Why the desire to sin?

[Joshua260]

Yes I remember you providing something that indicated he was executed, but it didn't mention him rising from the dead or doing anything outside the laws of nature.

Ken

I said that Tacitus, the Roman historian, does not use the term resurect, but some scholars believe his claim that there arose a "mysterious superstition" refers to this event. However, Josephus says that he was the "so-called" Christ, assigning him a deification title. He also says that he was performing miraculous "feats". The Babylonian Talmud says that he resurrected. The roman historian Pliny, said that the Christians were worshipping him as a god.

So yes, people including Romans related stories of others saying that Jesus was doing things "outside the laws of nature". The Christian explosion in Rome didn't arise just because some guy told a lot of neat parables.

 

[Ken-1122]

I said that Tacitus, the Roman historian, does not use the term resurect, but some scholars believe his claim that there arose a "mysterious superstition" refers to this event. However, Josephus says that he was the "so-called" Christ, assigning him a deification title. He also says that he was performing miraculous "feats". The Babylonian Talmud says that he resurrected. The roman historian Pliny, said that the Christians were worshipping him as a god.

So yes, people including Romans related stories of others saying that Jesus was doing things "outside the laws of nature". The Christian explosion in Rome didn't arise just because some guy told a lot of neat parables.

I am sure there were all types of rumors about an executed religious leader; but none of them are historical facts. That's what I'm talking about.

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

I am sure there were all types of rumors about an executed religious leader; but none of them are historical facts. That's what I'm talking about.

Ken

What's your motive for choosing historical writings about some people to be historical facts while choosing others to be just rumors?

 

[Ken-1122]

What's your motive for choosing historical writings about some people to be historical facts while choosing others to be just rumors?

The Roman government doesn't recognize rumors as true.

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

The Roman government doesn't recognize rumors as true.

Ken

LOL!!

Well they apparently recognized Christianity itself as true!!

 

[Ken-1122]

LOL!!

Well they apparently recognized Christianity itself as true!!

That is true! Christianity has taken over modern day Rome.

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

I doubt it was a fact 2000 years ago, If it were verified, it would probably be a part of ancient Roman history

"Probably", huh? How about your statement in #347 of this other thread where you said:

"these men won the war and was able to write the history books to make themselves look like heroes"

This has the appearance of double-standards.

All the events that happened within the laws of nature.

Why are you sure of that?

Okay I get it. So if the kerosene represents the tree, the school represents the Garden, the children represent Adam, Eve and all their decedents, The fire represents sin, the known arsonist represents the devil/snake, and you represent God; would it be fair to say the Arsonist taught or cajoled the 90% of the children to start the fire? Or do you feel the devil has nothing to do with the fall of Adam & Eve/mankind

Ken

No, I certainly don't feel that the devil has nothing to do with the fall. I am saying that there are some weeds among the wheat. The devil and God represent the two options, and the human race is the subject. We all get to choose who we want to be on side with. Some people will naturally think that the devil is right. They will find out that he is wrong and there might be consequences for doing so. I cannot say that everyone who does not choose to trust God will end up burning in the fire, because I don't have the vantage point that is necessary to make such a judgement.

LOL!!

Well they apparently recognized Christianity itself as true!!

That is not a relevant argument. By the time Rome adopted Christianity, it was already sufficiently distributed to provide influence over society. Until that point, it was still viewed as a threat to their influence of society.

 

[Joshua260]

That is true! Christianity has taken over modern day Rome.

Ken

I'm talking about Ancient Rome, contemorary with the historians I've been telling you about who wrote of Jesus' miracles and even resurrection. Rome legalized Christianity in 313 AD and BANNED the worship of all other gods in 391 AD.

That should give you some indication of how firmly they believed that Christianity was true.

 

[Ken-1122]

"Probably", huh? How about your statement in #347 of this other thread where you said:

"these men won the war and was able to write the history books to make themselves look like heroes"

This has the appearance of double-standards.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I agree; Christianity won the war with Rome so they obviously had a hand in writing their history, but this should leave doubt in Roman history about christianity, not the other way around; don't cha think? Unless I am misunderstanding you, it sounds like you are attacking your own argument.

Why are you sure of that?

I'm not all that sure. There are probably plenty of claims concerning this event within the laws of nature that are not true. Again not sure what point you are trying to make.

No, I certainly don't feel that the devil has nothing to do with the fall. I am saying that there are some weeds among the wheat. The devil and God represent the two options, and the human race is the subject.

Why does the Devil get to be an option? Why not just a plethora of good options?

We all get to choose who we want to be on side with. Some people will naturally think that the devil is right.

C'mon! Do you really believe there are some "sane" people who will actually choose the devil? I don't think so.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm talking about Ancient Rome, contemorary with the historians I've been telling you about who wrote of Jesus' miracles and even resurrection. Rome legalized Christianity in 313 AD and BANNED the worship of all other gods in 391 AD.

That should give you some indication of how firmly they believed that Christianity was true.

I have no doubt the Roman government eventually believed Christianity was true, but that doesn't mean all the Christian claims are true. It doesn't make the resurrection a fact!

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

I have no doubt the Roman government eventually believed Christianity was true, but that doesn't mean all the Christian claims are true. It doesn't make the resurrection a fact!

Ken

Good grief!

What evidence do you lack concerning the Resurection?

 

[Ken-1122]

Good grief!

What evidence do you lack concerning the Resurection?

It is rather difficult to believe claims of a thousand years ago because they didn’t have the technology to provide the type of records we have today. There was no video, no audio, etc. Caesar for example; there is record that as a military leader he went around doing things that military leaders do. Now I can’t be certain that what was said about him is a fact because they didn’t have the type of technology to provide the type of records to remove all doubt of his actions.
I would tend to believe what was written about Caesar because:

1. What he did was consistent with what military leaders do and nobody claimed he did anything outside the laws of nature.
2. The claims of Caesar are consistent amongst ethnic, religious, cultural, and geographical lines. The Russians, Americans, Chinese, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Black, White, Brown people; it seems everybody agrees with the claims of Caesar. Sure there may be a few minor details that people disagree on, and I would probably doubt some of those minor details.

There is an old saying; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can believe a religious leader named Jesus went around doing things religious leaders do, and eventually got executed because of it, but to believe he walked on water, cured the blind, (but didn’t end blindness) healed the sick (but did not end sickness) fed the hungry (but didn’t end hunger) cast out demons (but didn’t end demon possession) and a host of other miracles; these are extra ordinary claims and with their limited technology during that time, I doubt they could provide the type of evidence that such things really happened without exaggeration that would be convincing for skeptics of today unless such things still happened still. Of course if the claims were believed across state, cultural, and religious lines that would bring credibility, but of course we know that isn’t the case.

K

 

[Joshua260]

It is rather difficult to believe claims of a thousand years ago because they didn’t have the technology to provide the type of records we have today. There was no video, no audio, etc. Caesar for example; there is record that as a military leader he went around doing things that military leaders do. Now I can’t be certain that what was said about him is a fact because they didn’t have the type of technology to provide the type of records to remove all doubt of his actions.
I would tend to believe what was written about Caesar because:

1. What he did was consistent with what military leaders do and nobody claimed he did anything outside the laws of nature.
2. The claims of Caesar are consistent amongst ethnic, religious, cultural, and geographical lines. The Russians, Americans, Chinese, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Black, White, Brown people; it seems everybody agrees with the claims of Caesar. Sure there may be a few minor details that people disagree on, and I would probably doubt some of those minor details.

There is an old saying; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can believe a religious leader named Jesus went around doing things religious leaders do, and eventually got executed because of it, but to believe he walked on water, cured the blind, (but didn’t end blindness) healed the sick (but did not end sickness) fed the hungry (but didn’t end hunger) cast out demons (but didn’t end demon possession) and a host of other miracles; these are extra ordinary claims and with their limited technology during that time, I doubt they could provide the type of evidence that such things really happened without exaggeration that would be convincing for skeptics of today unless such things still happened still. Of course if the claims were believed across state, cultural, and religious lines that would bring credibility, but of course we know that isn’t the case.

K

You seem to have set an impassable barrier between yourself and Christianity. You refuse to believe that Jesus performed miracles and Resurrected even though there is evidence supports those claims. The Resurrection IS the event that God left for us as a sign. That is the single miraculous event that he performed for non-believers to evaluate.

The fact that Christianity has exploded across the world and is still growing indicates that millions of people in the world apparently believe that the claims of Christianity ARE credible. In fact, atheism only accounts for about 6% of the US population which has remained at that level for many years (despite contrary claims).

In the past, skeptics have denied that the Hittites existed, David existed, Solomon existed, Nazareth existed, the Jews in Egypt, Pontius Plilate, etc. and all this is now supported by evidence. In your threads, we've explored ancient historians who wrote about Jesus, his miracles, his resurrection, the spread of the church, the empty tomb, the conviction of the apostles, the acceptance of Christianity by ancient Rome, the Dead Sea scrolls, the numerous copies of the new testament and how reliable they are, etc.

It seems to me like there's lots of evidence to support the Christian story, not to mention the numerous philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but you seem to me determined not to believe. I will continue to pray for you.

 

[Ken-1122]

You seem to have set an impassable barrier between yourself and Christianity. You refuse to believe that Jesus performed miracles and Resurrected even though there is evidence supports those claims. The Resurrection IS the event that God left for us as a sign. That is the single miraculous event that he performed for non-believers to evaluate.

The fact that Christianity has exploded across the world and is still growing indicates that millions of people in the world apparently believe that the claims of Christianity ARE credible. In fact, atheism only accounts for about 6% of the US population which has remained at that level for many years (despite contrary claims).

In the past, skeptics have denied that the Hittites existed, David existed, Solomon existed, Nazareth existed, the Jews in Egypt, Pontius Plilate, etc. and all this is now supported by evidence. In your threads, we've explored ancient historians who wrote about Jesus, his miracles, his resurrection, the spread of the church, the empty tomb, the conviction of the apostles, the acceptance of Christianity by ancient Rome, the Dead Sea scrolls, the numerous copies of the new testament and how reliable they are, etc.

It seems to me like there's lots of evidence to support the Christian story, not to mention the numerous philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but you seem to me determined not to believe. I will continue to pray for you.

What evidence do you have of the resurrection; other than what's written in the Bible? Just as you don't see the evidence of some of the other religious texts as credible, it shouldn't surprise you that I wouldn't see the evidence of your religious texts as credible.

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I agree; Christianity won the war with Rome so they obviously had a hand in writing their history, but this should leave doubt in Roman history about christianity, not the other way around; don't cha think? Unless I am misunderstanding you, it sounds like you are attacking your own argument.

Depends what you think my argument is. I don't believe that the Christianity Rome adopted is the genuine Christian spirit. The point I'm making is that for the first few hundred years (several generations, mind), Christianity was severly persecuted. This raises a reasonable suspicion that any evidence of Christ would have been hunted down and destroyed. I'm sure a historian can provide evidence of that. It is no wonder to me then why there are such little records of Christ's resurrection, it was literally Mark 12:7.

I'm not all that sure. There are probably plenty of claims concerning this event within the laws of nature that are not true. Again not sure what point you are trying to make.

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. Do you know to which extent you do accept the testimony of Jesus' witnesses?

Why does the Devil get to be an option? Why not just a plethora of good options?

Why not just 100% light? Why not just 100% matter? It's not that kind of world.

C'mon! Do you really believe there are some "sane" people who will actually choose the devil? I don't think so.

Ken

I do. I don't know why you don't, it's obvious and observable. Sane or not, a lot of people like to choose "darkness" over "light" and that is the exact substance of your original question.

 

[Joshua260]

What evidence do you have of the resurrection; other than what's written in the Bible?

You keep going round in circles because we've covered all this before. But I'll try to go through it again.

Using the bible is not a bad thing to do, it's even good because what we have is a written document that has NOT been totally refuted by contemporary writers! That is actually a very strong piece of evidence! This event was not performed in a vacuum and these gospels were distributed widely through the early church years. So the fact that we DON'T have contemporary writings that say none of this happened is actually very significant. Instead all we have is twisted tales of all the same thing. There's false gospels that were written and Judaism and Islam do not deny that Jesus was crucified or performed miracles, they only deny he Resurected, which is exactly what we would expect from them. But the whole thing could have been stamped out real quickly if they had just produced the body of Jesus. And mind you that no one denies the empty tomb, they just say Jesus didnt really die or that someone stole the body. So the fact that no contemporary writer denied that the story happened (at the most we get twisted versions of it), combined with the fact that Roman guards would be severely punished for not performing a crucifixion efficiently or for sleeping on guard at the tomb, all that makes for quite a convincing case.

But then we also have the conviction of the apostles even to the death. Now you've got to keep in mind here that if they did all this as a hoax, then they died willingly for a lie, which is highly uncommon for martyrs. Many would die for what they believed to be true, but few if any would die for what they KNEW to be a lie. I hope you understand this point.

Then you have the explosion of the early church. You know what makes this significant is not just that the apostles were spreading the Resurection story. It's the fact that they preached something that was CONTRARY to what the Jews believed of the messiah. Not until then did those Jews believe that their messiah would resurect THEN and the rest of us later.

Of course then we have the testimony about the 500 witnesses and so forth. As I said, these stories were made public and this was not preached in a vacuum. That's why the point was made in the New Testament writings that many of these witnesses were still alive...because readers of those writings could go and talk to those witnesses personally so they could hear their testimony themselves. Not only that but they could also take a tour to visit the empty tomb!

As I said, contemporary writers did not deny the basic story. For sure, SOMETHING happened on a lonely hilltop 2000 years ago. And when we start examining the details, the case becomes quite convincing that the actual gospel writers (all writing between 40-100 AD by-the-way...not like the late writings of some other religions) may have been actually telling the truth!

 

[Messy]

What evidence do you have of the resurrection; other than what's written in the Bible? Just as you don't see the evidence of some of the other religious texts as credible, it shouldn't surprise you that I wouldn't see the evidence of your religious texts as credible.

Ken

Yes, the evidence is that He lives in me and healed me and that people get raised from the dead literally because of His resurrection power in us. But you don't see that quite often, so I can't blame you for not believing it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Depends what you think my argument is. I don't believe that the Christianity Rome adopted is the genuine Christian spirit.

Rome is headquarters of the Catholic church! That’s where the pope stays; it doesn’t get any more Christian than that! They say the catholic church is the closest thing to what Peter started

The point I'm making is that for the first few hundred years (several generations, mind), Christianity was severly persecuted. This raises a reasonable suspicion that any evidence of Christ would have been hunted down and destroyed. I'm sure a historian can provide evidence of that. It is no wonder to me then why there are such little records of Christ's resurrection, it was literally Mark 12:7.

Yeah; but the fact that Rome is currently the most “Christian” spot on Earth and they have all this evidence that confirms some of the claims of Christianity kinda makes you wonder if there is an agenda somewhere in there

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. Do you know to which extent you do accept the testimony of Jesus' witnesses?

I am not familiar with all the testimonies of Jesus witnesses. I guess it would be on a case by case basis

Why not just 100% light? Why not just 100% matter? It's not that kind of world.

I guess we could have 100% of different shades of light; don’t know what you mean by 100% matter though; my point is evil is not necessary, so why allow it to become that kind of world

I do. I don't know why you don't, it's obvious and observable. Sane or not, a lot of people like to choose "darkness" over "light" and that is the exact substance of your original question.

Even Hitler claimed he was doing Gods work; the most evil of humans convince themselves that they are not evil. I don’t know of anybody who lives in the real world that says they prefer evil over good; do you?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

You keep going round in circles because we've covered all this before. But I'll try to go through it again.

Using the bible is not a bad thing to do, it's even good because what we have is a written document that has NOT been totally refuted by contemporary writers! That is actually a very strong piece of evidence!

You see; that’s where I disagree. I don’t know of any contemporary non religious writers who claim everything in the Bible is true; do you?

This event was not performed in a vacuum and these gospels were distributed widely through the early church years. So the fact that we DON'T have contemporary writings that say none of this happened is actually very significant.

We don’t have contemporary writers that say none of the stuff written in the Koran or the Vedas happened either. Do you consider that significant?

]Instead all we have is twisted tales of all the same thing. There's false gospels that were written and Judaism and Islam do not deny that Jesus was crucified or performed miracles,

Actually they do deny it. Islam claims Jesus never died but was taken into heaven by God

they only deny he Resurected, which is exactly what we would expect from them. But the whole thing could have been stamped out real quickly if they had just produced the body of Jesus. And mind you that no one denies the empty tomb, they just say Jesus didnt really die or that someone stole the body.

I have never heard of anybody claiming the body was stolen; the death of Jesus was not a big event during that time so there was no record kept of where he was buried; nobody knows.

So the fact that no contemporary writer denied that the story happened (at the most we get twisted versions of it), combined with the fact that Roman guards would be severely punished for not performing a crucifixion efficiently or for sleeping on guard at the tomb, all that makes for quite a convincing case.

The same can be said about the claims of Islam or Hinduism.

But then we also have the conviction of the apostles even to the death. Now you've got to keep in mind here that if they did all this as a hoax, then they died willingly for a lie, which is highly uncommon for martyrs. Many would die for what they believed to be true, but few if any would die for what they KNEW to be a lie. I hope you understand this point.

When you look at the tragedies of Jonestown, or the Branch Dividians, it’s obvious it doesn’t take much to get someone to die for a lie, because when you tell a lie often enough, you begin to believe it to be the truth

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, the evidence is that He lives in me and healed me and that people get raised from the dead literally because of His resurrection power in us. But you don't see that quite often, so I can't blame you for not believing it.

And I don't blame you for believing.

Ken