Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

[Prim969]

Except when local law contradicted or threatened the Pax Romana




Yes Rome accepted ant religion so long as it didn't interfere with other religion.



Without hesitation? I have spent considerable time researching the bible and although it does present some snippets that can be verified the majority is a case of the bible must be right because the bible says so.

The bible contains extracts of the Roman world that suited the bible and its biases.

I have spent considerable time reading the bible as well I find no problems with the historical accounts it is not reliant on the histories of Roman historians even if we glean much information from secular sources to verify it ethnicity. As to Pax Romana well yes anyone disturbing the peace might well find themselves confronted by the legions of Rome. As to religion yes Rome was much accommodating as I did mention. They often adopted other religions as their own. That sort of became problematic in later times when emperors became gods actually you could worship any god you liked as long as you paid obeisance to the emperor of Rome. The Christians & Jews refused and chose the lions and flames instead.

 

[Left Coast]

No, you have side-stepped my question. I would like to know what kind of Christian it is that denies the Holy Spirit.

The kind of Christian willing to question their assumptions.

I didn't side step your question at all. Meanwhile, you may want to take the plank out of your own eye on that issue.

The claims made by Paul are believable if you read his story in the context of the whole Bible. Paul was not the first to encounter the risen Lord, and when he did have his encounter Jesus was no longer on earth. The ascension had taken place.

If these accounts were false, as you claim, then Paul's ministry amongst the Gentiles would not have happened, and, subsequently, there would have been no Christian Church. So your sceptical argument fails.

Explain your thinking there. How would people from hundreds of miles away from the site of where these events allegedly happened be able to fact check Paul's claims? The reality is, people the world over believe all kinds of crazy things that you and I both agree have never happened. So your attempt to resurrect this piece of evidence fails.

It fails to account for the history of the early Church, which grew rapidly despite terrible persecution from the Roman authorities.

The degree to which Christians were persecuted in its earliest centuries varied by location and who was in power at the time. Some Roman emperors frankly did not care about Christianity and left it alone. It was just another mystery cult, common in the region at that time.

Your dismissal of Paul's account also fails to acknowledge that Paul was an ardent Pharisee and opponent of the Christian movement. He was feared and avoided by Christians. It would, therefore, take more than a few persuasive words from a Christian to convert such a person from his intended path.

I didn't say a few persuasive words dissuaded him. He had what he believed were visions of Jesus. That's what converted him. My point was that he had no way to verify that 500 people were eyewitnesses to Jesus, as he admitted his information about Jesus didn't come from eyewitnesses, but from visions/direct revelation from Jesus.

The truth is that prophecy occurs throughout the Bible, and any attempt to take the Spirit out, or demystify the text, fails miserably.

The burden of proof is on the person who claims the "Spirit" is in the text or that it contains prophecies that were accurately fulfilled and could not have occurred without divine intervention. Thus far you haven't presented one. I asked for your best one and you didn't give it. We went over the very first prophecy from Genesis you listed, and reviewed how it was vague and unconvincing. You had no reply. I gave you my criteria for making a convincing prophecy, and asked if you had any objections to them. You had no reply.

Besides, by your own explanation prophecy is not one of the two main pieces of evidence for the resurrection, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really. I guess people like you are never wrong.

Oh no,, I can be wrong. But this time the reliable evidence is on my side. Do you have anything besides a book of myths that supports your claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have spent considerable time reading the bible as well I find no problems with the historical accounts it is not reliant on the histories of Roman historians even if we glean much information from secular sources to verify it ethnicity. As to Pax Romana well yes anyone disturbing the peace might well find themselves confronted by the legions of Rome. As to religion yes Rome was much accommodating as I did mention. They often adopted other religions as their own. That sort of became problematic in later times when emperors became gods actually you could worship any god you liked as long as you paid obeisance to the emperor of Rome. The Christians & Jews refused and chose the lions and flames instead.

What evidence do you have that the Christians and Jews chose lions instead? That only appears to be another tale told.by church tradition.

There were some.Christians that were killed in that fashion. But there are no reliable sources that I know of that says they were ever given a choice.

 

[ChristineM]

I have spent considerable time reading the bible as well I find no problems with the historical accounts it is not reliant on the histories of Roman historians even if we glean much information from secular sources to verify it ethnicity. As to Pax Romana well yes anyone disturbing the peace might well find themselves confronted by the legions of Rome. As to religion yes Rome was much accommodating as I did mention. They often adopted other religions as their own. That sort of became problematic in later times when emperors became gods actually you could worship any god you liked as long as you paid obeisance to the emperor of Rome. The Christians & Jews refused and chose the lions and flames instead.

Sorry, a "description" of the history or Rome is very much reliant on Roman history.

Yes, and that is one of my points that the some of the Jewish people objected, often violently to other gods besides their own. A treasonous act against rome and the emperor. Hence the crucifixion (a death reserved for treason) of Jesus

 

[Prim969]

Oh no,, I can be wrong. But this time the reliable evidence is on my side. Do you have anything besides a book of myths that supports your claims?

The reliable evidence be on your side you think. Well we shall see. Yes there be secular sources that testify to the the persecution of Christians. You have historian ( Publius Cornelius Tacitus) 56AD- 120 AD he gives a very precise description of the Christians under Nero with the great fire of Rome in AD 64 in his book of annals. And I can assure Publius was no lover of Christians he hated them. You than Have Ulpian a Roman jurist who collected Roman imperial laws relating to the punishment of Christians in his his 7th book De Officio Proconsuls. You also have Pliny the younger correspondence with Tragan on how to do deal with punishment of Christians under Roman law. So the secular records are certainly there. As to the extant of the persecution it was rather sporadic under Nero, Trajan and Domitian. Full persecution across the empire never occurred until under Emperor Decius. 249-51. The so called book of myths you claim the bible to be may well become your reality and judge & jury one day.

 

[Prim969]

What evidence do you have that the Christians and Jews chose lions instead? That only appears to be another tale told.by church tradition.

There were some.Christians that were killed in that fashion. But there are no reliable sources that I know of that says they were ever given a choice.

As to the Christians to the lions in the arena yes. As with everyone else that found disfavour. The arena was a popular pastime with the Romans you know. They didn’t really care who was circulated around the arena just as long as they were entertained. Yes there are reliable sources as with some of the secular sources I quoted above in my last reply . I guess when you write off all Christian documents as mere non reliable source material that does make for a rather unbalanced view. I’m sure there are untruths and exaggerated traditions in the histories of the church. But to evaluate all of church history that way is just not a good way to evaluate everything as being a question of merely myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As to the Christians to the lions in the arena yes. As with everyone else that found disfavour. The arena was a popular pastime with the Romans you know. They didn’t really care who was circulated around the arena just as long as they were entertained. Yes there are reliable sources as with some of the secular sources I quoted above in my last reply . I guess when you write off all Christian documents as mere non reliable source material that does make for a rather unbalanced view. I’m sure there are untruths and exaggerated traditions in the histories of the church. But to evaluate all of church history that way is just not a good way to evaluate everything as being a question of merely myth.

And the persecution of Christians appears to be hugely overblown. Yes, some Christians were thrown to the lions. But you made the error of saying that they chose that.

Where is your evidence that any Christians were offered freedom if they recanted?

The problem is that there do not appear to be any "documents" that support your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reliable evidence be on your side you think. Well we shall see. Yes there be secular sources that testify to the the persecution of Christians. You have historian ( Publius Cornelius Tacitus) 56AD- 120 AD he gives a very precise description of the Christians under Nero with the great fire of Rome in AD 64 in his book of annals. And I can assure Publius was no lover of Christians he hated them. You than Have Ulpian a Roman jurist who collected Roman imperial laws relating to the punishment of Christians in his his 7th book De Officio Proconsuls. You also have Pliny the younger correspondence with Tragan on how to do deal with punishment of Christians under Roman law. So the secular records are certainly there. As to the extant of the persecution it was rather sporadic under Nero, Trajan and Domitian. Full persecution across the empire never occurred until under Emperor Decius. 249-51. The so called book of myths you claim the bible to be may well become your reality and judge & jury one day.

You are conflating two separate claims.

No one has denied that some Christians were persecuted. That under Nero was well know. What has been shown to be false is the claim that Christians were always persecuted and even more so that Christians went willingly to their deaths after being give a choice. Those are the sorts of stories that you need to find evidence for.

And you would laugh if you were threatened with Allah or Shiva. You should understand that is why others laugh at you. Threatening people with a myth tends to only confirm that it is a myth.

 

[Prim969]

And the persecution of Christians appears to be hugely overblown. Yes, some Christians were thrown to the lions. But you made the error of saying that they chose that.

Where is your evidence that any Christians were offered freedom if they recanted?

The problem is that there do not appear to be any "documents" that support your claims.

The persecution of Christians was certainly there firstly from the Jews and than by Rome. I made no error of the sort. It’s well documented that many chose death than bow to emperor worship. Others were hunted down and betrayed But many chose to die for the above mentioned reason. You’ve already been given secular documents from my post 306 did you even check ? Where is the evidence you ask for the Christians who recanted and were given freedom. Subduction I can’t ever recall asking that question. That be your question and not mine. As to how over blown the persecution was I do not know and nor do you . But we know there was certainly persecution that spanned hundreds of yrs from secular and Christian documents alike.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The kind of Christian willing to question their assumptions.

I didn't side step your question at all. Meanwhile, you may want to take the plank out of your own eye on that issue.



Explain your thinking there. How would people from hundreds of miles away from the site of where these events allegedly happened be able to fact check Paul's claims? The reality is, people the world over believe all kinds of crazy things that you and I both agree have never happened. So your attempt to resurrect this piece of evidence fails.



The degree to which Christians were persecuted in its earliest centuries varied by location and who was in power at the time. Some Roman emperors frankly did not care about Christianity and left it alone. It was just another mystery cult, common in the region at that time.



I didn't say a few persuasive words dissuaded him. He had what he believed were visions of Jesus. That's what converted him. My point was that he had no way to verify that 500 people were eyewitnesses to Jesus, as he admitted his information about Jesus didn't come from eyewitnesses, but from visions/direct revelation from Jesus.



The burden of proof is on the person who claims the "Spirit" is in the text or that it contains prophecies that were accurately fulfilled and could not have occurred without divine intervention. Thus far you haven't presented one. I asked for your best one and you didn't give it. We went over the very first prophecy from Genesis you listed, and reviewed how it was vague and unconvincing. You had no reply. I gave you my criteria for making a convincing prophecy, and asked if you had any objections to them. You had no reply.

Besides, by your own explanation prophecy is not one of the two main pieces of evidence for the resurrection, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

IMO, the whole of the Bible is prophecy; only portions of scripture contain the foretelling of events.

Before there can be any meaningful discussion of prophecy, there must be agreement on when a text was written, what exactly was written, and who wrote it (although the writer's name may not be important). So far, in our discussion, it has proven impossible to get you to accept the traditional authorship of the Prophets of the Hebrew scriptures. If, for example, you were to accept that Isaiah made his prophecies during the reigns of the four kings of Judah (Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah) it would be possible to show that his foretelling of the downfall of Babylon, and the rise of king Cyrus was an accurate foretelling of events. You, however, have refused to accept that the prophecies of Isaiah were made by Isaiah at this time, despite the long tradition held by the Jews. There is little point discussing the many Messianic prophecies if you do not accept the sources.

Aware that you are a hardened sceptic, I have adopted a different approach to demonstrate that the Bible is a trustworthy book. I have started with the present day, and an experience that I have had of the Holy Spirit. I believe that my experience matches that of many first century Christians, in that I heard the Good News, I believed, I repented, and I placed my faith in Jesus Christ. In response to my faith, I believe Jesus Christ has answered me. Then I must point out that I am not alone. I am just one of thousands of 'born again' Christians who have had a personal encounter with the Saviour. I call this body of believers 'the Church', coming as they do from across many denominations.

The history of the Church can be traced back to the New Testament, and to the events recorded in the books of the New Testament. It makes no sense to try to dismiss the apostles, or their writings, because the chain of evidence exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The persecution of Christians was certainly there firstly from the Jews and than by Rome. I made no error of the sort. It’s well documented that many chose death than bow to emperor worship. Others were hunted down and betrayed But many chose to die for the above mentioned reason. You’ve already been given secular documents from my post 306 did you even check ? Where is the evidence you ask for the Christians who recanted and were given freedom. Subduction I can’t ever recall asking that question. That be your question and not mine. As to how over blown the persecution was I do not know and nor do you . But we know there was certainly persecution that spanned hundreds of yrs from secular and Christian documents alike.

Then find a valid source that supports you. That of course excludes apologist sites.

 

[rational experiences]

Science builds.

Builds machines he says from what God O science product taught him told him. How science by man presence using man consciousness said why I knew. The planet's form told me science. I take from the planets body to build my machine.

Taken from God.

Yet he was the voice owning dominion over all things making all claims.

As God in science was only known by planetary presence.

Earth had lots of sink hole tunnels bored into its body by sun radiation. History to thesis conversion by mass radiation presence.

The tunnels inherited a cooling system of air water flow in tunnels by volcanic break through emptying of tunnels leaving crystals on roof of tunnels.

Science model pyramid with tunnel system implemented using pumped water capped pyramid by crystals as transmitters with temples on mountain and low mounds mount and pressure plated by granite white casement.

Nothing like O God earth.

His own model of a fake God thesis. By knowing the body of God O planet earth.

Spirit images from air water cooling imaged as daevic presence changed in nuclear crystal destruction into alien. Observed. Known. Seen change of earths Atlantis crystalline mass. It's transmitters.

Destroyed angelic visions. Nuclear conversion science satanism.

Reason as Satan....sun radiation mass was conjured and returned from spatial accumulation as UFO mass that eventually nuclear reacted in heavens and attacked earth life.

Via atmospheric sacrifice.

Mass pressure changes. Non ability for heavens to cool so pressure change forced reaction to UFO status.

Reason ice mountains replaced lost earth mass pressurized held crystal form.

What memories owned today realised caused by chosen human sciences states.

As ice the newly born one saved life on earth is not any science status in converting earth mass.

 

[Left Coast]

Before there can be any meaningful discussion of prophecy, there must be agreement on when a text was written, what exactly was written, and who wrote it (although the writer's name may not be important). So far, in our discussion, it has proven impossible to get you to accept the traditional authorship of the Prophets of the Hebrew scriptures. If, for example, you were to accept that Isaiah made his prophecies during the reigns of the four kings of Judah (Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah) it would be possible to show that his foretelling of the downfall of Babylon, and the rise of king Cyrus was an accurate foretelling of events. You, however, have refused to accept that the prophecies of Isaiah were made by Isaiah at this time, despite the long tradition held by the Jews. There is little point discussing the many Messianic prophecies if you do not accept the sources.

I actually agree with you here. The central issue is indeed what was written, who wrote it, and when. The reason it has "proven impossible" to convince me Isaiah predicted the things you claim he predicted is because you don't have good evidence for that. The say-so of Jewish tradition doesn't cut it. The actual manuscript evidence and the academic textual analysis of those manuscripts is the hard evidence you actually need to make your case. And you don't have it. So thus, I don't believe your claim.

Aware that you are a hardened sceptic,

This is an unnecessary label, meant to make me seem close-minded or something. I am not "hardened," I simply require extraordinary evidence if you are going to make an extraordinary claim. If you are going to claim you know of a person who literally receives messages of what's going to happen in the future from the creator of the universe, the evidence for that better be absolutely mindblowingly convincing. If it isn't, I'm unlikely to accept your totally implausible claim, as you'd be unlikely to accept any similar implausible claim I made that you didn't already believe. If I tell you I can predict the future because God told me what was going to happen, what would it take for you to believe me? How about if I said i could walk on water? Or magically cure diseases instantly? Or levitate up into the sky and disappear? What would it take for you to believe me?

I have adopted a different approach to demonstrate that the Bible is a trustworthy book. I have started with the present day, and an experience that I have had of the Holy Spirit. I believe that my experience matches that of many first century Christians, in that I heard the Good News, I believed, I repented, and I placed my faith in Jesus Christ. In response to my faith, I believe Jesus Christ has answered me.

Right. The question is, how did you conclude that Jesus Christ answered you?

Then I must point out that I am not alone. I am just one of thousands of 'born again' Christians who have had a personal encounter with the Saviour. I call this body of believers 'the Church', coming as they do from across many denominations.

And of course I'm not alone either. There are thousands of former Christians who were just as convinced as you that the Bible is true and that they've personally experienced God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit, only to later leave their prior faith because they realized they didn't have good reason to draw the conclusions they did about their experiences.

The history of the Church can be traced back to the New Testament, and to the events recorded in the books of the New Testament. It makes no sense to try to dismiss the apostles, or their writings, because the chain of evidence exists.

You are correct that the New Testament contains some of the earliest writings of Christianity, of course. Being early doesn't make them correct, of course, and even they were written decades beyond the events they purport to describe. And we've reviewed the multiple reasons why it isn't reasonable to broadly accept what the NT has to say as accurate.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I actually agree with you here. The central issue is indeed what was written, who wrote it, and when. The reason it has "proven impossible" to convince me Isaiah predicted the things you claim he predicted is because you don't have good evidence for that. The say-so of Jewish tradition doesn't cut it. The actual manuscript evidence and the academic textual analysis of those manuscripts is the hard evidence you actually need to make your case. And you don't have it. So thus, I don't believe your claim.



This is an unnecessary label, meant to make me seem close-minded or something. I am not "hardened," I simply require extraordinary evidence if you are going to make an extraordinary claim. If you are going to claim you know of a person who literally receives messages of what's going to happen in the future from the creator of the universe, the evidence for that better be absolutely mindblowingly convincing. If it isn't, I'm unlikely to accept your totally implausible claim, as you'd be unlikely to accept any similar implausible claim I made that you didn't already believe. If I tell you I can predict the future because God told me what was going to happen, what would it take for you to believe me? How about if I said i could walk on water? Or magically cure diseases instantly? Or levitate up into the sky and disappear? What would it take for you to believe me?



Right. The question is, how did you conclude that Jesus Christ answered you?



And of course I'm not alone either. There are thousands of former Christians who were just as convinced as you that the Bible is true and that they've personally experienced God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit, only to later leave their prior faith because they realized they didn't have good reason to draw the conclusions they did about their experiences.



You are correct that the New Testament contains some of the earliest writings of Christianity, of course. Being early doesn't make them correct, of course, and even they were written decades beyond the events they purport to describe. And we've reviewed the multiple reasons why it isn't reasonable to broadly accept what the NT has to say as accurate.

Well, I cannot agree with a number of your conclusions. Firstly, that 'Jewish tradition doesn't cut it'. I believe that a careful study of Jewish religious tradition, manuscript evidence, and textual analysis shows that the tradition of Torah transmission is sound and trustworthy.

Secondly, you appear to have adopted a materialist explanation of the universe, devoid of Spirit and faith. Such a position seems to me to exclude all possibility of LOVE, since love is a spiritual reality, not a material reality. As you claimed in an earlier post, the only things that you hold to be true are the things you perceive through your five senses. Have you perceived love through your senses? If so, how? [Getting a robot to do your bidding, and to speak words of love, does not make it 'loving'.]

When it comes to people leaving the faith, we have some interesting words spoken by Jesus. In the parable of the Sower, seed was cast on the pathway, on rocky ground, amongst the thistles, and finally on good soil. The reason the seed did not grow on the pathway was because evil snatched the word away. Similarly, the rocky ground, where shallow roots caused the seedling to wither in the sun, the heat of persecution and mockery. And, then, you have the throttling effect of the weeds on the seedlings, like all the worldly concerns that take over our thinking and draw us away from God.

That people fall from faith before truly knowing Jesus, as those whose lives reflect the good soil demonstrate, is to be expected. Even Judas, who walked with Jesus, was not immune to temptation and doubt. But to those who know Christ 'in Spirit and truth' the bond is unifying. And hundreds have given themselves as loving martyrs in Christ's footsteps (not as martyrs of hatred, seeking to bring death upon others).

Thirdly, I disagree with your conclusions about the New Testament. There is nothing I have read, or heard, that leads me to think that the books of the New Testament are not reliable accounts. You might like to try to convince me otherwise!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Right. The question is, how did you conclude that Jesus Christ answered you?

I should have answered this question more directly, because it's important.

There's a passage of scripture that gives my answer better than I can. Luke 11 says:
'And I [Jesus] say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish [eel], will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?'

I believe that if you ask in the name of Jesus, you are answered by the Lord.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, I cannot agree with a number of your conclusions. Firstly, that 'Jewish tradition doesn't cut it'. I believe that a careful study of Jewish religious tradition, manuscript evidence, and textual analysis shows that the tradition of Torah transmission is sound and trustworthy.

What's the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have? When has it been dated to? (Hint: I already gave you this answer earlier.)

Secondly, you appear to have adopted a materialist explanation of the universe, devoid of Spirit and faith. Such a position seems to me to exclude all possibility of LOVE, since love is a spiritual reality, not a material reality.

How did you come to this conclusion? Love is a label we use to describe a set of conditions in the world. How do you "immaterially" love someone? How do you "immaterially" determine that someone else loves?

As far as being a "materialist," I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that immaterial things exist, but we must answer the question of how we'd determine they exist. Hope do you determine the existence of something outside your own head that can't be physically detected in any way?

As you claimed in an earlier post, the only things that you hold to be true are the things you perceive through your five senses. Have you perceived love through your senses? If so, how?

Absolutely. I perceive that my loved ones love me because of what I perceive through my senses. My partner shows he loves me in many ways: he does kind things for me, he encourages me, he hugs me, he kisses me, he supports me, he helps me when I ask for it, etc. If I had no access to any sensory information, how in the world would I know anything at all about love? How would I detect love in the world at all with no senses? Tell me.

When it comes to people leaving the faith, we have some interesting words spoken by Jesus. In the parable of the Sower, seed was cast on the pathway, on rocky ground, amongst the thistles, and finally on good soil. The reason the seed did not grow on the pathway was because evil snatched the word away. Similarly, the rocky ground, where shallow roots caused the seedling to wither in the sun, the heat of persecution and mockery. And, then, you have the throttling effect of the weeds on the seedlings, like all the worldly concerns that take over our thinking and draw us away from God.

That people fall from faith before truly knowing Jesus, as those whose lives reflect the good soil demonstrate, is to be expected. Even Judas, who walked with Jesus, was not immune to temptation and doubt. But to those who know Christ 'in Spirit and truth' the bond is unifying. And hundreds have given themselves as loving martyrs in Christ's footsteps (not as martyrs of hatred, seeking to bring death upon others).

This is just a long-winded way of saying ex-Christians were never really "true Christians." Yes, I know that's the line you're taught. I used to say it too. Many ex-Christians have said it. Go figure!

As far as martyrs, many people all over the world have been martyrs for all kinds of religions and causes. That doesn't make their religion or belief true. I explained this earlier, but you ignored it.

Thirdly, I disagree with your conclusions about the New Testament. There is nothing I have read, or heard, that leads me to think that the books of the New Testament are not reliable accounts. You might like to try to convince me otherwise!

I've already done so, but my comments were ignored and you moved on to your next apologetics talking point. Perhaps go back and read what I wrote?

 

[Left Coast]

I should have answered this question more directly, because it's important.

There's a passage of scripture that gives my answer better than I can. Luke 11 says:
'And I [Jesus] say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish [eel], will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?'

I believe that if you ask in the name of Jesus, you are answered by the Lord.

Okay. Lord, please give me one million dollars.

***waits***

Hm. My bank account is the same as before.

Lord, please knock on my house's front door right now, in Jesus' name.

***waits***

Huh. No knock. Is this thing on?

LORD! PLEASE APPEAR BEFORE ME RIGHT NOW! RS AND I NEED TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS!

***waits***

Well gee. He's a no show. Maybe if I ask him for something truly unselfish for others?

Lord, please cure all cancer in the world right now!

***waits***

Now something fishy is going on, RS. There is still cancer in the world. So either he heard my prayer and chose not to give what I asked him, or he didn't hear my prayer. In either case, clearly your God does not give whatever we ask. Even when we ask for compassionate, selfless things.

So what's something you've asked the Lord for? And what did he give? And how did you determine it was him who gave it?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What's the earliest manuscript of Isaiah we have? When has it been dated to? (Hint: I already gave you this answer earlier.)

You have claimed that because the oldest copy of the book of Isaiah dates to about 200 BCE (The Great Isaiah Scroll) that this is the only real evidence we have of Isaiah's prophecy. But there appears to be universal agreement that the Great Isaiah Scroll is not the original. The Great Isaiah scroll is a copy, and the process and methods employed by scribes in copying holy texts is cemented in tradition. The materials used were of high quality, making the scrolls expensive, and the rules governing the copying of holy text were strictly followed to avoid mistakes. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the book of Isaiah changed over the intervening 500 years (from Isaiah's time, about 700 BCE). Given the quality of these sacred scrolls, it is, actually, quite likely that the Great Isaiah Scroll was a direct copy of Isaiah's original.
[The Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text | AHRC]

With regard to the issue of love, what do you think is the greatest thing a man can do for his fellow human beings?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Okay. Lord, please give me one million dollars.

***waits***

Hm. My bank account is the same as before.

Lord, please knock on my house's front door right now, in Jesus' name.

***waits***

Huh. No knock. Is this thing on?

LORD! PLEASE APPEAR BEFORE ME RIGHT NOW! RS AND I NEED TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS!

***waits***

Well gee. He's a no show. Maybe if I ask him for something truly unselfish for others?

Lord, please cure all cancer in the world right now!

***waits***

Now something fishy is going on, RS. There is still cancer in the world. So either he heard my prayer and chose not to give what I asked him, or he didn't hear my prayer. In either case, clearly your God does not give whatever we ask. Even when we ask for compassionate, selfless things.

So what's something you've asked the Lord for? And what did he give? And how did you determine it was him who gave it?

When Jesus ministered in Galilee and Judea, he was followed by many people, and all who demonstrated faith were healed of their sicknesses. You must know that asking for something without faith is not going to elicit a response. Time and time again, Jesus makes it clear to his audience that faith and righteousness are key elements to answered prayer. It is also necessary to know the mind of Christ, because many prayers are simply not in God's will.

I have asked for healing for many individuals. In some cases my prayers were not answered, but in many they were answered immediately. In fact, I have kept a book of testimonies, written by those who received healing from Jesus.