Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Left Coast]

I am very happy to answer your questions. You ask whether miracles and healing are evidence of God.

Actually RS, that isn't what I asked you. I asked you several questions in my last post. Just go back and quote them and answer them.

I say that miracles of love and compassion, when occurring in response to a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, are evidence of God.

Would you say that miracles of love and compassion , when occurring in response to prayer in the name of some other deity, are evidence of that deity?

If not, then why are you making an exception for the Christian god?

Since I myself received healing as the result of prayer from a Christian, I am convinced of the efficacy of Christian prayer.

How did you determine that prayer from a Christian is what healed you? And further, how did you determine that the prayer healed you because your version of the Christian god answered it?

IMO, God is one. This is a belief upon which the Judeo-Christian faith hinges. 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'

I believe that God is the one Spirit of love and life. It makes absolute sense that God should have reached me through his Word, because His Word is spiritual. 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' When I was reading the Gospel of John, as a student, I was struck by the love of a man whose words and actions were believable. My studies since then have not diminished my conviction that the Bible is God's revelation. The message is coherent and consistent.

This tells me a bunch of things you believe, but not why you believe them. Again, you are just assuming that whatever the Bible says must be true. Why? A consistent, coherent message can still be a false message. So coherence or consistency alone does not inform you if the message is true.

You appear to be arguing that faith, based on the reading of scripture, must be irrational. I say that faith is the only way to really know God. I hear, or read, the words of scripture, and an impression is made in my soul. My sin is illuminated by the purity of the words. This is just the beginning of a journey of faith.

We've already gone over why faith is a poor substitute for evidence. There's not much more to say beyond that.

I would not get involved in the rational activity of apologetics, were it not for the fact that people make many false claims about the Bible, often in ignorance of its contents.

Yes, usually Christians, in my experience.

The Bible provides a very consistent message, and Jesus himself said, 'scripture cannot be broken', making it clear that he believed the Hebrew scriptures to be God-breathed and perfect.

Jesus did not write those words, someone else did. So you don't know what Jesus thought. We've already gone over multiple reasons why you shouldn't accept what they said about him at face value.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Does the fact that a book mentions real landmarks indicate that everything in the book is accurate?

No, but these 'landmarks' are a necessary framework within which to fit human interaction. By knowing that Hezekiah's tunnel still exists, we are more likely to believe that Hezekiah, the king of Judah, reigned in Jerusalem. If it can be proved that the landmarks are fictional, or misplaced, then the truth of any historical account is brought into question.

One also has to realise that the written word was treated with greater respect in ancient days. Few people could write, and the written records were mostly for the purpose of administration and governance. Religious records, or holy books, were the most valuable of all writings, because their contents were viewed as being words of authority and wisdom in a unsettled and violent world.

were you raised with some form of Bible belief?

No. I came to faith in my early twenties, as a student.

Again, how do you know any of that is actually true? You are simply accepting what Hebrews claims at face value. Why?

The Gospels tell us about the life of Jesus Christ, up to his ascension. The books that follow the Gospels, tell us about the Church, the spiritual body of Christ. I accept the writings of the book of Hebrews because it is consistent with the rest of the Bible. It makes sense. I see no inconsistency or reason to disbelieve.

How does healing demonstrate that every word of the Bible is infallibly true? Or that some prophecy totally unrelated to the healing is true? Or that Jesus rose from the dead? Those things are separate, RS. You understand that, yes? Please answer this question rather than pass over it.

You know, I hope, that in basically every culture we know of, there are stories of miracles, claims of answered prayers, and so on. Do these stories from, say, a Hindu, convince you that Hinduism is true?

If your answer is no, then think through this logically with me RS - why would you conclude, then, that because you witnessed some "healing" in a Christian context, that every word of the Bible is therefore true? That doesn't make sense, does it RS? It isn't rational.

Healing does not make the Bible infallibly true. It helps make a person see that God is Spirit, and powerful, and real. And if God is real, then prophecy is possible. And if prophecy is possible then the words could be true, coming as they do from God. And if the words are true then the testimony found in the Word of God could be true. Which is why the resurrection testimonies should be taken seriously.

I have never witnessed miracles and healing outside of Christian circles, so I cannot comment on whether they occur.

When deciding that something is true, especially when there is a lot at stake, you don't usually jump in carelessly. It wasn't my healing that led me to faith, because my healing occurred after I had already accepted Christ. My decision to become a follower of Jesus was based on the realisation that HIS way of love was the best way to live. It was having placed my trust in Jesus that I received baptism in the Holy Spirit, and this, in turn, led to my having fellowship with like-minded believers who were prepared to walk by faith, and seek answers to prayer. Hence, my healing. And, since faith comes in degrees, I have learned that you only see great things happen in God when there is great faith amongst believers.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Jesus did not write those words, someone else did. So you don't know what Jesus thought. We've already gone over multiple reasons why you shouldn't accept what they said about him at face value.

The Christian claim, simply put, is that we DO know what Jesus thought! The Holy Spirit baptism is the way in which a person put's on the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love, so to put on the mind of Christ means to live by his Spirit. It means to die to self, and put on his Spirit in humility and service to others.

 

[Left Coast]

Does the fact that a book mentions real landmarks indicate that everything in the book is accurate?

No

Perfect. So we're in agreement that the fact that a story contains real places is not a good reason to believe they'd entire story is true. Excellent, glad we're on the same page.

but these 'landmarks' are a necessary framework within which to fit human interaction. By knowing that Hezekiah's tunnel still exists, we are more likely to believe that Hezekiah, the king of Judah, reigned in Jerusalem. If it can be proved that the landmarks are fictional, or misplaced, then the truth of any historical account is brought into question.

I don't think anyone particularly has beef with the notion that at some point a guy named Hezekiah was one of Israel's kings. I think it's rather obviously different to claim that the Sun magically reversed direction in the sky, wouldn't you agree? If I tell you Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States, but also tell you he was a vampire, do you believe me? Does the fact that I accurately informed you Abraham Lincoln was President tell you that you should also believe he was a vampire?

If no, then the principle here is pretty obvious. Outlandish claims are not demonstrated by surrounding mundane ones.

One also has to realise that the written word was treated with greater respect in ancient days. Few people could write, and the written records were mostly for the purpose of administration and governance. Religious records, or holy books, were the most valuable of all writings, because their contents were viewed as being words of authority and wisdom in a unsettled and violent world.

This is an extremely pollyanna view of the situation. We have ample evidence from numerous Biblical manuscripts that copyists edited the texts they copied, both intentionally and unintentionally. They changed things, added things, and deleted things.

The Gospels tell us about the life of Jesus Christ, up to his ascension. The books that follow the Gospels, tell us about the Church, the spiritual body of Christ. I accept the writings of the book of Hebrews because it is consistent with the rest of the Bible. It makes sense. I see no inconsistency or reason to disbelieve.

We've been over this, RS. A consistent story is not necessarily a true story (and the Gospels are not consistent anyways). And besides, Hebrews 11 has to do with a bunch of figures from the Tanakh, not the Gospels.

Healing does not make the Bible infallibly true.

Thank you.

It helps make a person see that God is Spirit, and powerful, and real.

How? People are healed every single day of all sorts of things, from all sorts of religions and no religion at all. How would someone being healed demonstrate anything about a god?

And if God is real, then prophecy is possible.

If God is real, he has no need of prophets. He can just say what he has to say himself. Prophets only come into the picture when God's views are opaque, so they come along to speak on God's behalf.

And if prophecy is possible then the words could be true, coming as they do from God.

But how do you determine that they are true? Possible is not actual.

And if the words are true then the testimony found in the Word of God could be true.

There's another "could." Yes, the word of God could be true...but is it? How do you know? Someone accurately predicting something doesn't tell us. People accurately predict events all the time. That in itself tells us nothing about how they predicted it.

Which is why the resurrection testimonies should be taken seriously.

That's a whoooooole lot of suppositions and maybes, RS.

I have never witnessed miracles and healing outside of Christian circles, so I cannot comment on whether they occur.

You should do some research on them (from non-Christian sources). Stories of miraculous healing are ubiquitous.

When deciding that something is true, especially when there is a lot at stake, you don't usually jump in carelessly.

That is an excellent view to take, IMO. Which is precisely why it's so confusing that you make such leaps of faith on the basis of maybes and draw conclusions that don't follow from the evidence. Which again, reaffirms your original explanation that you didn't become a Christian because of a rational evaluation of evidence. Those rationalizations came later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am very happy to answer your questions. You ask whether miracles and healing are evidence of God. I say that miracles of love and compassion, when occurring in response to a prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, are evidence of God. Since I myself received healing as the result of prayer from a Christian, I am convinced of the efficacy of Christian prayer.

IMO, God is one. This is a belief upon which the Judeo-Christian faith hinges. 'Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.'

I believe that God is the one Spirit of love and life. It makes absolute sense that God should have reached me through his Word, because His Word is spiritual. 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' When I was reading the Gospel of John, as a student, I was struck by the love of a man whose words and actions were believable. My studies since then have not diminished my conviction that the Bible is God's revelation. The message is coherent and consistent.

You appear to be arguing that faith, based on the reading of scripture, must be irrational. I say that faith is the only way to really know God. I hear, or read, the words of scripture, and an impression is made in my soul. My sin is illuminated by the purity of the words. This is just the beginning of a journey of faith.

I would not get involved in the rational activity of apologetics, were it not for the fact that people make many false claims about the Bible, often in ignorance of its contents. The Bible provides a very consistent message, and Jesus himself said, 'scripture cannot be broken', making it clear that he believed the Hebrew scriptures to be God-breathed and perfect.

So do you think that the myths of Genesis actually happened or do you view them as morality tales, allegory, and fables?

 

[Left Coast]

The Christian claim, simply put, is that we DO know what Jesus thought!

Yes, I know! But the point is that you don't have any evidence for that! You just believe it on the say-so of the Gospels.

The Holy Spirit baptism is the way in which a person put's on the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love, so to put on the mind of Christ means to live by his Spirit. It means to die to self, and put on his Spirit in humility and service to others.

The principles of unselfishness and serving others are ethical features of literally every major religious tradition, as well as non-religious ethical systems. So it tells us nothing about whether Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[rational experiences]

How basic advice thought exists.

A human uses words to explain it to their self.

O the planet one and mass. I will explain its history by conscience not science but relative to science.

O was a hot dense state. Angels in hell that had separated from pre existing form. Unknown unconditional conscience so i cannot explain it. The eternal. Said it has no conditions.

God stopped the state burning as held form. O planet entity creator theme. Science in human life creates all products.

So I will explain planets as the gods and suns still in hell. Opposing God.

In one same spatial condition.

Conscience.

O. Planet for science is all products in a human life.

So God O the planet in science is not loving unconditional.

From within its not loving body burning gases were released. Not the loving state either.

Evolution in space changed the spirit gas.

Evolution.

About God.

Not loving.

I am conscience.

Trees don't talk.
Animals don't talk.
I talk.

I invented recording by machine conditions.

I attacked my own body and formed image voice recording.

I lost water microbes as life support. To gain image and self voice recording.

I know angelic presence of water microbes held in image formed. New beings. They also now own speaking.

They aren't any God.

They are a science human caused effect. They assisted me. And can put back into my body by their presence what had been removed.

A lot of the angels are in the image of deceased humans. The reason it occurs. Not magic. Not a condition to manipulate.

Reason for the statement science looking for a God are attacking life again in computer related programs studying formation.

Science argues about creation having been released from a place of spirit. Phenomena proved science wrong. But phenomena was human science conjured.

The argument by human presence. As humans for humans.

A human cannot exist as a human before their owned self. As a preformed human spirit.

However conscious parent life recording living physical with new life says otherwise. Two parents physical pre exist us. Confusing to the psyche.

Reason a human says my parents never died when first two origin parents are deceased.

Parent plus babies only ever alive in one moment. Death is the end of human life. Life recorded owned a portion of origin life health removed.

Became a speaking atmospheric phenomena effect. Once owned a higher healthier more caring loving human being life. The portion of life lost became an atmospheric effect that can assist us.

Multi experiences human for humans.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, I know! But the point is that you don't have any evidence for that! You just believe it on the say-so of the Gospels.



The principles of unselfishness and serving others are ethical features of literally every major religious tradition, as well as non-religious ethical systems. So it tells us nothing about whether Jesus rose from the dead.

This is not about 'ethical features'. A person cannot be 'born again' of God's Spirit without knowing the risen Christ. Ethical behaviour, from a humanist perspective, is about a person doing what they believe to be right, and avoiding what they believe to be wrong.

Without the resurrection there would not have been a Holy Spirit baptism, and this is what distinguishes a Christian from other believers. A Christian acts out of love (if led by the Spirit) because the Spirit of God has entered his/her heart through faith. This experience of baptism is mentioned by Luke as having first occurred at Pentecost, following the resurrection of Jesus. It would not have happened had Jesus not been resurrected, and had he not ascended to heaven.

The essence of the Christian way is 'dying to live'. The old man must be replaced by a new creation. This is quite different from what other faiths teach. Most religions teach that good works are the way to reach God, or a state of peace.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So do you think that the myths of Genesis actually happened or do you view them as morality tales, allegory, and fables?

Genesis is a long book. Can you give me a specific example?

 

[Left Coast]

This is not about 'ethical features'. A person cannot be 'born again' of God's Spirit without knowing the risen Christ. Ethical behaviour, from a humanist perspective, is about a person doing what they believe to be right, and avoiding what they believe to be wrong.

Without the resurrection there would not have been a Holy Spirit baptism, and this is what distinguishes a Christian from other believers. A Christian acts out of love (if led by the Spirit) because the Spirit of God has entered his/her heart through faith. This experience of baptism is mentioned by Luke as having first occurred at Pentecost, following the resurrection of Jesus. It would not have happened had Jesus not been resurrected, and had he not ascended to heaven.

The essence of the Christian way is 'dying to live'. The old man must be replaced by a new creation. This is quite different from what other faiths teach. Most religions teach that good works are the way to reach God, or a state of peace.

I realize your tradition does not encourage you to gain a deep understanding of other religious traditions (I was in the same boat as an Evangelical), but actually what you are describing in Christian language is a common theme in many religions. Death to the self or the ego is a very common motif, as well as playing on the paradox of "dying to live" in a metaphorical or spiritual sense. And of course, acting out of love is a ubiquitous spiritual and religious concept.

Furthermore, even your own Bible contends that works are necessary in order to achieve "salvation," (e.g. Hebrews 12:14, James 2:24, Matthew 25, etc.). The notion that salvation occurs exclusively as some one time instantaneous event and involves no effort or participation on the part of us humans is a modern Evangelical theological invention that has zero basis in how Christians have historically understood their faith.

What does any of this have to do with (the lack of) evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I realize your tradition does not encourage you to gain a deep understanding of other religious traditions (I was in the same boat as an Evangelical), but actually what you are describing in Christian language is a common theme in many religions. Death to the self or the ego is a very common motif, as well as playing on the paradox of "dying to live" in a metaphorical or spiritual sense. And of course, acting out of love is a ubiquitous spiritual and religious concept.

Furthermore, even your own Bible contends that works are necessary in order to achieve "salvation," (e.g. Hebrews 12:14, James 2:24, Matthew 25, etc.). The notion that salvation occurs exclusively as some one time instantaneous event and involves no effort or participation on the part of us humans is a modern Evangelical theological invention that has zero basis in how Christians have historically understood their faith.

What does any of this have to do with (the lack of) evidence that Jesus rose from the dead?

The book of James, which is usually quoted when people want to justify good works, actually states that works should follow faith. The same is true of the other passages you have referred to. Faith is still the starting point, as Paul says in Romans 14:23; 'for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.'

We must then ask what this faith should lie IN. The scriptures clearly state that a believer must repent and believe IN Jesus Christ as Son of God and Saviour. So a believer is not only dying with Christ [to self] but is also being raised up from death in resurrection, with Christ.

There are a lot of people around who call themselves Christians, who know little about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Yet, the Holy Spirit, God's gift to the faithful, is the resurrection life offered by Christ.

Once again, I say to you, the Holy Spirit is evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There could not have been an outpouring of the Holy Spirit without there first being a resurrection and ascension.

 

[Left Coast]

The book of James, which is usually quoted when people want to justify good works, actually states that works should follow faith. The same is true of the other passages you have referred to. Faith is still the starting point, as Paul says in Romans 14:23; 'for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.'

The Bible indicates, depending on the passage, that both faith and works are necessary. There's no need to "justify good works," Biblically speaking. The Bible repeatedly indicates they are necessary for salvation/entering the kingdom of God/justification/sanctification/take your pick. I realize that doesn't fit into the paradigm you've been taught by your version of Christianity, but the text says what it says.

There are a lot of people around who call themselves Christians, who know little about the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Yet, the Holy Spirit, God's gift to the faithful, is the resurrection life offered by Christ.

And of course there are a lot of Christians who would say you are likely ignorant of some key doctrine their brand of Christianity thinks is central, just as "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is central to your brand of Christianity (which just like them, you think is "true" Christianity, unlike those other kinds). I'll let y'all argue amongst yourselves about that.

Once again, I say to you, the Holy Spirit is evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

First of all, what evidence do you have of the "Holy Spirit?" This is like arguing that auras are evidence for astrology. You can't (rationally) use one unsubstantiated idea to support another.

There could not have been an outpouring of the Holy Spirit without there first being a resurrection and ascension.

You have no evidence there was ever an "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" at Pentecost other than the say-so of the book of Acts. So again, you're simply defaulting to believing whatever the Bible says at face value. That's convincing to no one other than people who already have the preconceived idea that the Bible is infallibly true. Which you have yet to demonstrate.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Bible indicates, depending on the passage, that both faith and works are necessary. There's no need to "justify good works," Biblically speaking. The Bible repeatedly indicates they are necessary for salvation/entering the kingdom of God/justification/sanctification/take your pick. I realize that doesn't fit into the paradigm you've been taught by your version of Christianity, but the text says what it says.



And of course there are a lot of Christians who would say you are likely ignorant of some key doctrine their brand of Christianity thinks is central, just as "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is central to your brand of Christianity (which just like them, you think is "true" Christianity, unlike those other kinds). I'll let y'all argue amongst yourselves about that.



First of all, what evidence do you have of the "Holy Spirit?" This is like arguing that auras are evidence for astrology. You can't (rationally) use one unsubstantiated idea to support another.



You have no evidence there was ever an "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" at Pentecost other than the say-so of the book of Acts. So again, you're simply defaulting to believing whatever the Bible says at face value. That's convincing to no one other than people who already have the preconceived idea that the Bible is infallibly true. Which you have yet to demonstrate.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that l don't deny the importance of works. But works must follow faith if they are not to be works of one's own righteousness.

Yes, l do believe that the Holy Spirit is essential to redemption, as this is what Jesus Christ stated in John 3. I am happy to discuss the doctrines of faith on the basis of scripture. But to those who deny scripture, as you do, there is no standard of truth, as far as l can see.

And the existence of the Holy Spirit cannot be argued on the basis of reason alone. The experiential aspect is necessary for there to be testimony. And that testimony is shared by all who have faith in Christ, and who know him spiritually through baptism.

Did you, as an evangelical Christian, not know the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

 

[Left Coast]

Yes, l do believe that the Holy Spirit is essential to redemption, as this is what Jesus Christ stated in John 3. I am happy to discuss the doctrines of faith on the basis of scripture. But to those who deny scripture, as you do, there is no standard of truth, as far as l can see.

Wrong again.

Truth, to me, is that which corresponds to reality.

And the existence of the Holy Spirit cannot be argued on the basis of reason alone. The experiential aspect is necessary for there to be testimony. And that testimony is shared by all who have faith in Christ, and who know him spiritually through baptism.

Subjective experience that can't be independently verified is a terrible way to argue for the existence of something. You have no way of confirming your interpretation of what you experience. Using your standard of "truth," you could believe in literally anything, no matter how absurd, simply because you had a personal experience of it. Which people in every religion do.

So between the two of us, the person with the looser "standard of truth" isn't me. It's you.

Did you, as an evangelical Christian, not know the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

I had experiences which I interpreted as being the Holy Spirit, yes. I now recognize I had bad reasons for thinking such things were actually the Holy Spirit.

So again I ask you...how do you know the things you privately experienced were actually the Holy Spirit?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Wrong again.

Truth, to me, is that which corresponds to reality.



Subjective experience that can't be independently verified is a terrible way to argue for the existence of something. You have no way of confirming your interpretation of what you experience. Using your standard of "truth," you could believe in literally anything, no matter how absurd, simply because you had a personal experience of it. Which people in every religion do.

So between the two of us, the person with the looser "standard of truth" isn't me. It's you.



I had experiences which I interpreted as being the Holy Spirit, yes. I now recognize I had bad reasons for thinking such things were actually the Holy Spirit.

So again I ask you...how do you know the things you privately experienced were actually the Holy Spirit?

Do you know what it is to feel the love of God? Or to know his peace? How can I explain this in words? The only thing I can do is point out the WAY. The rest is between you and God.

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, and God's Spirit is love and truth. 1 John 1:5. 'This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.'

1 John 4:16. 'And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.'

So, what kind of reality has become your standard of truth? If love and light are not your standard, what is?

 

[Left Coast]

Do you know what it is to feel the love of God?

No, and I don't think you do, either. What we both do know is what it's like to have an emotional experience in a Christian setting where we are informed that this is what the Holy Spirit feels like.

Or to know his peace? How can I explain this in words? The only thing I can do is point out the WAY. The rest is between you and God.

To be honest, that isn't true either. It isn't between me and your god. It's between me and me. Saying it's between me and God is something like saying that your lack of faith in the Greek gods is between you and Zeus. It presumes the existence of that which has not been demonstrated. Do you see what I mean?

1 John 4:16. 'And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.'

This is sort of a word game. I can declare that God is my computer. And my computer exists, see? So God exists! Checkmate, atheists!

Do you see how this is sort of...cheating? It co-opts the existence of something else and labels it as that which you're trying to prove.

You don't have to believe in God to recognize love. Nor do you have to equate the two things.

So, what kind of reality has become your standard of truth? If love and light are not your standard, what is?

That's an oddly phrased question. What kind of reality? Reality simply is what it is; there isn't a "kind."

As far as I can tell, our only access to the world outside our own heads is through our senses. So I use my senses to assess my surroundings to determine what's out there and what isn't. And I strive to obtain independent confirmation of what I perceive to make sure I'm perceiving things accurately. Does that help you understand?

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, and I don't think you do, either. What we both do know is what it's like to have an emotional experience in a Christian setting where we are informed that this is what the Holy Spirit feels like.



To be honest, that isn't true either. It isn't between me and your god. It's between me and me. Saying it's between me and God is something like saying that your lack of faith in the Greek gods is between you and Zeus. It presumes the existence of that which has not been demonstrated. Do you see what I mean?



This is sort of a word game. I can declare that God is my computer. And my computer exists, see? So God exists! Checkmate, atheists!

Do you see how this is sort of...cheating? It co-opts the existence of something else and labels it as that which you're trying to prove.

You don't have to believe in God to recognize love. Nor do you have to equate the two things.



That's an oddly phrased question. What kind of reality? Reality simply is what it is; there isn't a "kind."

As far as I can tell, our only access to the world outside our own heads is through our senses. So I use my senses to assess my surroundings to determine what's out there and what isn't. And I strive to obtain independent confirmation of what I perceive to make sure I'm perceiving things accurately. Does that help you understand?

What is clear is that your reality is not my reality. But the reality that I have experienced is one that is shared by many other believers.

Pontius Pilate is recorded as having asked the question, What is truth? [John 18:38] Many people go down the same philosophical path and never find a satisfactory answer. Why not? Because they never encounter God.

Jesus Christ said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' [John 14:6]. This was someone claiming to speak AS GOD. So the evidence to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is God lies in his words and actions. These actions included the sending of the Holy Spirit, as promised. In this one promise lies a personal and corporate experience, because it was not intended solely for personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church as a whole.

 

[Left Coast]

What is clear is that your reality is not my reality. But the reality that I have experienced is one that is shared by many other believers.

Pontius Pilate is recorded as having asked the question, What is truth? [John 18:38] Many people go down the same philosophical path and never find a satisfactory answer. Why not? Because they never encounter God.

Jesus Christ said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life' [John 14:6]. This was someone claiming to speak AS GOD. So the evidence to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is God lies in his words and actions. These actions included the sending of the Holy Spirit, as promised. In this one promise lies a personal and corporate experience, because it was not intended solely for personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church as a whole.

This is just more of, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." My point is that you don't have good evidence for that. And when I ask for evidence, you just keep on quoting the same book that I've asked you to provide evidence for. Again, that isn't rational. Which, again, reinforces your own testimony that you did not arrive at your belief rationally, but through a personal, unverifiable experience that has led you to unquestioningly accept whatever the Bible says as infallibly true (as your version of Christianity interprets it, of course). There's not much more to say in this thread if you don't have any relevant evidence to cite. More Bible verses won't cut it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This is just more of, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." My point is that you don't have good evidence for that. And when I ask for evidence, you just keep on quoting the same book that I've asked you to provide evidence for. Again, that isn't rational. Which, again, reinforces your own testimony that you did not arrive at your belief rationally, but through a personal, unverifiable experience that has led you to unquestioningly accept whatever the Bible says as infallibly true (as your version of Christianity interprets it, of course). There's not much more to say in this thread if you don't have any relevant evidence to cite. More Bible verses won't cut it.

What you see as 'good evidence' has nothing to do with faith, but from my perspective faith is everything. As it says in Hebrews, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

Without faith it is impossible to know God, or to please God. Yet, your type of evidence precludes faith altogether. What l have discovered is that God responds to faith with faith. So, rather than 'seeing is believing', the Bible teaches that 'believing is seeing'.

This is not to suggest that the Bible does not have substantial documentary, archaeological and historical support, but when dealing with hardened sceptics these normally persuasive forms of evidence will have little sway. They provide 'external' rather 'internal' support for the authority of the writings.

A meditative reading of a well translated Bible is enough to bring one face to face with God's living Word.

 

[Left Coast]

What you see as 'good evidence' has nothing to do with faith, but from my perspective faith is everything. As it says in Hebrews, 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'

Faith is not evidence. Unless you think a Wiccan's faith is evidence that Wicca is true.

Without faith it is impossible to know God, or to please God.

That is a great slogan to convince the followers of a religion to believe literally anything, no matter how absurd. "Believe this, or God won't be pleased with you!" Talk about a guilt trip. No thanks.

Yet, your type of evidence precludes faith altogether.

Correct, because the fact that someone believes something is not evidence that the thing is true. Think it through for a moment, RS.

What l have discovered is that God responds to faith with faith. So, rather than 'seeing is believing', the Bible teaches that 'believing is seeing'.

I have discovered that God doesn't demonstrably respond to anything, good bad or indifferent.

This is not to suggest that the Bible does not have substantial documentary, archaeological and historical support, but when dealing with hardened sceptics these normally persuasive forms of evidence will have little sway. They provide 'external' rather 'internal' support for the authority of the writings.

We've been over this, RS. The reason they hold little sway is because the fact that a story is set in a real place or names real people does not remotely indicate that the story is true. Do you believe Abe Lincoln was a vampire?

A meditative reading of a well translated Bible is enough to bring one face to face with God's Word.

Only if you already believe it's "God's word," despite it being written, copied, edited, and translated by human beings.