Why I CANNOT Believe in The Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and my charge is the way in which you are referring to them . I've already stated ' which scholars ' , Are you so nieve to believe there's no bias ?

And I still see that you do not know how to use scholars properly. No one has claimed that they are perfect or without bias.

Do you know what peer review is? Do you know why and how it works?

 

[F1fan]

I never claimed that it was typical or popular. You seem to be the one trying to push things into a preconceived box. That may be convenient for you, but I’m not buying into that box.

Christianity isn't my religion. I didn't crete over 40,000 sects under the Christian umbrella. It's a dilemma for Christians everywhere that there is a huge breath of interpretations and truths that come from the Bible. I'm responding to your claims and beliefs and comparing it to what I observe in Christianity as a whole. If you're making unique claims and interpretations then it's fair game to ask why your view is better than the consensus of Christian belief.

I never said my construct was “more valid than the rest of Xy.” And I’m not sure what you mean by “the rest of Xy.” My voice is the same as many other Christians; it ain’t just me. You’re trying to gaslight me into thinking that what I believe isn’t Xy. it won’t work.

You have views that contradict typical Christian beliefs and you have them for some reason. If they aren't better then why have you bothered to create them for yourself? Why not just adopt some mainstream framework and be happy?

I didn’t say that Jesus was going to be a “sacrifice to God.” You said that; I refuted it, if you remember. I don’t believe Jesus was sacrificed to God.

Actually this is a logical conclusion based on what Christians say is true. I'm not creating anything about this God, I'm just noting that if this God can force the future, and it does something now, then it knows the final result of what will happen. To Christians Jesus was made to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. If that wasn't part of the plan by God then why is God getting caught off guard?

If any theology is to make sense it HAS to make sense. It can't just be a jumbled set of ideas that are confusing. Your views are less coherent then the typical Christian belief of the resurrection and salvation. I'm just observing this.

You never asked for an explanation of the Trinity. If you want to know “how it works,” research the doctrine for yourself. I’ve already done that work.

I've heard a lot about the Trinity and it's not very coherent if mingled with other Christian beliefs. This is probably why the Trinity isn't very popular among Christians.

Why should I answer to you? You’re no authority — and you’re not within my judicatory.

You're a member in a religion debate forum. You volunteer to make claims about your beliefs. They are fair game to question. If you can't answer hard questions then just admit you don't have an answer.

I didn’t say that. You said that.

I'm trying to see how your variety of beliefs are consistent. Do you think Jesus died for the sins of mankind, and that God knew this was going to happen when God impregnated Mary?

In one particular construct, perhaps. But Substitutionary Atonement is neither the only, nor the best (IMO) salvation theology.

So you acknowledge there is confusion and disagreement about salvation among Christians?

What do you think are the “basic beliefs” of Christianity?

That man is inherently sinful, that God created Jesus through a divine act, that Jesus was sent to provide new teachings, that jesus was sacrificed to atone for the sins of mankind, and that accepting this sacrifice a person is saved and goes to heaven.

That's your basic Christian theology.

Certainly. No one has seen or cognitively knows God. That’s all theology is: constructions for grasping the God-concept. There is no “factually correct” concept.

So you concede that theists who believe in a God, and believe they know what a God is and does, could be mistaken? This is belief in a God, not knowledge of a God, yes?

Did I say “matter?” Again with putting words in my mouth. Can you not debate without throwing up straw men all over the place just to see if one sticks?

Yes, you described matter. Matter is just a concise word for what you described.

If you didn't know this do you want to adjust what you think God is?

1) It had no purpose.
2) It is useful in that it illustrates that Jesus loved humanity enough to go to the mat for us.
3) It didn’t have to happen.

OK, so if Jesus sacrifice had no purpose you're saying that salvation through Jesus isn't a thing?

Do you not believe in Christian salvation?

 

[John1.12]

And I still see that you do not know how to use scholars properly. No one has claimed that they are perfect or without bias.

Do you know what peer review is? Do you know why and how it works?

We are talking about the bible, not Astrophysics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are talking about the bible, not Cosmology .

Bible scholars face peer review as well. They can never justify their arguments solely on their personal interpretation of the Bible. They have to find valid support for their beliefs. If they cannot support their beliefs other scholars will be the first and the most brutal in their attacks on them.

 

[John1.12]

Bible scholars face peer review as well. They can never justify their arguments solely on their personal interpretation of the Bible. They have to find valid support for their beliefs. If they cannot support their beliefs other scholars will be the first and the most brutal in their attacks on them.

That's not how the bible says it should be read or understood.

 

[John1.12]

Bible scholars face peer review as well. They can never justify their arguments solely on their personal interpretation of the Bible. They have to find valid support for their beliefs. If they cannot support their beliefs other scholars will be the first and the most brutal in their attacks on them.

Some of the disciples were fishermen, does that qualify ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not how the bible says it should be read or understood.

Who cares? If you want to use the Bible as an authority you take on a whole new burden of proof. You would need to demonstrate that the Bible is a valid authority and you would need to go outside of the Bible to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of the disciples were fishermen, does that qualify ?

Nope. And please note, claimed to be fishermen.

 

[Windwalker]

So a person rejects Jesus, the Scriptures, the resurrection is viewing pornography can’t discern spiritual truth and you’re saying I sound like the Pharisee challenging that idea. Probably go rethink that one.

Was the person you were speaking to, who you said had a depraved mind saying any of those things? Did they say, "I reject Jesus, the resurrection, I view pornography, and I don't believe anything at all about anything spiritual? OR was that just you saying they did all those things because they don't believe like you do?

I don't believe like you do. Am I given over to sin and a depraved mind according to you? Is that how this works? Anyone who disagrees with your ideas, is a sinner? How is that any different than the Pharisees who said Jesus had a devil?

 

[John1.12]

Bible scholars face peer review as well. They can never justify their arguments solely on their personal interpretation of the Bible. They have to find valid support for their beliefs. If they cannot support their beliefs other scholars will be the first and the most brutal in their attacks on them.

The bible was given in the language so the people could read and understand it . If you doubt

Who cares? If you want to use the Bible as an authority you take on a whole new burden of proof. You would need to demonstrate that the Bible is a valid authority and you would need to go outside of the Bible to do that.

The bible says we can look to the stars and see the obvious fact of a created universe ect ..But yes we live in a country where we can decide to believe the bible . No passport needed .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was the person you were speaking to, who you said had a depraved mind saying any of those things? Did they say, "I reject Jesus, the resurrection, I view pornography, and I don't believe anything at all about anything spiritual? OR was that just you saying they did all those things because they don't believe like you do?

I don't believe like you do. Am I given over to sin and a depraved mind according to you? Is that how this works? Anyone who disagrees with your ideas, is a sinner? How is that any different than the Pharisees who said Jesus had a devil?

Some of it is right. I have watched porn. There is nothing wrong with that. Quite a bit of his claims are made up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The bible was given in the language so the people could read and understand it . If you doubt

You need to support this claim. Guess what? The Bible is not a valid source to use to support it.

The bible says we can look to the stars and see the obvious fact of a created universe ect ..But yes we live in a country where we can decide to believe the bible . No passport needed .

So what? Once again you would need to demonstrate that the Bible is a proper authority.

By the way what you are doing here is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[John1.12]

Nope. And please note, claimed to be fishermen.

Yes I think we can read other Ancient literature which also says things about certain historical figures that we know about today from far less extensive copies of their writings . Amazing how much we have for the bible. Again please remember, there was no TV, social media, no cameras ect .Please factor that into your sense making.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I think we can read other Ancient literature which also says things about certain historical figures that we know about today from far less extensive copies of their writings . Amazing how much we have for the bible. Again please remember, there was no TV, social media, no cameras ect .Please factor that into your sense making.

And guess where we get those facts from? We rely on historical scholars. That is all that I am doing.

 

[John1.12]

You need to support this claim. Guess what? The Bible is not a valid source to use to support it.



So what? Once again you would need to demonstrate that the Bible is a proper authority.

By the way what you are doing here is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy.

The writers explain why they are writing.
For example
1 John 5
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The writers explain why they are writing.
For example
1 John 5
13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The problem is that is circular reasoning.

 

[John1.12]

The problem is that is circular reasoning.

How is it circular reasoning , that the writers say why they are writing ? They give the who ,when ,why, what and where. Its not written to boffins. The epistles are written to people in the churches ..Ordinary folk , not scholars.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Was the person you were speaking to, who you said had a depraved mind saying any of those things? Did they say, "I reject Jesus, the resurrection, I view pornography, and I don't believe anything at all about anything spiritual? OR was that just you saying they did all those things because they don't believe like you do?

I don't believe like you do. Am I given over to sin and a depraved mind according to you? Is that how this works? Anyone who disagrees with your ideas, is a sinner? How is that any different than the Pharisees who said Jesus had a devil?

Was the person you were speaking to, who you said had a depraved mind saying any of those things? Did they say, "I reject Jesus, the resurrection, I view pornography, and I don't believe anything at all about anything spiritual? OR was that just you saying they did all those things because they don't believe like you do?

I don't believe like you do. Am I given over to sin and a depraved mind according to you? Is that how this works? Anyone who disagrees with your ideas, is a sinner? How is that any different than the Pharisees who said Jesus had a devil?

Ask the person you are referring to seen as you entered that conversation. You have some things mixed up in your thinking. Jesus didn’t reject the Scriptures and say they were a myth, if He did the Pharisees would’ve had grounds for saying He had a demon.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity isn't my religion. I didn't crete over 40,000 sects under the Christian umbrella. It's a dilemma for Christians everywhere that there is a huge breath of interpretations and truths that come from the Bible. I'm responding to your claims and beliefs and comparing it to what I observe in Christianity as a whole. If you're making unique claims and interpretations then it's fair game to ask why your view is better than the consensus of Christian belief.

Why should it be a “dilemma?” God is broad; concepts of God are similarly broad. My claims are not unique. Just because you’ve never encountered them doesn’t make them “unique” within the scope of the Christian household. There isn’t truly a “consensus” of Christian belief. My view is better, from my own perspective, in that it remains true to the teachings of love, compassion, forbearance, grace, hospitality, equity, and forgiveness brought forth in the biblical and traditional accounts of the Christian family. It affords dignity to every being, and is kind to the created order.

You have views that contradict typical Christian beliefs and you have them for some reason. If they aren't better then why have you bothered to create them for yourself? Why not just adopt some mainstream framework and be happy?

Define “typical” in this instance. I didn’t create them for myself. They are consistent with certain manifestations of Christianity.

Actually this is a logical conclusion based on what Christians say is true

What do Christians say is true? The Christians with whom I associate don’t say that.

if this God can force the future,

God doesn’t “force” the future. God allows the world to unfold.

To Christians Jesus was made to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind

Not to all Christians. Again, that’s the view of Substitutionary Atonement, which is not the only — or best — construct.

If any theology is to make sense it HAS to make sense. It can't just be a jumbled set of ideas that are confusing. Your views are less coherent then the typical Christian belief of the resurrection and salvation. I'm just observing this

That’s because you’re trying to squeeze my ideas into a box of preconceived notions you have of what “all Christians must believe.”

I've heard a lot about the Trinity and it's not very coherent if mingled with other Christian beliefs. This is probably why the Trinity isn't very popular among Christians

The majority of the Christian household are Trinitarian. Therefore, your statement is incorrect.

You're a member in a religion debate forum. You volunteer to make claims about your beliefs. They are fair game to question. If you can't answer hard questions then just admit you don't have an answer.

You never asked for a fully-constructed theological treatise — and this isn’t the forum in which to do that.

I'm trying to see how your variety of beliefs are consistent. Do you think Jesus died for the sins of mankind, and that God knew this was going to happen when God impregnated Mary?

I think Jesus died because of the sin of humanity. I think God knows this, and chose to fully enter humanity, not in spite of, but because of it.

So you acknowledge there is confusion and disagreement about salvation among Christians?

Of course. All we can do is construct theologies that attempt to speak to our spiritual condition.

That man is inherently sinful, that God created Jesus through a divine act, that Jesus was sent to provide new teachings, that jesus was sacrificed to atone for the sins of mankind, and that accepting this sacrifice a person is saved and goes to heaven.

That's your basic Christian theology

Not mine. Not of anyone who’s not a Calvinist. Not of anyone who doesn’t follow Augustine. No. In the view of the many of us who don’t follow these theologians, humanity is inherently blessed, God became fully human in the person of Jesus, through an act of giving up Divinity, that Jesus came, not just to teach, but to embody Love and compassion, that Jesus was sacrificed through an act of state terrorism because of humanity’s sin, and that we are reconciled to God through Jesus’ joining of earth to heaven.

You see? A completely different basic Christian theology.

So you concede that theists who believe in a God, and believe they know what a God is and does, could be mistaken? This is belief in a God, not knowledge of a God, yes?

Of course! Theologians aren’t infallible. And theology isn’t a method of being “right” or “wrong” about God. It’s merely a forum in which we can explore the Divine.

Yes, you described matter. Matter is just a concise word for what you described.

If you didn't know this do you want to adjust what you think God is?

You presented it as if I had said that God is just matter. God is present in the created order. Those energies that we call “fields” and “light” are the same properties that ultimately form matter. But they don’t just form matter. To put it theologically, I believe that the world is “God’s body” — the physical manifestation of God. I believe that the frequency of the universe is God’s “heartbeat” or vibration that creates life. I believe that God “spoke” this frequency in the Big Bang. I believe that whatever exploded out of the Big Bang is the “substance” of God, and we know scientifically that everything is comprised of, and shares, that substance.

OK, so if Jesus sacrifice had no purpose you're saying that salvation through Jesus isn't a thing?

Do you not believe in Christian salvation?

“Salvation” and “sacrifice” have little to do with each other in my construct. That’s an assumption you make that simply does not hold true for all Xy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it circular reasoning , that the writers say why they are writing ? They give the who ,when ,why, what and where. Its not written to boffins. The epistles are written to people in the churches ..Ordinary folk , not scholars.

The Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence. Nor is it even an authority until it is demonstrated to be reliable.

Here is a simple example. If claim that what I write is true and then use that in an argument later by saying: "Look back here . . . it says that what I write is true" Does that make what I wrote true? That is what you are doing with the Bible.