My Beliefs- GDR

That's it exactly. We have to decide the value of the message. If the messenger appears to be crazy, we might be inclined to discount the message - but if it's a matter of life and death we still have to consider that possibility that a crazy messenger might have an important message. Or, a messenger who appears to be sane might bring a crazy message.The message is all-important. It effects what we do. The messenger is only one possible indicator of the value of the message. The ultimate act of selflessness would be giving up your seat in heaven for, say, Martin Bormann. That's what Jesus wants. So you're saying that Christianity is a kind of special-ed program for the sellessness-challenged. And the intangibles are not evidence. The charlatans don't. As I've already said, maybe there was no body. The lack of a body is an indication that the death didn't happen. Covering up a faked death is certainly more plausible than an alien abduction.

Then why attack positions that I don’t hold? If you are going to lie about something then usually there is some motive. In this case you would need multiple people lying and for what reason? They wrote it and there is no doubt in my mind that they believed it. By faith I believe that they got the essential parts of the narrative correct and if some of the accounts did become embellished over time then so what. We all live in that shark tank. I don’t see it as a plan as such, but Jesus knew what the authorities in that culture do to those who buck the system. God redeemed it. There is the Bible but you simply reject the whole thing. He has also given us a conscience so that we know the difference between right and wrong and He has given us the ability to choose. If God were to explicitly say this is the reward for doing the right thing and this is the punishment when you screw up, then we’ve lost our free will. The point is that He wants hearts that freely choose the right and unselfish thing.

There are stacks of motives - all entirely human. People want to feel important, part of a group, they want to influence people, have power, change things. They are also corrupt, deluded and simply ill. There are people who are charismatic and egotistical and can compel others who are merely gullible. We know this is the case because we see it all the time - Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, the Church of Scientology, fundamentalists of all kinds. Oh come on. God put his son in the shark tank knowing in advance what would happen. You can't feasibly argue otherwise.

You have not shown why it couldn't have all been written after 70AD. I don't know what any of the above that you wrote has to do with that point.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

First and foremost it is evidence for the life, death resurrection of Jesus. But if that is all cells are then it is evidence that there is more than just the material world. If just the material world exists then within the cell is the information that is required for sentient, moral beings to evolve, which is more complicated than just a combination of base elements. If a unicorn were to exist it would be physical and perceivable to us. Of course. It is a matter of faith or belief. I can’t see where I ever presented the idea that the Bible can be confirmed by itself. I would only quote the verse from 2 Timothy as evidence of what Paul, (or whoever wrote on his behalf) thought about the Hebrew Scriptures. Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity — a logical fallacy. You can’t imagine an intelligence that is responsible for life that you can’t directly perceive. I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m simply trying to present my beliefs and my reasons for those beliefs realizing that there is no objective proof. That’s your opinion. No it’s not. I have no problem with either chemistry or natural selection. Your position remains the stuff of an incalculable amount of good luck. Instead of intelligence I should have used the term information. If we are the result of base elements combining by chance in such a way that cells came into existence and then evolved into sentient life, again by chance, then the first cells would have needed to contain the information that resulted in sentient life. What is your alternative? That’s your opinion. We disagree.

I don’t disagree with that. We have to evaluate the message of the Bible, and we have to determine if it has any validity, and if it is to have any impact on our lives. Exactly, but I don’t see that as an option. The principle however is exactly correct. I think that is one important aspect of it. The Romans were very experienced with execution by crucifixion. There were witnesses to the beatings and there were witnesses to the crucifixion. I doubt that anyone having gone through that would be up and cheerfully walking around a couple of days later. Also, there is no motive for any of that. Jesus was not about gaining power on Earth, just the opposite. Why on earth would anybody go to the bother of faking any of that for what they knew would only cause them difficulty in this life for a lie?Also, if they were trying to cover-up a faked death they would hardly of had His followers all deserting the cause when the going got tough, as part of the whole fiction.

Just as A Song of Ice and Fire is evidence for the life, death(s) and resurrection(s) of Beric Dondarrion via the Lord of Light (the one true god).

That’s a theory and I can’t say it is impossible, but I believe it is highly unlikely.1/ The core group were all Jewish, and 1st century Jews had pretty specific ideas about what a messiah was supposed to do. The messiah that Jesus offered was not offering a revolutionary way of getting out from under Roman rule but was actually telling them that they should love their enemy. I wonder if someone had come along suggesting that in Holland during the Nazi occupation. This was hardly going to give them influence or power.2/ The movement started, again by Jews, making specific claims about what happened to Jesus and what He taught well within the lifetimes of many eyewitnesses to the crusifixion and yet the movement seems to have gained a sizeable following.3/ If the disciples were simply gullible in following Jesus that would be one thing, but can you really imagine that they would be gullible enough to continue to follow Him after the crucifixion if He had simply died on the cross without any resurrection.4/ There were numerous other messianic movements and some such as Judas the Galilean and Simon bar Kokhba actually had some military success against the Romans. When they were put to death their movements ended and the search for the messiah continued. Sometimes they would select family members of the dead messianic claimants to carry on as in the case of the Maccabees and Judas the Galilean. There is no reason to believe that this would not have been the case with Jesus unless something particularly noteworthy happened to cause the movement to carry on.5/ The accounts that we have show the original leaders of the movement in a pretty poor light. One of the disciples was Peter and the Gospels consistently show him as missing the point up to the crucifixion and then bailing when the going got tough.6/ The accounts of the resurrection are actually quite inconsistent with how a 1st century Jew would have portrayed Jesus if they were making it up. He wasn’t glowing like a star or some such thing. They have cooking fish by the water’s edge. If it was going to be made up this just isn’t what they would have concocted.However, both of us will believe what we want but I suggest that the idea that the apostles didn’t truly believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected is highly unlikely. The bigger question is whether or not they were right and I believe they were. I believe that in Jesus we can see the incarnate Word of God. I’m of the view that, as I said in some post earlier that I believe that God relates to us in time and he doesn’t know for example, any more than I do who’s going to win the Stanley Cup finals this year. (That’s hockey by the way for you Brits.) Yes, there would certainly have been an expectation as there was with Jesus of what the authorities would do, but I don’t see either God or Jesus knowing with certainty what would happen. What we did see though is that God redeemed Jesus with the resurrection which was a defeat of evil with death being the ultimate evil. This of course carries the message for all who sacrifice their lives for what is right, loving, kind, peaceful and just that death does not have the final word.

You continuously hurdle a logical problem by invoking what you personally believe. This is a made up belief. Gods are all seeing and all knowing. If they're not, then they're not gods.So now you've imagined a lessor god; one that can't see into the future even when it involved the Plan of all plans - the saving of the human races' immortal souls.So did your lessor God think that there was a chance that his son could persuade us without being killed? It strikes me that being killed was actually the point, without the death - or more correctly, the supposed resurrection - there would be no reason to believe any of it.(The fact that the resurrection is just a cover story to make up for the fact that a supposed god *could* be killed is by-the-by at the moment.)

My point was that you don't even consider the realities of what first-century Jews would think and do, you just make up stuff based on how you think you might behave or somebody in our time or any old thing, and only because you have this zeal against the supernatural claims of Christianity. You aren't considering actual evidence, you're just slinging the wildest possible notions.As for what I believe about the resurrection, I believe it because of the credibility of the testimony of the Biblical witnesses and of the millions of other believers down the centuries, which is exactly what you are determined to discredit by hook or by crook. As I said a few times already, as long as you are willing to ignore the patent realism of the witness reports and make up off the wall objections to them you never could discover the truth about how Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead. Isn't this a mental set you guys are always imputing to creationists? The fact is that it applies to you even better when it comes to your prejudice against the supernatural. NOTHING could convince you because you refuse to be honest about the evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Jesus was "scourged" with a reed. It sounds like a ritual intended to humilate as much as to injure. He had to be able to carry the cross, after all. Many of us have probably had worse "beatings" and are still walking around. So you claim.The story says there were eyewitnesses. The story says Jesus wasn't after power on earth. It isn't surprising that the story is self-consistent - but that doesn't mean that the story is true. For the same reason that anybody fakes anything: it's easier. It's easier to get a fake diamond than a real one. It's easier to fake a resurrection than to do a real one.And fakery (or fiction) is certainly more plausible than miracles. Sure they would. It's a classic dramatic moment: "Damn! He wasn't the real Messiah after all.... No! I didn't know him. I never even heard of him.... Oh, it's you! Thank God you're all right."

It is evidence that a collection of people wrote a STORY about a person named Jesus. It's not evidence that such a person actually lived, and certainly not evidence that any of the stories are true. Huh? What about the components of a cell leads you to think there is more than just a material world? Look, if there is information in the cell's DNA for sentience and morality, one of which isn't even something tangble, then please present it.Otherwise I'll go with the fact that sentience is something evolved, and morality is the by-product of living in a social grouping. Talk about evading a question. I'll ask for what the 3rd time now? Do you start with the premise that unicorns exist, OR, do you need evidence of unicorns first? sigh...Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that can confirm any of the accounts in the Bible about Jesus, his life, death and resurrection? Who said I can't imagine that? Of course I can imagine that; I can imagine A LOT more than that, like a matrix or computer program, or being the creation of scientists that learned how to make universes, etc.But what I can imagine and what there is evidence for are two enormously different thing. That's why I've only stated that with the evidence we have the only fact that we know of is natural causes. This is of course keeping in mind that EVEN IF god did it, how god did it was through natural causes. God could have guided evolution, assembled the first living cell, designed every single galaxy and planet and more than likely life on those planets as well. All of that could be the case. But currently, there is no evidence for such a being with that kind of power. It isn't even logical to think that such a being can exist without some method of development itself. Because sure, humans are intelligent, but we came to be after billions of years of evolution and experience.Now, can it be the case that something with that power exists? Sure. Who knows what's out there for us to discover. But at the moment, the only thing we have objective evidence for is natural causes that act on their own.Now, can you imagine there being no god and chemistry and evolution and the whole thing just happens naturally free of any invisible agent? And do you agree that the only thing we have objective evidence for is that and that alone? Yours too, you just make excuses for why it's not when it comes to this one particular story of Jesus that you've decided to put faith on. Otherwise, if I said pink unicorn that creates universes, you'd be of the opinion that it is more improbable than things just happening naturally, as you know them to do. You have a problem believing those things happened on their own. You then invoke a god. Which, is the stuff of mythology. Good luck?! What? It's just survival out here. There are sooo many dead - many who never got a chance to even see a few years - not to mention 99% of the organisms that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct! This is trail and error, man. We're here standing on the sholders of soooooo many failed species that we owe them our life. If not for them failing and life still finding a way to survive, our pathetic bodies wouldn't have been around to see today. I guess it is kind of good luck that we happen to be here, when so many aren't. Since that is what the evidence shows us happened. But 4 billion years is a particularly long enough time to get some of it right so that humans had a chance for survival. I don't know what you mean by information, and I don't think you do either. I think you're just repeating some argument you read here. Explain what you mean by that. I noticed, and you've been trying to explain why you disagree this enitre time. We are back to square one that you disagree.- Oni

Yes, but how is this evidence that it couldn't have been written after 70AD. All you're saying is they wouldn't behave that way. Well what evidence do you have that they didn't behave that way? Or should I just believe anything you write 'cause you're the smartest person ever? The claims of a few people is not evidence. You have faith, Faith, that is all. I don't have faith in these stories. I don't usually make it a habit to believe anything that there isn't proper evidence for and Christianity is just one of the many things that I don't believe in.You do too, for other things, like perhaps Big Foot or aliens visiting Earth or stories that talk about dragons. You know exactly what it's like to feel one particular thing doesn't have enough evidence to support it's claims. Just because you decided out of your own will to have faith that one of those is right doesn't make it so.- Oni

But you do seem to be basing your argument on the idea that the bible is evidence of the stories that are in the bible. No?And whilst I can see the superficial reasonableness of saying that one can either believe these stories or not - with either acceptance or rejection being equally valid opinions - Let us not forget that we are talking about a dude born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead.Is the likelihood of this really equally evidenced either way? If we are talking about immaterial unicorns would that make any major difference to your acceptance or rejection?

On the contrary I have considered that and I have concluded that first century Jews are very probably prone to erroneously invoking supernatural explanations and stories in exactly the same way that numerous people's have demonstrably done throughout history. Citing the fact that human societies lacking scientific knowledge are prone to inventing stories of the suprenatural is a perfectly evidentially valid approach to the subject matter at hand isn't it? We are talking about a dude born of a virgin and raised from the dead here are we not....?The irony burns.