I'm a Hindu that believes in Jesus

[Kirran]

No you have not.

You guys are having quite the intellectual back-and-forth here friend!

 

[sayak83]

Neither can you prove anything that contradicts them.

I will tell you one thing, though. Investigate the death of Christ wholeheartedly and see what happens. Oh, I can say whatever but until you do the research for yourself you won't believe me. Don't rely on your history books, do the investigation yourself.

A good book to start with is Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Yes I have looked into it extensively and found the Bible to be severely lacking in historical reliability. The apologetic literature, like the book you linked is atrociously poor history. Anyways that has been my verdict after 10 years of extensive study. However, if you wish to discuss anything specific that you consider reliable, I will take a look.

 

[Jainarayan]

The canon was decided my men filled with the Holy Spirit

Was it indeed the Holy Spirit that prompted Nicholas of Myra to punch out one of his fellow council members because Nicholas disagreed with him? Hmm???

 

[Reggie Miller]

Was it indeed the Holy Spirit that prompted Nicholas of Myra to punch out one of his fellow council members because Nicholas disagreed with him? Hmm???

That happened well after the NT was written. How do you know your source is reliable enough to be believed? What does it say in your history books?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Yes I have looked into it extensively and found the Bible to be severely lacking in historical reliability. The apologetic literature, like the book you linked is atrociously poor history. Anyways that has been my verdict after 10 years of extensive study. However, if you wish to discuss anything specific that you consider reliable, I will take a look.

I consider all scripture 100% reliable, as I said before. I also consider Josh's book is reliable. If you do not then you are the one with the problem. The only thing you are going to accept as reliable is whatever states what you already believe. Anything I present you are simply going to respond with, "is atrociously poor history."

Is there any sense in continuing this discussion?

 

[Jainarayan]

That happened well after the NT was written. How do you know your source is reliable enough to be believed? What does it say in your history books?

The NT was not "written" at any one point in time. The councils were to decide a number of things, not the least of which was to compile the bible canon from existing manuscripts. No squirming out of it.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

I think the ultimate form of God is beyond all perception and imagination. It can only be experienced directly through total surrender.

Now u confuse me.

I said the forms which hindu god takes is incarnation? If yes, then we dont have that in islam and it cannot be compared to 99 names of Allah.

Or do u mean the forms which hindu god takes are his real forms??

 

[Kirran]

Now u confuse me.

I said the forms which hindu god takes is incarnation? If yes, then we dont have that in islam and it cannot be compared to 99 names of Allah.

Or do u mean the forms which hindu god takes are his real forms??

God is ultimately beyond all form. But at our experiential level, all forms are taken by God (the temporal things do not have any wujud of their own, only the wujud of Allah) and certain of these forms are those which are conducive to our devotion.

 

[Reggie Miller]

The NT was not "written" at any one point in time. The councils were to decide a number of things, not the least of which was to compile the bible canon from existing manuscripts. No squirming out of it.

You have no idea when the first manuscripts were written down. You are just guessing at it. The manuscripts the councils were reviewing probably were not the first written record of the Gospels, you are just guessing that they were. Can you prove they were?

 

[sayak83]

I consider all scripture 100% reliable, as I said before. I also consider Josh's book is reliable. If you do not then you are the one with the problem. The only thing you are going to accept as reliable is whatever states what you already believe. Anything I present you are simply going to respond with, "is atrociously poor history."

Is there any sense in continuing this discussion?

Its clear that you do not wish to, or are incapable of having a discussion. The only thing I asked was evidence that
1) NT account of burial of Jesus is reliable
2) That information in NT, if true, can be reliably used to identify the burial locale of Jesus today

Are you or are you not aware of such evidence? What is it? The only thing you have done so far is link and entire 2000 page Christian apologetic book that discusses everything under the sun and beyond. That is hardly what was being asked, was it?

I can make content-less claims as well. Here goes:-

I consider Josh's book to be unreliable. If you think its reliable, you are the one with the problem, not me.

See, easy.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Its clear that you do not wish to, or are incapable of having a discussion. The only thing I asked was evidence that
1) NT account of burial of Jesus is reliable
2) That information in NT, if true, can be reliably used to identify the burial locale of Jesus today

Are you or are you not aware of such evidence? What is it? The only thing you have done so far is link and entire 2000 page Christian apologetic book that discusses everything under the sun and beyond. That is hardly what was being asked, was it?

I can make content-less claims as well. Here goes:-

I consider Josh's book to be unreliable. If you think its reliable, you are the one with the problem, not me.

See, easy.

No, need to continue the discussion. Have a good day.

 

[Jainarayan]

You have no idea when the first manuscripts were written down.

Do you?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Do you?

I would assume it happened while they were still alive but no, I don't know. My point is that you think you know things that you don't know. You are accepting assumptions as fact, a slippery slope in science.

 

[Jainarayan]

I would assume it happened while they were still alive

Too many pronouns. If you mean the gospels and epistles were written while their writers were alive, I'd say that's a given. The issue is, were those books and letters written by the persons whose names they are credited to? Probably not. There probably were men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, George and Ringo, but they most likely didn't write anything. What's attributed to them was in all likelihood written by others using their names... a common tactic at the time to lend credibility to writings.

My point is that you think you know things that you don't know. You are accepting assumptions as fact, a slippery slope in science.

We're not talking about science here. We're talking about history that's not even historical, but only based on faith.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Too many pronouns. If you mean the gospels and epistles were written while their writers were alive, I'd say that's a given. The issue is, were those books and letters written by the persons whose names they are credited to? Probably not. There probably were men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, George and Ringo, but they most likely didn't write anything. What's attributed to them was in all likelihood written by others using their names... a common tactic at the time to lend credibility to writings.



We're not talking about science here. We're talking about history that's not even historical, but only based on faith.

Sure it's historical. It's recorded history by reliable witnesses, men who died horrible deaths rather than recant what they wrote.

It is your "probably"'s that I have a problem with. I don't have any "probably." I have factual accounts that I believe to be genuine.

 

[Jainarayan]

Sure it's historical. It's recorded history by reliable witnesses, men who died horrible deaths rather than recant what they wrote.

There is uncertainty, myths and stories surrounding the lives of people from just a few centuries ago (e.g.the US founding fathers) whose lives are well-documented. How is it that the Romans and Greeks of the first century, who wrote and documented, painted and sculpted everything and anything, managed to miss documenting these reliable witnesses. Who are they?

I don't have any "probably." I have factual accounts that I believe to be genuine.

What you have is faith and belief, not facts. And that's OK. If faith and belief are not enough, and there must be hard evidence, what kind of faith is that?

 

[Reggie Miller]

There is uncertainty, myths and stories surrounding the lives of people from just a few centuries ago (e.g.the US founding fathers) whose lives are well-documented. How is it that the Romans and Greeks of the first century, who wrote and documented, painted and sculpted everything and anything, managed to miss documenting these reliable witnesses. Who are they?


What you have is faith and belief, not facts. And that's OK. If faith and belief are not enough, and there must be hard evidence, what kind of faith is that?

1. The Roman and Greek Christians didn't miss it at all. Tobad most of the secular world did miss it because they simply didn't believe it and dismissed it out of hand..

2. Faith is based on facts or it is just myth if it isn't based on anything substantial at all. If that is the case you don't have faith but you have myth.

 

[Jainarayan]

1. The Roman and Greek Christians didn't miss it at all.

That's circular reasoning.

2. Faith is based on facts or it is just myth if it isn't based on anything substantial at all. If that is the case you don't have faith but you have myth.

Definition of FAITH

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof <clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return> (2) : complete trust

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Definition of FAITH

That ^ above ^ definition of faith is defined as: credulity ( meaning blind faith )

The faith Jesus had was based on his logical reasoning on the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Even by age 12 Jesus was already well educated in the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus explained, expounded, and fullfilled the old Hebrews Scriptures thus Christians put confidence in Jesus' teachings. What was foretold for the past came to pass, so what is foretold for the future we can have faith based on Scripture, or have confidence in Jesus' teachings which will also come to pass.
Mankind's history has proven the words of Ecclesiastes 8:9 to be true that man has dominated man to man's hurt or to his injury. Mankind can Not establish Peace on Earth, but Jesus, as Prince of Peace, to me, will usher in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill. True, we have Not yet seen a beautiful paradisical Earth, but by the beautiful word pictures as found in Scripture (Isaiah 35) we can see that bright future ahead of us as Jesus' promised the humble meek will inherit the Earth - Matthew 5:5

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes I have looked into it extensively and found the Bible to be severely lacking in historical reliability. The apologetic literature, like the book you linked is atrociously poor history. Anyways that has been my verdict after 10 years of extensive study. However, if you wish to discuss anything specific that you consider reliable, I will take a look.

Fairy tales often start out saying, " Once upon a time....."
Whereas the Bible names real people and real places.
Is there any particular person in Scripture that you think is Not mentioned in history.