Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus die before he was born?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 91 (47195)
07-23-2003 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 8:21 PM


HE IS ALIVE get over it evo's!
Oh? Where is he?
there is nothing they can do to rid Jesus,
Who wants to get rid of him? I'm sure he was a great guy. But he died a very, very long time ago, and left no writings of any kind, as far as we can tell. So who's to say what he did or did not do or say? None of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses to those events, to my knowledge.
they can agree with each other all the day long but that dont make them right!!!
Actually, it's not so much we agree with each other but that we agree with the evidence.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 8:21 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 9:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 91 (47198)
07-23-2003 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by mike the wiz
07-23-2003 9:56 PM


He is risen.
Right, but risen to where? (Isn't it "he rose", or at least "he has arisen"?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by mike the wiz, posted 07-23-2003 9:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 1:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 91 (47239)
07-24-2003 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Souljah1
07-24-2003 1:22 AM


I do not understand why you would go to great lengths to argue something you are not sure of.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. (And I generally don't consider internet forums to be "great lengths" in terms of having arguments.) If you're referring to the existence of god, well, I'm as sure that he doesn't exist as you are that he is. Surer, perhaps, because on my side I have the fact that there's no evidence that god exists.
Atleast Matthew and John would of been eyewitnesses, not to mention James and Peter two of the other diciples who have writings in the bible.
Are you sure about that? I confess immediately, I'm no bible scholar. It was my impression that the earliest that the New Testament could have been written was some 40 years after the events detailed in it. And I wasn't aware that the Peter (as in, Simon Peter?) was the author of any of the books. Which ones was he the author of?
Whether they were eyewitnesses or not you along with the rest of your companions will find a way of trying to disprove that as well.
Well, only if it's not true. We can hardly disprove something that is true, right?
You see your mentality as well as many others is "I will believe once I have tangible evidence"
Yes, that's true. I'm not in the habit of believing things for no reason. It's puzzling to me that you think this is a bad thing.
And not just any but 100% valid evidence
Also true. If I can explain your evidence without recourse to gods, then it's not really evidence for the existence of any gods. That's basically Occam's Razor.
which to prove to an evolutionists is practically impossible.
Nope. It wouldn't be any harder to prove to me god exists than it would be to prove to me that you exist.
You see one of the main professors himself ended up saying it was a lie
I don't doubt it. As it turns out, many theologians - even priests - say at one point or another "God doesn't exist." Are we to take them at face value, as well? If your own authority figures don't always believe in god, surely the whole thing is bunk?
No? Then why would you apply the same standard to evolution? Kind of a double standard, no?
You are a sinner crashfrog just like any body else
Actually, nope. I'm not a sinner.
if God is real and his Word is true, the only way you can be forgiven is through accepting his Son as your personal Savior
Good thing I haven't done anything I need forgiving from. Whew! Is my mind ever at ease!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Souljah1, posted 07-24-2003 1:22 AM Souljah1 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 91 (54319)
09-07-2003 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ichthus33
09-07-2003 4:25 AM


Would a good man claim to be God and not be... sounds like a cult leader to me... and also, would a liar claim to be God, yes, but what would Jesus gain from his teaching by lying, to be crucified? ... one last thing could he have been a lunatic? No. So liar and lunatic have been eleminated from our context. So what is left, the fact that he is Lord.
If you're going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it's generally considered good form to actually give him credit rather than passing off his argument as your own.
As it happens, it's a flawed argument. The fourth alternative, that C.S. Lewis convinently forgets to mention, is that what Jesus says and does in the Bible is false. Jesus wasn't a lunatic who claimed to be God, because he may never have claimed to be God. Sure, he makes that claim in the Bible, but who's to say that those parts of the Bible weren't made up?
Can this be mere coincenence?
No, it could simply be the authors of the Bible writing it that way.
See, that's the problem with using the Bible to support the claims of the Bible. It's circular. You have to assume the Bible is true in order to arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ichthus33, posted 09-07-2003 4:25 AM ichthus33 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 91 (54376)
09-07-2003 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ichthus33
09-07-2003 4:54 PM


First off, who is C.S Lewis? I've never heard of him or read any of his text.
Well, you have, you probably just don't know it, yet. C.S. Lewis is most noted as the author of the beloved "Narnia" books ("The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", etc.) But he's also the author of a great many books on Christian apologetics, the most prominent of which - and the one the "Lunatic, Liar, Lord" argument comes from - is "Mere Christianity." Anyway, you more or less directly summarized an argument from C.S. Lewis. I suspect now that you may have heard it from somebody else, who didn't cite their source, either. Either way it's bad form to pass someone else's reasoning off as your own.
And also can you prove to me that what Jesus says in the Bible is false?
Well, all of Jesus's statements in the Bible appear in texts written well after his death, sometimes a generation later. I mean, if no one wrote it down for like 60 years, is it reasonable to assume that this record of Jesus's thoughts and actions could be accurate?
If Jesus had written the Gospels himself, that would be another case. But the fact is that the Gospels were written well after his death, sometimes by people who weren't even there.
There is more proof that he is true.
Like what, exactly? Remember we're talking about claims in the Bible, so you need a source of evidence beyond the Bible. You can't use the Bible to verify the Bible.
What does anyone in the Bible have to gain by lying and making things up?
Tell ya what. Go to Google and google for "L. Ron. Hubbard" AND "easiest way to make a million dollars." (Hint: you should get something along the lines of "starting a religion.")
And it is very apparent that He is alive and well.
Oh? He's alive? Where is he, then? Where does he live?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ichthus33, posted 09-07-2003 4:54 PM ichthus33 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by phil, posted 09-07-2003 10:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 91 (54418)
09-08-2003 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by phil
09-07-2003 10:06 PM


Written by people who weren't there? Explain this please.
What's to explain? Not every author of the New Testament was present to observe the events that they recount. Some of them are writing from second, third, or fourth-hand sources. Historically, we don't give too much credence to second (or worse) -hand accounts.
Heck, we don't even know who some of the authors are, even. Appeal to anonymous authority is another thing historians don't take very seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by phil, posted 09-07-2003 10:06 PM phil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by phil, posted 09-12-2003 5:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 91 (54419)
09-08-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ichthus33
09-07-2003 11:56 PM


The Bible doesn't contridict any legitimate history. Just saying that the Jews were not in Egypt doesnt prove a thing.
Well, it would prove Exodus wrong, for one thing. After all there's no evidence that the Exodus even occured. I mean, if it had, surely the Egyptians at the time would have noticed?
Now, Exodus being wrong may not be a big deal to you - unless you take a position that the "Bible is %100 true". After all it can't be %100 percent true if it's wrong about stuff, can it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ichthus33, posted 09-07-2003 11:56 PM ichthus33 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024