Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Sapiens]

I like to rub it in.

As I've thought all along, you are naught but ego and lie ... and should be treated accordingly.

 

[Sonofason]

As I've thought all along, you are naught but ego and lie ... and should be treated accordingly.

Yes, of course I should.

 

[Serenity7855]

This is not logical, - even in the worlds of illogical religions.

For a GOD to be flesh and bone - would mean he would have to have a HUMAN system of blood - which has to be oxygenated with oxygen = breathing an oxygen atmosphere, and cells constantly replenishing themselves for those organs to keep going, and for bone growth, etc.

Why would a GOD need, - or want, - such?

Forgot to say - The Bible says Jesus bled, - so real blood, and human.


*

In are human beings having a human experience. You are comparing God to a human when he is much more then then that. He is a glorified personage.

Jesus bled because he was human at the time. Not until he was resurrected did he become glorified.

 

[Ingledsva]

In are human beings having a human experience. You are comparing God to a human when he is much more then then that. He is a glorified personage.

Jesus bled because he was human at the time. Not until he was resurrected did he become glorified.

Nope! You are talking Polytheism with a God and Jesus (if considered God,) two beings at the same time.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

In are human beings having a human experience. You are comparing God to a human when he is much more then then that. He is a glorified personage.

Jesus bled because he was human at the time. Not until he was resurrected did he become glorified.

The Bible says even after his death - they are TWO separate beings - in heaven - together!

Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

So two separate beings in Heaven - if they are both God, = Polytheism.

Jesus is not God. He claims to be the awaited HUMAN Messiah from the line of David.

*

 

[Bunyip]

The Bible says even after his death - they are TWO separate beings - in heaven - together!

Jesus sits at the right had of God.

So two separate beings in Heaven - if they are both God, = Polytheism.

Jesus is not God. He claims to be the awaited HUMAN Messiah from the line of David.

*

Sheesh Ingledsva, how can you confuse the trinity for polytheism......oh hang on......I see the problem.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sheesh Ingledsva, how can you confuse the trinity for polytheism......oh hang on......I see the problem.

LOL! Yep!

 

[Dr. Strange]

It is not our job to prove God exists, it is YOUR job to turn your heart to him. God proves, man gives evidence.... evidence that atheist don't accept, because it is not proved first. A delusion is a delusion at the end of the day and as it is from God, impossible to break.

That would be correct as there is no proof of one's faith.

 

[Dr. Strange]

It would be most helpful if you three would stop being so dishonest with your "truth"

You must understand first a Christians faith has nothing to do with their belief hence, no proof. Christians must look at your understanding of things too. This will bring down the level of accusations for both sides.

 

[Dr. Strange]

How do you explain the process of a single thought. The feeling of love, hatred or empathy. What is a thought? How does matter retain so much memory and knowledge. Science can pin point the area in which it happens, and even prescribe medication to make you happy instead of sad, but nobody knows how a concept is formed, by neurons and electro chemical reactions. Not and clue. For all intents and purposes, it is miraculous. No naturalistic laws that exist can be used to give an explanation of how we rationalise and use cognitive thinking to be aware of our being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering). If it cannot be explained by naturalistic laws then it becomes supernatural. Ah, I hear the cry of the atheist trying to excuse themselves by saying that just because it is not natural does not make it supernatural. They are wrong, as as usual, in an attempt to try to defend there bigoted views.

supernatural

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   "a supernatural being"
   synonyms: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical,miraculous, superhuman, supernormal, hypernormal,extramundane;
   inexplicable, uncanny, unaccountable, unbelievable,non-rational, weird, mysterious, arcane

So, quite clearly, when you say "You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the supernatural." You are demonstrably incorrect as I just have. That also make you wrong on this statement as well. "You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the metaphysical." As if I can demonstrate that abstract phenomenon is supernatural it follows that it must be metaphysical as well. You are just being superfluous by using both terms.

I could, of course, expand it to the cause of the Big Bang, Fine Tuning, Dark Energy, Photosynthesis, Ecosystems, Dark Matter and the Higgs Boson, all of which are known but not understood phenomenon, or, metaphysical.

Now, I can see God in all of these unexplained events, yet you announce that "you can't see God". The truth is that you cannot see God. Only those who live a Christ centred life can see God's hand in everything around us. You do not believe and you refuse to see so you will never possess what we have until you wake up and feel the grass between your toes.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.


3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

[/QUOTE]


It is James 1: 5 that brings to question any and all Christianity for if there is dissent about what this passage means, none can lay claim to truth. How Scripture is interpreted is not something that all denominations agree on. The truth then relates to what a group of people subscribe to.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That would be correct as there is no proof of one's faith.

Faith is provedby the inner change, that is what faith proves. What is within is invisible, and is known within the mind and from God. Physical arguments cannot show this.

 

[Serenity7855]

The Bible says even after his death - they are TWO separate beings - in heaven - together!

Jesus sits at the right hand of God.

So two separate beings in Heaven - if they are both God, = Polytheism.

Jesus is not God. He claims to be the awaited HUMAN Messiah from the line of David.

*

I know that Jesus is not God. Why do you post as though I have said any different?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes indeed, I can see quite clearly that you are claiming something to be true despite what really and actually is going on.

So what's really and actually going on?

 

[Cephus]

It is a fact that "supernatural" must, by definition, be attributed to something outside of (not beyond, but outside of) the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are LAWS and thus inviolable, hence the "supernatural" does not exist except in your imagination.

I wouldn't go that far, after all, there have been plenty of times we've found that our thoughts about the natural world were wrong and we've had to revise our position based on new evidence, we can't just say that natural laws are all there are, forever and ever, amen. But what we do have to point out is that there is no objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural, if there was, someone could have presented that evidence by now. So in the complete and utter absence of anything objective, I have to ask where they got the idea of the supernatural in the first place? If it doesn't come from objective observations, it can only come from their imagination. In other words, they just made it up.

 

[savagewind]

We are trusting that people in the past had real evidence that we believe.

 

[McBell]

We are trusting that people in the past had real evidence that we believe.

how in the world could people in the past have evidence of your beliefs?

 

[1robin]

No, that is not what "anecdotal" means: it means: "not necessarily true or reliable, because it is based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."

Something can be first hand and still be considered anecdotal. As far as the resurrection is concerned, it is not anecdotal, it is undocumented unverified and thus should be assumed to be nonexistent under the common sense demands the application of: "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence," yet even ordinary evidence is lacking.

But while not anecdotal, the evidence is, at best hearsay, and with reference to the hearsay nature of the "best evidence" available, Bart D. Ehrman (James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) says: "You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eye witnesses; they’re Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They’re not contemporary, they’re not disinterested, and they’re not consistent."

If personal experience is out what is in. You know of the entire external world by experience. Why is spiritual experience any less valid than visual experience? You may call it anecdotal but I call it eye witness testimony, and claiming it is anecdotal does not do anything to suggest it is invalid. That is why courts rely heavily upon eye witness testimony in life and death issues. Just like Christ they select 12 normal men to listen to witness testimony and make the best decision they can. Now if you want to throw in that scientific experience is shared and therefore more valid then I reply the spiritual experience is also shared, the historical claims in the bible are shared, the philosophical claims in the bible can be shared, the scientific claims in the bible are shared. If you think shared confirmation is valid then the bible is valid almost al it's claims.

Let me spend a little time with your specific claims.

1. Every detail and more that are necessary to have belief in the resurrection are either first hand accounts agreed to by most NT historians, medical issues forensic coroners suggest are perfectly recorded, historical details that line up with everything known of the time, claims by even Christ's enemies. In other words you have mountains of details that make faith a justifiable conclusion but land just short of proof. (which by the way is true for every single historical claim ever made before video and even that is not beyond question). I can believe in Christ's miracles in the exact same way I can have faith in Cortez' or Robert E Lee's quasi-miraculous accomplishments, or the thousands of things we know are true but have no explanation for them at all.

2. Let me give you an Ehrman quote in response to yours.
Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the
changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or
ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—
slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders
of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives
were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached
back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely)
related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of
his teaching.
The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

No other ancient text is even close to the bible for representing what the authors recorded. Now if we have accurate texts of what either eyewitnesses saw and was part of a huge and early oral tradition as well, or we have authors who interviewed eyewitnesses and display an absolute resolve to historical accuracy by any test that can be thrown against it. You are going to have to tell me why they lied about the most textually attested figure in human history at peril of their lives and how you know they did.

3. The authors were eyewitnesses in at least two cases. In all but Luke were eyewitnesses to miraculous events and even Luke may have been (I can't remember).

4. While the original authors may have penned their texts years later Pauls' creedal statements, Christological formulas, and statements taken from Church hymns date to within months of the crucifixion. There was an oral tradition that is independent from the Gospels which they could have been compared to and were by early Church fathers and thousands of early Church members, plus the authors specifically stated they consulted other works which are not know to us now but preceded them. Add to this that the Gospels say the Holy Spirit was sent to remind them of every detail. Now you can't deny that that is the case a priori. You must have goo reasons to deny it.

Not for any other ancient event is a few decades claimed to be too long to get at the truth and in many cases events we know of from copies dating to many hundreds of years after the original are taught as facts in colleges all over the world. It seems the is one standard for the bible and another for everything else.

 

[savagewind]

how in the world could people in the past have evidence of your beliefs?

I don't know. How do you know they didn't?

WAIT A MINUTE! Haha! We believe their evidence which is written. Haha A frubal for funny.

 

[Serenity7855]

I wouldn't go that far, after all, there have been plenty of times we've found that our thoughts about the natural world were wrong and we've had to revise our position based on new evidence, we can't just say that natural laws are all there are, forever and ever, amen. But what we do have to point out is that there is no objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural, if there was, someone could have presented that evidence by now. So in the complete and utter absence of anything objective, I have to ask where they got the idea of the supernatural in the first place? If it doesn't come from objective observations, it can only come from their imagination. In other words, they just made it up.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

Donald Rumsfeld, Military strategist

 

[Dr. Strange]

I know that Jesus is not God. Why do you post as though I have said any different?

Then, explain what you said:

"Jesus bled because he was human at the time. Not until he was resurrected did he become glorified."

Are you saying, "Jesus is not God before the Resurrection, but that Jesus is God after the Resurrection?"