samtonga43
Well-Known Member
I would expect to see much more than flowery words.That all depends upon what you consider to be evidence.
If a man was a Messenger of God and the return of Christ, what evidence would you expect to see?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I would expect to see much more than flowery words.That all depends upon what you consider to be evidence.
If a man was a Messenger of God and the return of Christ, what evidence would you expect to see?
Every Christian has their own personal opinion/bias about who Jesus was is, what he accomplished and how he works today, all of it based on gospels that were written by strangers who didn't hear Jesus speak word 1 when they were writing 50-100 years later and using no sources that we know of for what they wrote. The gospels might as well have been billed a Harry Potter-style set of novels where all the dialogue is invented in the writers' minds because that exactly what happened. How do gospel writers know for certain what Jesus said down to the word when they weren't in Palestine at the time, couldn't have talked to any eyewitnesses, and had no records from which to draw Jesus' words? It's all fiction.
“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103
That is separate from faith. One can have faith without love.What about love?
No, Jesus is not God, only in your imagination is Jesus God.Duh! Of course He has to be better! He is the Second Person of the Trinity. How could He not be better?
No, people did not speak that way, but Baha’u’llah was not a person, He was a Manifestation of God, and they tend to speak differently than ordinary people.People did not speak this way in the 19th Century. It is very preachy, and very verbose.
The Holy Spirit is not a person so it did not have a ministry. Jesus was a person who had a ministry. The Holy Spirit was the Bounty of God that was sent to Jesus by God and Jesus brought the Holy Spirit to humanity. The Holy Spirit was sent again when God sent it to Baha’u’llah in the Black Pit prison.Nonsense. The Holy Spirit’s ministry is to reveal Jesus to us, to bear testimony of Jesus (John15:26). Therefore, there can be no additions, no pseudo-revelations after or apart from Christ. The Spirit testifies to the things of Christ, not any ‘new thing’. Christ is ETERNALLY the Second Person of the Trinity.
Baha’u’llah was the Spirit of Truth as written in Acts 2. Acts 2:17-21 was spoken by the prophet Joel, and it was a prophecy that referred to the last days, the days when Christ would return.“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” John 16:12-15
There was a lot more than that. It's called evidence.I would expect to see much more than flowery words.
By all rights, you could test the ideas in the scriptures of other religions, not just the New Testament, and come up with the same outcome, so what does that tell you?So, I did not rely on any belief about the text. None at all. (not for nor against; also I was an atheist)
I'd tested the things in the text -- because there is plenty that can be tested.
It's merely rational. If you listened to some person talking about techniques for better health or such, you'd ideally not believe nor disbelieve. You'd test the ideas, and/or seek out those that had tested them.
Fine, but that only works if you have gone into the next room.“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives brilliant shining light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds no light, he knows the truth!”
(Me, Religious Forums)
2 things to consider.
First, it's widely agreed that the gospel of Mark was written down roughly around 66-71AD, about 35 years or so after Christ.
That guarantees a statistical outcome:
That among the tens of thousands that would hear him preach in 3 years of traveling and talking to crowds, some that were younger -- ages 15-22 or so -- some portion would still be alive 35 years later when Mark was written down.
Living eye witnesses still alive in 70AD, as Mark was written down.
But that for me leads to a 2nd aspect.
If you yourself heard perfectly all said by a traveling public speaker -- that would not make his/her ideas correct.
Ideas aren't correct simply if they are perfectly recorded.
So, I did not rely on any belief about the text. None at all. (not for nor against; also I was an atheist)
I'd tested the things in the text -- because there is plenty that can be tested.
It's merely rational. If you listened to some person talking about techniques for better health or such, you'd ideally not believe nor disbelieve. You'd test the ideas, and/or seek out those that had tested them.
You don't have to believe me. Believe a very respected Bible historian who knows what he is talking about--like Ehrman.A perfect example of black / white thinking. Either...
John remembered the exact events of that very dramatic event in detail
or
"it's all made up".
Can you quote something He said which is irrational?I agree. Lots of stuff Jesus purportedly said was very rational.
Is it OK with you if I believe other Bible historians who know what they're talking about?You don't have to believe me. Believe a very respected Bible historian who knows what he is talking about--like Ehrman.
I did, at least in part, by doing the same practices as several other religion's devotees were doing....By all rights, you could test the ideas in the scriptures of other religions, not just the New Testament, and come up with the same outcome, so what does that tell you?
lol you think ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about because he says the gospels are not reliable history. Only Christian historians with a bias know what they're talking about. That's rich.Is it OK with you if I believe other Bible historians who know what they're talking about?
Sure start with I am the only way the truth and the life. no one comes to God except through me. Pure propaganda.Can you quote something He said which is irrational?
Is the Pope Catholic?lol you think ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about because he says the gospels are not reliable history.
Let's hear what samtonga thinks.Is the Pope Catholic?
If it is true, and I believe it is true, can it be irrational? Is your definition of 'irrational' something you do not believe to be true?Sure start with I am the only way the truth and the life. no one comes to God except through me. Pure propaganda.
If it is true, and you believe it is true, does that mean it is rational? Is your definition of 'rational' something you believe to be true? This argument about the Bible cuts both ways.If it is true, and I believe it is true, can it be irrational? Is your definition of 'irrational' something you do not believe to be true?
I have been reading Ehrman for years and I agree that he is highly respected in his field. Does this mean I ought to believe everything he says, and agree with his every conclusion? Are you really saying that the Gospels are not reliable because Ehrman says so?lol you think ehrman doesn't know what he's talking about because he says the gospels are not reliable history. Only Christian historians with a bias know what they're talking about. That's rich.
No and No.If it is true, and you believe it is true, does that mean it is rational? Is your definition of 'rational' something you believe to be true?