My Beliefs- GDR

The difference is that the resurrection confirms that Jesus' message was not just a human construct but was a message that was the incarnate Word of God. I agree that it wasn't just Jesus who brought that message of love, peace and justice to the world. It is consistent with both Gandhi, the original Buddah and millions of others.There is also His message of that there is a point to our existence and that we are teleological beings in a teleological world. The disciples misunderstood because they didn't really understand Christ's Kingdom message until after the resurrection. The Kingdom message in their heads still meant Israel and the defeat of their earthly enemies. That was the point of their wanting to sit at His right and left hands when He came to His throne.In that way they never did quite understand the message or the messenger until later. There are two aspects to the message of Jesus. The first is the message of love, peace and justice. Secondly however was the establishment of the Kingdom which would be comprised of His followers that would be charged with taking His story to the world and by making His peace, love and justice the foundational aspects of their lives. (I realize that when you look at the church today it doesn't look that way but we are all a work in progress. ) Sure, but as I pointed out with the example that I used some things are fact whether we know it empirically or not. Knowledge is not the same as fact. There may be some legendary aspects to the Gospels that would be obvious to a 1st century Jew and not to us, but I find it difficult to believe that with everything considered that it can be reasonably argued that they thought they were writing fiction. However, I can't prove it. Here is what Paul himself says about that from 1 Corinthians 15.

quote:

---

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised ; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised ; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless ; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

---

The fact that we can confirm that when people die they stay dead in all cases that we can verify, does not verify that a one time event which isn't consistent with what we can observe today didn't happen. The whole account is clear that the event is not something that is repeatable. Well as I said, I would be more suspicious if there wasn't discrepancies with the details and as far as the culture is concerned there was no anticipation of Jesus rising from the dead and for those that believed in resurrection they believed it would be for the Jewish nation at the end of time. For other resurrection meant the restoration of Israel under Jewish rule.

A) The historical accuracy of this is of course called into question: Historical reliability of the Acts of the ApostlesB) Like I said before, it wasn't so much a church as it was a small group trying to spread the message of Jesus with much fighting and a lot of confusion.C) The first established church was in Rome - the RCC. It's the same as today: creator of everything; takes personal concern with his human creations; pray to him for helpWhat has changed? Just repeating it doesn't make it so. Please explain how. The nature of god being the creator of everything and is concerned for humans dates back to beyond Roman times to Greek and Egyptian mythology. So we'll go with: I don't know them to be true but I am convinced they are.Is that your position?- Oni

What the author's believed is obvious to you? These aren't historical accounts. If they were we'd have a number of historians all writing about Jesus. We do not.So these are, at best, stories about a person who may or may not have existed, and, since the stories mimic the same stories written 2000's years back in Egyptian mythology AND we know the Hebrews were slaves of these Egyptians, we can see where these stories might have originated.What IS obvious is that you've placed your faith on what these men have written. What isn't obvious is why you decided on that one instead of any other story written in the same fashion. That obviously can't be the question because AGAIN you have not proven your premise to be true and therefore can not begin to ascribe it abilities.First you must prove that such an intelligence exists. Then you can move forward to asking whether or not this intelligence had anything to do with creating Earth or single cell organisms.All we know of for sure is that nature has all the capabilities to create life, all the elements for the building blocks of life, and has clearly done so since life exists. You're reaching. Resurrection is coming back from the dead. What the authors of the Bible changed was how this happened. And even iin their change, it is not that different. And earlier yet by Egyptians to mean the son of god - just as the Christians used it.- Oni

But it makes no difference whether the message was the word of God or the word of man. The message is the message. It has the same value regardless of its origin. And putting the messenger before the message is the chief obstacle to implementing the message. So how do you "know" that something is a "fact"? Nobody said they "thought" they were writing fiction. The modern concept of fiction wasn't even defined at the time.They wrote what they wrote for a purpose and it's naive to assume that that purpose was a simple narration of events that they had witnessed. Then the word "verify" is worthless. The Flood could just as well be a one-time miraculous event. Even if we can prove that it never happened, you're just as free to believe that it did.

(A) People have questioned all aspects of the Bible. So what?(B) There were numerous small groups that met in homes etc. What would you call them. Mots sources I've seen just called them the early church.(C) That was the first time there was a formal hierarchy. I frankly don't see how any of this is germane anyway. The Romans had multiple of gods who related to each other sexually, militarily etc. Christ brought us a message of their being one god who told us to love our enemies as opposed to killing them in battle. I have already quoted more than once in this thread from a secular writer Robert Wright who detailed how our understanding of God has evolved. As I said one example would be in going from a god of war to one of peace. Yes while not viewing them as inerrant.

I think it is obvious to anyone who reads it with an open mind. There are come aspects that could be conceived as legendary, and there are some obvious difficulties with some details but the overall thrust is IMHO pretty obvious. The author's intended what they wrote to be believed as historical and it is also clear that they believed it themselves. Of course the accounts would be written by believers. Obviously non-believers are not going to be interested in writing historical documents about Jesus. I would also point out that Paul was not a believer at the outset but had his mind changed to such a degree that he devoted his life to the movement. We have gone over this before. In one very real sense I see Jesus as being the fulfilment of all those ancient stories and mythologies. I don't have to prove it. IMHO it is more reasonable to assume that such an intelligence exists in one form or another but I also recognize that we aren't all going to agree on that, just as we don't. Where is this evidence that nature has the ability to create life. Sure all the building blocks are there but all the building blocks are there to form a 747 but we don't observe it happening in nature. It is different as they claimed that he came back in a newly reconstituted body that was similar to but also different in nature than His previous body. There is considerable discussion, particularly as we see from Paul of what this all meant. Sure but so what? It has to be understood within the culture of 1st century Judaism.

On one level I agree but on the other hand I do think that there is value in knowing that there is ultimate value in our choosing to act lovingly and that when the sun burns out, or whatever happens, that our lives we mattered.If Jesus wasn't resurrected then He was simply another failed messianic wannabe leaving behind a large credibility gap. Why would we take what He said seriously. With Gandhi we can at least take the message at a human level without seeing him as delusional. It goes back to that message from Paul that I quoted earlier. I'm not sure what you mean by that but in order to hear the message you have to believe that the messenger is worth listening to. I think we would agree that empirical proof would be considered factual. That doesn't mean that something that can't be empirically proven isn't factual. It simply means that we can't know it in the same way, and that we make up our own minds whether to believe it or not. Certainly it is more than just a narration of events as all the writers wrote with their own personal and cultural biases. In some ways it is how I am writing now. I have my Christian biases and I argue from that POV. However, I am writing from what I believe and what I know to make my point. They believed that the resurrection happened and they gave as good an account of what Jesus said and did as they were able. Sure and some do. There are many differences though. The flood story was written centuries after it is supposed to have occurred and all the geological and DNA evidence refutes it ever happening. The only evidence against the resurrection is the fact that we have not witnessed it happening again and that it requires a suspension of the laws of nature as we understand them. The accounts were written during the life times of some the eye-witnesses and the accounts are written by several different authors. Again though, it can't be proven so we will all choose what we are going to believe about the accounts that we have.

Because of what He said. If what He said had any value, it doesn't matter who said it. No you don't. If you understand the message, you can see its value. But if you waste your time showering the messenger with praise and gifts, you lose your chance to implement the message: Exactly. We can't "know" it in the same way we actually know things. It isn't a "fact" in the same way that facts are actually facts. It's just a belief in the same way that belief in the Tooth Fairy is a belief. But you don't know what they believed. You only believe they believed what they wrote. The Old Testament authors most likely believed what they wrote about the creation and the flood with equal conviction, yet you can accept them being wrong. Why can't you accept the New Testament authors being wrong? So there really are no differences. Neither story can be proven. Both require a suspension of the laws of nature and a coverup of the contrary evidence. Both boil down to a believe-it-or-not, flip-a-coin choice. Jews believe the flood but not the resurrection. You believe the resurrection but not the flood. Tie game.At least Jewish children and Gentile children are in agreement about the Tooth Fairy.

It wasn't just about loving your neighbour. He mad claims about His relationship with God the Father, He essentially claimed to be speaking on behalf of God, He made anti-revolutionary statements etc. I think I understand your inference but I don't see that is what is happening. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but both collectively and individually our motivations evolve. I believed that part of the message is that we are to serve Him by serving all creation as community. THe signature I use is a simple straightforward message of what God wants of us and I understand Christ's message that by serving communally that we our behavioural patterns are positively affected by one another, we can serve more effectively when we serve communally and through worship we learn that we only able to love because He loved us first.As I have said numerous times it is all about having hearts that freely love unselfishly so I don't think that time in church is in any wasted and is in fact an instrument used by God to change hearts.Mind you, I'd agree that it would be better if I were down at the local food bank right now instead of arguing with you and onifre. I should practice what I preach. It is belief in the same way that I know my wife loves me. Some beliefs are more evidenced than others even if the evidence is subjective. Why can't you accept that they were right? For one thing the picture of a the God that we see in Jesus rings true to me in a way that the God that is sometimes depicted in the OT doesn't. It is also less clear what the OT authors actually believed. As I talked about in another thread, ( Message 1 ) their views of what God approved of vary from one author to another and obviously what they wrote was a refection of their cultural biases. The NT writers are consistent about the essential elements, they have no reason to lie, and it is pretty hard to be mistaken about seeing Jesus resurrected after seeing Him dead on a cross and buried. Well I'm quite sure that not all Jews believe in a literal world-wide flood and all the original believers in the resurrection of Jesus were Jewish. The resurrection wins and we didn't even need overtime unlike a couple of hockey teams I could mention. Only after they have collected for all their baby teeth.

Really? Who?Not really eyewitnesses if we have no evidence they existed either.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Yes, they have, and one of the things that is in question historically is what you brought to the table as "evidence". So, I can't accept it as evidence when there isn't a consensus amoung historians. From what you have linked, it seems like they did call them churches. I never heard the word "church" used so out of context from what I'm familiar with a church being. But ok, I'll concede if it moves us past it. How on earth is this an evolved understanding of god?! This is nothing more than a new story. Do you actually think you're concept of god is absolutely right? They changed the story, well, who cares? Doesn't mean it's the right story. For all you know the way it was before could be the right way and you now understand less about god. This is laughable at this point, GDR. You can't actually be so arrogant as to think the Christian version is the right one that has evolved mankinds understanding of god? Ok, you do get that saying "I don't know them to be true but I'm convinced that they are" makes absolutely no sense right? How can you not know something to be true but convinced that it is? That cancels itself out. You're either convinced and you know it's true or you have doubt and don't know it to be true.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

This is ridiculous. Few historical figures have anywhere near the attestation of their existence as Jesus has but nobody doubts their existence or what is written about them or the existence of the eyewitnesses either. The Bible is a collection of writings that includes eyewitness reports of Jesus -- Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, James and Jude being eyewitnesses who also wrote books of the NT, and others they reported on being also eyewitnesses.Consider the histories of Alexander the Great for contrast. Not one single eyewitness account still exists. All that survives is reports based on earlier eyewitness accounts, yet you probably believe in his existence.Here is Wikipedia onAlexander the GreatBesides the eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the Bible we also have all the writings of the early church fathers based on them which amounts to a much larger body of secondary writers on His life than those who wrote on Alexander, and from the sound of the Wikipedia report on Alexander the church fathers are far more in agreement with each other than Alexander's historians.It is foolishness to deny the plain statements of eyewitnesses to Jesus that were collected into the Bible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, none of the other historical figures are being called the son of god or said to have come back from the dead. It's not like people are saying Napoleon walked on water or Alexander the Great cured a blind man.The whole story of Jesus just seems like typical fiction. The historians of the time failed to write about Jesus, and you'd think one would have done so when they document every other person and event.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Again, you're putting the messenger above the message. We don't have to give equal weight to everything he said. We can see what has value and what doesn't.When the messenger brought you instructions to reinforce the right flank, you could see that the right flank was in danger of collapsing. You didn't need details on who else thought it was collapsing. But serving Him "by" serving the community is irrelevant. Serving the community is what counts. If God approves, fine, but it doesn't really matter. His approval is as useless to us as our "service" is to Him. You've already admitted that that isn't true. Many people manage to love their neighbours without believing in your God. If He's empowering them invisibly in the background, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they are empowered, not how they're empowered. Evidence is not subjective. I could accept that the New Testament authors were right and the Old Testament authors were wrong. I don't accept it because there's no real distinction between them. The only way you seem to be able to distinguish them is that the New Testament "rings true". Only if you cherry-pick what the "essential elements" are.The Old Testament writers are also consistent about the Flood. So are the New Testament writers, for that matter. Yet you reject one miracle and accept another. On the contrary, magicians do much more impressive tricks every day and their audiences are consistently mistaken. It's a whole industry. It isn't about being Jewish.Allow me to rephrase:

quote:

---

So there really are no differences. Neither story can be proven. Both require a suspension of the laws of nature and a coverup of the contrary evidence. Both boil down to a believe-it-or-not, flip-a-coin choice. Some people believe the flood but not the resurrection. Some people believe the resurrection but not the flood. Tie game.

---

Notice that I said "you" have eyewitnesses, not "we" have eyewitnesses. I was addressing GDR's claim, taking it as a given if you like. The key in the sentence you quoted is that even if the eyewitnesses did exist, they only reported what they thought they saw. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence that anybody actually did see anything.