved through some physical and/or natural force
2) That it was moved through some supernatural force

Since we have numerous verifiable accounts of things being moved through physical forces and zero accounts of things being moved through supernatural forces, the more likely explanation is that Jesus body was moved through some kind of physical or natural force as opposed to a supernatural force.

What do you mean that a body is moved by natural force? At the time of Jesus' death there were Roman guards appointed to guard His tomb and His tomb was sealed with a rock requiring at least a group of men to move. What natural/physical force do you propose could move that sealing rock given that there were men guarding it? Meanwhile the religious authorities were eager to prove that Jesus could not resurrect Himself like He claimed, if His body was moved by men or some natural force they would have spread the reports with ecstasy. His followers would also have scattered and given up on following His teachings if they saw He could not do what He said He could.

Clearly that isn't what happened, so where is the proof for your first hypothesis?

Most likely true. But it has been shown that mankind can be brainwashed or deluded into thinking something is true when it isn't true.

I don't deny that men can be brainwashed, but men who first believed in Jesus were clearly not brainwashed because they did not in any way act irrationally. All they did was to spread a testimony they believed in, they did not threaten to kill nor did they kill themselves like mad men. (Brainwashed men who believed in cults always acted irrational either by killing others or themselves) It was those who saw their testimonies as a threat or displeasing that acted irrationally and murdered them. Men who act with reason are not brainwashed.

Again, one can be deluded or brainwashed into believing something which isn't true. Do you believe everything everyone tells you?

If I tell you right now I know exactly what you did yesterday, would you believe me?

If I tell you that I own five large islands in the Caribbean, are you automatically going to believe me?

If I tell you that I have 10 fire breathing dragons in my backyard, are you automatically going to believe me?

It is common sense to demand evidence proportionate with the claim before accepting a claim as true.

Sure, you are right. But the marks of a brainwashed man is that he thinks and acts without reason and ends up doing immoral acts against himself or others. None of Jesus' disciples were ever charged with immorality, all they did was spread a message and they ended up losing their lives for it.

Those who do believe in Jesus do have evidences, first in the form of testimonies of events verifiable in human history, and subsequently, their own experiences which further support the testimonies they heard.

I don't believe what everyone tells me, either I compare it with my own experiences or I simply wait for it to be tested with time. Time proves many things. As for my belief in God, it is a personal experience that needs no external evidences. In fact, I was born and raised an atheist and only started to believe in my mid teens.

If true, then the same rules apply to whoever or whatever put physical laws into place. Otherwise you're committing the fallacious argument of special pleading.

That is a fallacious argument I'm afraid. Even us humans can create computer commands to which we are not subjected to, why do we now presume that God must be subjected to the rules He used to create the universe?

How specific were their prophecies? Did they provide dates & times? How many people made these prophecies?

The prophecies included the place of Jesus' birth, the fact that He will be born of a virgin, what He will do during His ministry, and how He will die and the outcome of His death (ie, He will resurrect again) etc. Are dates more important than the specific details of the events, especially when the events are already history?

 

[WoundedDeep]

- the stories of their deaths are fabrications
- altruism, they died to protect someone else, such as family members

And, that they believed it to be true does not make it true.

“All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.” ― Isaac Asimov

Christian persecution and death in the Roman Empire is a historical event, you can even find it written on Wikipedia, so why is it so hard to accept? Again, it proves the point that Christian testimonies are rejected not based on facts, but on prejudices.

"Persecution of the early church had occurred sporadically and in localised areas since its beginning. The first persecution of Christians organised by the Roman government took place under the emperor Nero in 64 AD after the Great Fire of Rome" (from http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_policies_in_the_Roman_Empire#External_links)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Besides all history are records of testimonies passed down either verbally or written or both. While people are ready to accept historical testimonies of most elements of human civilization, they reject the history about Jesus and testimonies about Him. It is clear therefore people discount the person of Christ not because of facts, but because of an ingrained prejudice.

While people are ready to accept historical testimonies of most elements of human civilization, they reject the history about Helgi and testimonies about him. It is clear therefore people discount the person of Helgi not because of facts, but because of an ingrained prejudice.

 

[WoundedDeep]

While people are ready to accept historical testimonies of most elements of human civilization, they reject the history about Helgi and testimonies about him. It is clear therefore people discount the person of Helgi not because of facts, but because of an ingrained prejudice.

Your point is?

 

[Davian]

Christian persecution and death in the Roman Empire is a historical event, you can even find it written on Wikipedia, so why is it so hard to accept? Again, it proves the point that Christian testimonies are rejected not based on facts, but on prejudices.

"Persecution of the early church had occurred sporadically and in localised areas since its beginning. The first persecution of Christians organised by the Roman government took place under the emperor Nero in 64 AD after the Great Fire of Rome" (from Anti-Christian policies in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

No, it only shows that they were persecuted. What has that to do with the veracity of their religious beliefs?

 

[WoundedDeep]

No, it only shows that they were persecuted. What has that to do with the veracity of their religious beliefs?

The fact that no one sane and with reason will willingly be persecuted and even be killed for an inaccurate or outrightly false belief.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your point is?

That the argument you seem to be making could be made for any religion. So there is no reason to favor one over another. They can't all be true, so this argument does not point to truth.

 

[bhsmte]

The fact that no one sane and with reason will willingly be persecuted and even be killed for an inaccurate or outrightly false belief.

Wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The fact that no one sane and with reason will willingly be persecuted and even be killed for an inaccurate or outrightly false belief.

Sumayah was persecuted and even killed for Islam. Therefore your argument suggests that Islam is true. But Islam and Christianity can't (I think) both be true.

Therefore your argument must be flawed.

 

[talquin]

What do you suppose is a more likely explanation when a body goes missing?
1) That it was moved through some physical and/or natural force
2) That it was moved through some supernatural force

Since we have numerous verifiable accounts of things being moved through physical forces and zero accounts of things being moved through supernatural forces, the more likely explanation is that Jesus body was moved through some kind of physical or natural force as opposed to a supernatural force.

What do you mean that a body is moved by natural force? At the time of Jesus' death there were Roman guards appointed to guard His tomb and His tomb was sealed with a rock requiring at least a group of men to move. What natural/physical force do you propose could move that sealing rock given that there were men guarding it? Meanwhile the religious authorities were eager to prove that Jesus could not resurrect Himself like He claimed, if His body was moved by men or some natural force they would have spread the reports with ecstasy. His followers would also have scattered and given up on following His teachings if they saw He could not do what He said He could.

Clearly that isn't what happened, so where is the proof for your first hypothesis?

We have thousands if not millions of verifiable instances of people making up stories.
We have zero verifiable instances of supernatural events occurring.

Therefore, it is more likely the explanation is that at least part of the story of the guards, the rock or Jesus is made up than that supernatural forces were at play.

Most likely true. But it has been shown that mankind can be brainwashed or deluded into thinking something is true when it isn't true.

I don't deny that men can be brainwashed, but men who first believed in Jesus were clearly not brainwashed because they did not in any way act irrationally. All they did was to spread a testimony they believed in, they did not threaten to kill nor did they kill themselves like mad men. (Brainwashed men who believed in cults always acted irrational either by killing others or themselves) It was those who saw their testimonies as a threat or displeasing that acted irrationally and murdered them. Men who act with reason are not brainwashed.

People who are brainwashed or deluded do not know they are brainwashed or deluded. If you are deluded into thinking that everything around you is real and that humans you interact with are real, but you are actually in the matrix, you wouldn't know it. And as said before, we have zero verifiable occurrences of the supernatural. Therefore, the more likely explanation is that these people were deluded than that they actually witnessed miracles of a supernatural power.

Again, one can be deluded or brainwashed into believing something which isn't true. Do you believe everything everyone tells you?

If I tell you right now I know exactly what you did yesterday, would you believe me?

If I tell you that I own five large islands in the Caribbean, are you automatically going to believe me?

If I tell you that I have 10 fire breathing dragons in my backyard, are you automatically going to believe me?

It is common sense to demand evidence proportionate with the claim before accepting a claim as true.

Sure, you are right. But the marks of a brainwashed man is that he thinks and acts without reason and ends up doing immoral acts against himself or others. None of Jesus' disciples were ever charged with immorality, all they did was spread a message and they ended up losing their lives for it. [/quote]
As mentioned earlier, deluded people don't know they're deluded. Therefore, the more likely explanation is that these followers were deluded than that it was some kind of supernatural force.

Those who do believe in Jesus do have evidences, first in the form of testimonies of events verifiable in human history, and subsequently, their own experiences which further support the testimonies they heard.

What experiences of Jesus could currently living people have? What is the reason we haven't had any verifiable accounts of people experiencing Jesus in scientific journals?

I don't believe what everyone tells me, either I compare it with my own experiences or I simply wait for it to be tested with time. Time proves many things. As for my belief in God, it is a personal experience that needs no external evidences. In fact, I was born and raised an atheist and only started to believe in my mid teens.

How do you know that your personal experiences of God are real and not delusions?

If true, then the same rules apply to whoever or whatever put physical laws into place. Otherwise you're committing the fallacious argument of special pleading.

That is a fallacious argument I'm afraid. Even us humans can create computer commands to which we are not subjected to, why do we now presume that God must be subjected to the rules He used to create the universe?

To argue that God doesn't need a creator while everything else needs a creator is a fallacious argument of special pleading. Is this something you were unaware of?

How specific were their prophecies? Did they provide dates & times? How many people made these prophecies?

The prophecies included the place of Jesus' birth, the fact that He will be born of a virgin, what He will do during His ministry, and how He will die and the outcome of His death (ie, He will resurrect again) etc. Are dates more important than the specific details of the events, especially when the events are already history?

Where are these prophecies documented?

Remember, there have been countless verified accounts of humans making up stories and zero verifiable accounts of supernatural occurrences. Therefore, it is more likely that these prophecies were made up after the fact than that they actually occurred.

 

[WoundedDeep]

That the argument you seem to be making could be made for any religion. So there is no reason to favor one over another. They can't all be true, so this argument does not point to truth.

The premise of my argument is that some people reject Christianity on the basis that mere verbal or written testimonies are not reliable. I counter that with the fact that any form of human records of history are based on verbal or written testimonies yet people accept those testimonies as undeniable facts. Thus, rejecting Christianity for the sole reason that they are testimonies is an indication of prejudice. I did not compare religions, so I'm not sure why you raise it because that's a whole different issue altogether.

 

[bhsmte]

The premise of my argument is that some people reject Christianity on the basis that mere verbal or written testimonies are not reliable. I counter that with the fact that any form of human records of history are based on verbal or written testimonies, thus rejecting Christianity for the sole reason that they are testimonies is an indication of prejudice. I did not compare religions, so I'm not sure why you raise it because that's a whole different issue of absolute and relative truth.

What you are not discussing, is the method used by historians to determine of written records are indeed historically credible and it is called; the historical method.

The NT is a mixed bag when the historical method is applied and much of it, is simply not historically credible.

The majority of NT scholars and historians will agree the following pieces are historically credible, but beyond these few things, the credibility gets very weak:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

The NT is mostly a work of theology, not a work of credible history.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The premise of my argument is that some people reject Christianity on the basis that mere verbal or written testimonies are not reliable. I counter that with the fact that any form of human records of history are based on verbal or written testimonies yet people accept those testimonies as undeniable facts. Thus, rejecting Christianity for the sole reason that they are testimonies is an indication of prejudice.

Then I am glad to set your heart at ease. I reject not only Christianity, but Islam, Hinduism, and the laws of Odin, and a hundred other religions for the same reason. And most non-Christians do the same, mutatis mutandis. There is no bias.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Sumayah was persecuted and even killed for Islam. Therefore your argument suggests that Islam is true. But Islam and Christianity can't (I think) both be true.

Therefore your argument must be flawed.

You are now comparing religions, which was not what I originally intended by what I say. But since you raise it up, I will address that. The test of truth does not stop at the persecution level. Islam, if you read up carefully, is a merge of doctrines from Judaism, Christianity and paganism. It is a mixed doctrines religion with many of its beliefs adopted from different religions. Not so with Christianity which has one set of coherent doctrines throughout.

 

[Davian]

The fact that no one sane and with reason will willingly be persecuted and even be killed for an inaccurate or outrightly false belief.

I see some movement of the goalposts there, but no, you have not established that as a fact.

 

[WoundedDeep]

We have thousands if not millions of verifiable instances of people making up stories.
We have zero verifiable instances of supernatural events occurring.

Therefore, it is more likely the explanation is that at least part of the story of the guards, the rock or Jesus is made up that that supernatural forces were at play.

You did not answer my question, what proof do you have that the supernatural resurrection is a made up story? I can safely bet you probably don't.

While you may be right that supernatural things are harder to verify, yet there is neither verifiable evidence that Jesus was not resurrected. Is it so hard to find a body if you witnessed Jesus' death and are convinced He didn't resurrect? Wouldn't religious leaders be searching high and low for Jesus' body if they have evidence that He did not resurrect? Yet, no one who witnessed His death can disprove His resurrection, what then are your chances as someone living 2000 years later to disprove the supernatural resurrection? Slim to none. Either accept that the resurrection did happen as a supernatural event, or continue to speculate that it didn't without any possibility of verifying your speculation. All is your choice.

People who are brainwashed or deluded do not know they are brainwashed or deluded. If you are deluded into thinking that everything around you is real and that humans you interact with are real, but you are actually in the matrix, you wouldn't know it. And as said before, we have zero verifiable occurrences of the supernatural. Therefore, the more likely explanation is that these people were deluded than that they actually witnessed miracles of a supernatural power.

Yes brainwashed people do not know, but outsiders can tell by mere observation of their thoughts and actions. If Christians are but a group of brainwashed people, please explain why there is a need to persecute and even kill them? What is the justification for killing a group of brainwashed citizens who neither commit murder nor threaten the welfare of other people? Clearly those who persecuted and killed them didn't think they were brainwashed by some myths or they would just subject them to re-education. In fact, Christians in the early church days are marked distinctly by modest living and gentleness, and other than preaching a message that made no sense to most, there was no indication of any delusion or irrational behavior characteristic of brainwashed individuals. Again, where is the proof that they are brainwashed? There is none.

As mentioned earlier, deluded people don't know they're deluded. Therefore, the more likely explanation is that these followers were deluded than that it was some kind of supernatural force.

The marks of a deluded person is to be examined by an outsider. Again, similar question: what is the reason for murdering and persecuting a group of deluded people who tell myths and do no harm to their fellow men? Myths can never threaten, but the truth when told, can seem threatening to people who are exposed as guilty. Christians are persecuted and killed for the truth they tell.

What experiences of Jesus could currently living people have? What is the reason we haven't had any verifiable accounts of people experiencing Jesus in scientific journals?

That He is who He claimed to be. Some people believe in Him because He delivered them from depression, others because they were miraculously saved from a fatal accident and saw Jesus. Accounts of these things are all over the net, the only thing is that common media and secular journals see no profit in showing these accounts and therefore leave them out. Why not google it yourself and see if those accounts of meeting Jesus is verifiable?

How do you know that your personal experiences of God are real and not delusions?

Because of the actual changes Jesus brought to my life and the changes I saw in my parents? To deny the realities of my own experiences is no different from denying the reality of my existence.

To argue that God doesn't need a creator while everything else needs a creator is a fallacious argument of special pleading. Is this something you were unaware of?

Like I said, it is common sense and not special pleading. God is independent from His creation and thus the laws that He use to create does not apply to Him. God is above all forms of laws so why will He need a Creator?

Where are these prophecies documented?

1) Jesus will come from the line of Abraham. Prophecy: Genesis 12:3. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:1.
2) Jesus’ mother will be a virgin. Prophecy: Isaiah 7:14. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:18–23.
3) Jesus will be a descendent of Isaac and Jacob. Prophecy: Genesis 17:19 and Numbers 24:17. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:2.
4) Jesus will be born in the town Bethlehem. Prophecy: Micah 5:2. Fulfilled: Luke 2:1–7.
5) Jesus will be called out of Egypt. Prophecy: Hosea 11:1. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:13–15.
6) Jesus will be a member of the tribe of Judah. Prophecy: Genesis 49:10. Fulfilled: Luke 3:33.
7) Jesus will enter the temple. This is important because the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and was never rebuilt. Prophecy: Malachi 3:1. Fulfilled: Luke 2:25–27.
8) Jesus will be from the lineage of King David. Prophecy: Jeremiah 23:5. Fulfilled: Matthew 1:6.
9) Jesus’ birth will be accompanied with great suffering and sorrow. Prophecy: Jeremiah 31:15. Fulfilled: Matthew 2:16.
10) Jesus will live a perfect life, die by crucifixion, resurrect from death, ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God. Prophecies: Psalm 22:16; Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10–11; Psalm 68:18; Psalm 110:1. Fulfilled: 1 Peter 2:21–22; Luke 23:33; Acts 2:25–32; Acts 1:9; Hebrews 1:3.

Remember, there have been countless verified accounts of humans making up stories and zero verifiable accounts of supernatural occurrences. Therefore, it is more likely that these prophecies were made up after the fact than that they actually occurred.

All prophecies about Jesus was written in the OT centuries before His birth, what you speculate is entirely impossible.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I see some movement of the goalposts there, but no, you have not established that as a fact.

I am not establishing any fact, all I am doing is to get you to think and investigate for yourself why anyone will hang onto their beliefs and even die for it if they know they merely invented myths. Why would the disciples who ate and slept with Jesus Christ and could see if His miracles are real or not continue preaching about Him to their deaths if they know what they preach is false?

 

[Smidlee]

The fact that no one sane and with reason will willingly be persecuted and even be killed for an inaccurate or outrightly false belief.

No one is willing to die for something they know for a fact is a lie.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What you are not discussing, is the method used by historians to determine of written records are indeed historically credible and it is called; the historical method.

The NT is a mixed bag when the historical method is applied and much of it, is simply not historically credible.

The majority of NT scholars and historians will agree the following pieces are historically credible, but beyond these few things, the credibility gets very weak:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

The NT is mostly a work of theology, not a work of credible history.

There are people who will not even acknowledge the four points you raised despite glaring historical facts.

As for your earlier point, you are right there are many things in the Bible which are not historically verifiable either because they are supernatural events or prophecies that cannot be verified with current technology or because they are simply God's teachings meant to educate. Simply put, the Bible contains historical facts but it is not solely a history book. To reject something as false just because you cannot prove it as true as yet is foolish imo. As for the truthfulness of God's teachings, the only way to verify it is to apply it to your life and see whether it brings good or bad outcomes. Aren't the world already applying some portions of God's teachings and found it to be good?

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are now comparing religions, which was not what I originally intended by what I say.

I am not 'comparing religions'. I am simply showing you that your argument can be used to support other religions. And since all religions cannot be correct, your argument is faulty.

Islam, if you read up carefully, is a merge of doctrines from Judaism, Christianity and paganism. It is a mixed doctrines religion with many of its beliefs adopted from different religions. Not so with Christianity which has one set of coherent doctrines throughout.

You're saying that Christianity does not adopt beliefs from Judaism? Is this comedy hour?