Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If the "presence of God" is that weak upon our world, it can simply be explained as projection on your part.If you think that Shakespeare is absent from Macbeth's world then it is not surprising to me that you do not see the presence of God in our world.
The gospels are the contemporary accounts of the miracles.
He had others to do it? Who cares who wrote about him...
How do you know no one else wrote anything down?
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a document like that to survive 2000 years?
That is speculation. No one knows when they were written.
Macbeth to King Duncan: "Why doesn't Shakespeare leave any tracks?"
I am quite confident they did care, at least to the extent that Jesus was seen, and rightly so, as a threat to the general peace and good order. Rome was known to not tolerate those who would disturb the status quo. And Jesus certainly was creating quite a ruckus in Palestine.Nope, they didn't care. The Jews were given the decision on Jesus and they said to crucify. Rome didn't care either way.
I am quite confident they did care, at least to the extent that Jesus was seen, and rightly so, as a threat to the general peace and good order. Rome was known to not tolerate those who would disturb the status quo. And Jesus certainly was creating quite a ruckus in Palestine.
Surely you are not saying that the act of washing his hands absolved Rome of responsibility? Or that the Romans were not at least somewhat motivated to kill Jesus?Pilate found Jesus guilty of nothing and washed his hands of the matter removing any guilt of this upon him which means Rome is not responsible.
Are you assuming that the scientific method is the only methods whereby we can legitimately search for "tracks""? I am not sure exactly what you mean by "science". For my part, the scientific method entails developing models of reality that make falsifiable predictions. On that view, the claim that Washington was the first President cannot be validated by "science". But surely you believe this claim about Washington, right?The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks.
Surely you are not saying that the act of washing his hands absolved Rome of responsibility? Or that the Romans were not at least somewhat motivated to kill Jesus?
I suggest that the hand-washing was self-rationalizing theater: Pilate did not have to hand Jesus over for crucifixion and, his theatrics notwithstanding, his decision to do so clearly places some responsibility for Jesus' death on Rome.
All you have shown is that Pilate washed his hands - that can easily be explained as an act of rationalization - an attempt to pretend that he bore no responsibility.As I said and as scripture shows, Rome had no interest in Christ.
I agree that the Jewish leadership bore some responsibility for the Crucifixion - perhaps most of it. But you have not really made a case that Rome did not also bear responsibility. On the contrary, it is well-known that Rome did not tolerate trouble-makers. And Jesus certainly fits that bill. So there is every reason to suspect that the Romans were all too happy to be rid of Him (and therefore, play a role in that coming to pass.It was only the Jews being so up in arms against Jesus that caused the crucifixion and indeed Israel is blamed for it as I showed.
How is this support for your position? The fact that the person who made this statement sees the Jews as substantially responsible does not mean that he (the speaker) does not acknowledge that Rome had a part to play. I could equally well point out that the Scripture doesn't say:The scripture doesn't say, " Therefore let all ROME know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
All you have shown is that Pilate washed his hands - that can easily be explained as an act of rationalization - an attempt to pretend that he bore no responsibility.
I agree that the Jewish leadership bore some responsibility for the Crucifixion - perhaps most of it. But you have not really made a case that Rome did not also bear responsibility.
On the contrary, it is well-known that Rome did not tolerate trouble-makers. And Jesus certainly fits that bill.
How is this support for your position? The fact that the person who made this statement sees the Jews as substantially responsible does not mean that he (the speaker) does not acknowledge that Rome had a part to play.
In fact, we know for a fact that it was the Romans who actually carried out the crucifixion. So you cannot use the Acts text (in its actual form of course) as a kind of literal statement of complete truth since we know that it was the Romans, and the Jews, who actually carried out the crucifixion.
So this Acts text really does not support the position that the Jewish leadership bore sole responsibility for Jesus' death.
Where? All you have shown is that Pilate washed his hands (hardly a legitimate grounds for getting off the hook) and that the Jews were also responsible.I have actually but you don't agree. Scripture itself lays the guilt upon the Jews, not the Romans.
The falsifiable prediction stuff comes from Popper and that definition only allows a scientist to prove something false. In actuality we know that scientists usually seek to prove something true. To do this science relies on induction (statistics, etc.). The results of scientific experiments are confidence intervals. That is my understanding. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher or anything like that. It's fun to think about these issues though.Are you assuming that the scientific method is the only methods whereby we can legitimately search for "tracks""? I am not sure exactly what you mean by "science". For my part, the scientific method entails developing models of reality that make falsifiable predictions. On that view, the claim that Washington was the first President cannot be validated by "science". But surely you believe this claim about Washington, right?
I suggest it is reasonable to consider "historical" tracks as well as tracks that can be discovered by "science". Yes, the claims of Christianity are startling and difficult to believe off the bat. But, it is at least possible that believing those claims might be the best explanation for the events that followed the life of Jesus. Obviously, if you are going to claim that it is a priori impossible for someone to be resurrected from death, you are clearly not going to accept the Christian worldview. But, I suggest, it is not the path of open-minded inquiry to assume this.
Even if Scriptures does not explicitly declare Rome's guilt, it is impossible to sensibly deny this. For a government to allow a man to be put to death for illegitimate reasons renders that government morally responsible.
Do you deny this?
There is simply no question here, scripture or no scripture.It's irrelevant. Jesus wanted the Roman's forgiven.
There is simply no question here, scripture or no scripture.
Fact: The Romans actively crucified Jesus - they were not forced by the Jews to do so.
Therefore, they clearly bear at least some responsibility for the crucifixion.
Do you deny this? Please do not evade the question - it is clear and meaningful.
How do you know that Jesus when request forgiveness for those who crucified Him, He only was asking on behalf of the Romans?
I suggest you are in an impossible position. No rational person can deny that a government that actively participates in the execution of a man in the absence of reasonable evidence of guilt bears at least some moral culpability.
How can you possibly suggest the Jews forced the Romans to do anything? - The Romans had vast military might. The Romans did not want rebellion so they took the course that would minimize that risk: placating the demands of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus. But they clearly were not forced to do anything! They freely chose to do what was in their own best interests.Yes they were forced by the Jews because they wanted to placate them rather than face an uprising or rebellion, which was something that was in the minds of the Jews and did happen within a generation.
You appear to a have an agenda here. When Jesus asks God to forgive "them" for they don't know what they do, you have precisely zero evidence that the scope of application of this request was limited to the Romans.Nope. Christ said they didn't know what they were doing and wanted them forgiven. They are no more guilty of Christ's death than a knife is guilty of someone's death.
Obviously not! How can you possibly say this? The fact that some soldiers were casting lots does not mean that Jesus' request was directed at the Romans only. It is clearly at least plausible that Jesus is asking for forgiveness for all those involved in his death, not just the Romans. You seem bent on blaming it all on the Jews, so you claim that just because a few Romans were nearby casting lots they are the ones Jesus is seeking to forgive. Who the "them" is cannot be established based on physical proximity alone! Surely you must acknowledge this.Context shows he is speaking about the Roman's who crucified him then cast lots for his clothes.
Obviously not! How can you possibly say this? The fact that some soldiers were casting lots does not mean that Jesus' request was directed at the Romans only. It is clearly at least plausible that Jesus is asking for forgiveness for all those involved in his death, not just the Romans.
You seem bent on blaming it all on the Jews
, so you claim that just because a few Romans were nearby casting lots they are the ones Jesus is seeking to forgive. Who the "them" is cannot be established based on physical proximity alone! Surely you must acknowledge this.
How can you possibly suggest the Jews forced the Romans to do anything? - The Romans had vast military might. The Romans did not want rebellion so they took the course that would minimize that risk: placating the demands of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus. But they clearly were not forced to do anything! They freely chose to do what was in their own best interests.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?