Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Holy Spirit helps you to have an open mind to the evidence. Then it's a 10 on the 0-10 scale.
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dave View Post
      Nick, thank you for your input.


      I think you're right. There is probably a better explanation for the crucifixion. Perhaps there were a lot of accusations from jealous Jewish leaders or perhaps a lot of people were referring to him as the king of the Jews.


      I think the empty tomb story being an invention is at least worth considering. I'm not sure how shameful it would be to invent this story. Being given a proper tomb seems like a step up from perhaps having no record of burial (hypothetically).


      He was seen as a blasphemer by the Jewish authorities most likely, but perhaps not by his disciples. Yes, they could have been angry instead of grieving. That's a possibility too.


      Well, I am just theorizing, but perhaps Peter thought Jesus was the messiah because Jesus thought this of himself. It may have been suggested by some followers and was entertained as a possibility and eventually believed.


      If Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher as some have called him then there would definitely be some expectation that something big was going to happen. Peter might expect Jesus to be a part of that. Or perhaps the dream Peter had was enough to convince him Jesus was still alive and things were still in motion.

      The earliest followers may not have been abandoning the Torah and going against Rome. Perhaps they were an early version of the Ebionites. James may have decided to lead the Jerusalem church after his brother was out of the picture. Are you wondering why James was not one of the twelve? I suppose there could have been a personal matter between the two men.


      Thank you, that's a good point. Is it possible that Paul only received the creed when he visited Jerusalem? If we believe Galations 1:15-19 then this was 3 years after his conversion. I suppose this will come down to how much we trust the accounts given in Acts.


      Yes, this is another excellent point. I would say it's possible (in my hypothetical scenario) that Paul thinks his revelation (great idea) has been given to him directly from God. I also think there could have been several disciples who lied and claimed to have seen Jesus just because they wanted to be considered important or because nothing they said would be taken seriously otherwise and this may have been the case with Paul.


      I think if they end up agreeing with each other it could be that Peter and the others realize Paul is pretty much unstoppable and it's better to be with him then against him. They still may have disagreed on details like what burdens should be placed on gentiles and such, but ultimately stayed on good terms.


      So I guess you would push for earlier dates on the gospels? That certainly would change things up. Yes, there are some non-messianic prophecies included by the gospel writers and this could also signify that the authors were looking for quantity over quality. I'm not sure. Perhaps they were not experts in this field and figured all of the Jewish scriptures were fair game.


      I'm just wondering if a scenario absent of an actual empty tomb is possible or not. Would you say it's not possible?

      It's not unheard of or unreasonable and certainly not impossible for a bunch of confused, scared, grieving, and superstitious cult (or gang or group or club or whatever you want to call it) followers to slowly and surely begin to construct a narritive, based on truth, and fortified with conjecture, intellectual leaps, misinformation and what have you, as they try to tell themselves that they werent crazy for believing in Jesus and that they didnt waste the past 3 years of their lives, and that they weren't now fools in the eyes of everyone they had been proclaiming Jesus to, and end up with a story that tied to the OT if you looked at it just right and that matched some recent events... and if the memories were tweaked just a little here and there, maybe embellished in other ways.

      This isnt uncommon.

      What is unique is that it lasted and is what it is today. But then we have other religions and movements that, while they may not be identical, have similarly persisted despite the odds.

      But religions of hope and eternal life can be very compelling for people who have nothing, and endure mistreatment and hardships and poverty in life with no real chance at improving their plight. When we really look at it, for every reason it had to fail, there were other reasons for it to succeed. And people believe all sorts of nonsense, so having believers just isn't good evidence of accuracy or truth.

      and I still cant get around the fact that if a natural explanation is unlikely, then then the supernatural explanation would have to be even more unlikely by definition - unless we start off with the assumption that the God of the Bible must be Real and that he needed to save mankind from the Hell he made for us, by killing his own son, who had to look like a human man.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
        The Holy Spirit helps you to have an open mind to the evidence. Then it's a 10 on the 0-10 scale.
        so being open minded isn't a choice or a sole result of our effort, but depends on whether the Holy Spirit's willingness to help the individual?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by William View Post
          so being open minded isn't a choice or a sole result of our effort, but depends on whether the Holy Spirit's willingness to help the individual?
          No. Just that you can choose to not be openminded. So, He then won't help you get more openmminded.
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Gary, most of us in the Christian community believe it's not just about "facts", but also about the power and influence of the Holy Spirit.
            I understand that CP, but Nick and I were discussing the evidence for claiming that the Resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. I am just curious how Nick would rate the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus compared to other historical claims, such as Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Let me give you an example of how I would rate several historical claims, to show you what I mean:

            On a scale of 0-10, with 0 being completely unbelievable and 10 being almost certainly an historical fact, how would you rate the following historical claims:

            1, Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII: 10
            2. Martin Luther was a theologian and priest in Wittenberg in the sixteenth century: 10
            3. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River/creek to seize control of Rome: 9
            4. Hannibal attempted to cross the Alps with elephants: 5
            5. Mohammad was a real, historical person: 9
            6. Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse: 0
            7. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person: 7
            8. The dead body of Jesus of Nazareth was reanimated by the Hebrew god, Yahweh, and bodily appeared to numerous of his followers after his death: 0

            Comment


            • Originally posted by William View Post
              This is something that always seemed nebulous to me, the whole holy spirit thing. Not mush is written about it. It helps us in prayer and is a comforter, etc. But does the Holy Spirit influence some and not others? Gary was once a believer, so did the spirit once guide him but them stop?

              and without the Holy Spirit, is the evidence less convincing in your mind?
              John 8:47 - Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Gary View Post
                I understand that CP, but Nick and I were discussing the evidence for claiming that the Resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. I am just curious how Nick would rate the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus compared to other historical claims, such as Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. Let me give you an example of how I would rate several historical claims, to show you what I mean:

                On a scale of 0-10, with 0 being completely unbelievable and 10 being almost certainly an historical fact, how would you rate the following historical claims:

                1, Hitler invaded Poland to start WWII: 10
                2. Martin Luther was a theologian and priest in Wittenberg in the sixteenth century: 10
                3. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River/creek to seize control of Rome: 9
                4. Hannibal attempted to cross the Alps with elephants: 5
                5. Mohammad was a real, historical person: 9
                6. Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse: 0
                7. Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person: 7
                8. The dead body of Jesus of Nazareth was reanimated by the Hebrew god, Yahweh, and bodily appeared to numerous of his followers after his death: 0
                First, I'm curious as to why you only rate #7 a 7. I haven't run into too many people who deny Jesus existed as a person - just to the extent to which He was anything beyond that.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=Cow Poke;223973]Understandable.



                  Hey, the Holy Spirit is not mush!



                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I think of the Holy Spirit as a "He", not an "it". (just for reference)
                  lol, I meant no disrespect. and to be fair, I doubt the Holy Spirit has a penis or testosterone, but i am admittedly just guessing. I will identify the Holy Spirit in the male for from here on out.



                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Good question... and I don't know the answer, but I know there are people who have felt a particular "drawing" of the Spirit, and I know others who are so busy or so far from God that they wouldn't sense a "drawing" or "tugging" of the Spirit if it happened.



                  I don't know if Gary was 'really' a believer or not, and I don't know the circumstances of his life... I have known people who were Christians, but through circumstances or situations gave up on their faith. Satan is working to keep people from the influence of the Holy Spirit.



                  Not less convincing - perhaps less necessary.
                  I do appreciate your response. And I mean no disrespect here, but this is what you've concluded after thinking about it, correct? I mean, there are no passages that express it this way, correct?

                  When I was a believer, I would do similar things pretty often. I thought it was a sign of spiritual growth and wisdom and that i was coming to a better understanding of God's Word. Now I think that was just me trying to make sense of things and learn all I could. I was filling the gaps. I was making sense of what were essentially half baked or senseless things. This the same way people see shapes in clouds or find meaning in pretty much anything and every religion. It's also why there are different Christians with different takes on the scriptures. And now i see that there's no way to point to the verse and show them they're wrong and I'm right, as it largely depends on how you look at it.

                  But I realize I could be wrong now, even though I think I was then. Heck, I could have been wrong both times and still missing out of reality. I guess I am better off continually looking.

                  Comment


                  • Well, there is not a gender neutral third person pronoun for persons with no biological gender, so...
                    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      John 8:47 - Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.
                      but faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God... so how I can belong to god without having faith, and how can I have faith without believing in god?

                      by the way, I dont hold the above as some grand evidence of biblical contradiction. But I do think the Holy Spirit isnt clearly defined in the Bible and we begin to make things up and create our bridges and patches to get around that in discussions. I guess I think it's get's us nowhere now.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        No. Just that you can choose to not be openminded. So, He then won't help you get more openmminded.
                        okay, I can agree with the first part. A person must make their own effort to be open-minded. I guess how much or whether at all the Holy Spirit actually helps and how he selects whom he'll help is still unresolved.

                        Comment


                        • Faith is loyalty and trust based on evidence. Like how a faithful dog is a loyal dog.
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            Well, there is not a gender neutral third person pronoun for persons with no biological gender, so...
                            i tried "it" but i suppose the bible does use, "He" so using bible terms in bible ways is probably the best route when discussing the bible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by William View Post
                              i tried "it" but i suppose the bible does use, "He" so using bible terms in bible ways is probably the best route when discussing the bible.
                              "It" refers to objects.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by William View Post
                                I do appreciate your response. And I mean no disrespect here, but this is what you've concluded after thinking about it, correct?
                                Not just "thinking about it", but having seen the way God works in the 40 years I've been an adult Christian.

                                I mean, there are no passages that express it this way, correct?
                                When Jesus says that nobody comes except the Father draw them, we know that the "work of the Holy Spirit" is to do the Father's will, and was "given" to us by Jesus praying for "another comforter". The persons of the Trinity (and, no, that's not mentioned by that name in the Bible) work together and for the same purpose.

                                When I was a believer, I would do similar things pretty often. I thought it was a sign of spiritual growth and wisdom and that i was coming to a better understanding of God's Word. Now I think that was just me trying to make sense of things and learn all I could. I was filling the gaps. I was making sense of what were essentially half baked or senseless things. This the same way people see shapes in clouds or find meaning in pretty much anything and every religion. It's also why there are different Christians with different takes on the scriptures. And now i see that there's no way to point to the verse and show them they're wrong and I'm right, as it largely depends on how you look at it.
                                And part of the work of the Holy Spirit is to lead us to truth and understanding, so, yeah, I can see why you're having difficulty with this.

                                But I realize I could be wrong now, even though I think I was then. Heck, I could have been wrong both times and still missing out of reality. I guess I am better off continually looking.
                                I think many times people "get religion", but aren't necessarily "saved". I know a lot of people who have been "religious" (and considered themselves "Christians") only to have a "salvation experience" later in life.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Quest82, 07-17-2022, 05:24 AM
                                2 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Quest82
                                by Quest82
                                 
                                Working...
                                X