This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]Christianity treats women with respect? Women are the property of men in the Bible. How is that respect? The Bible has advanced scientific information? The Bible, if taken literally, says that the world doesn't move and is a circle with four corners. How is that scientific? Think of it. Now, answer these questions.CrushmasterProof? Proof? In Christ, Crushmaster.
Anyone else find this ironic? haha
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
The Bible is not an appropriate source, since it's credibility is highly questionable.
chessmaster1989
Only to the natural man. The Bible has been proven to be a highly accurate record of history and there are numerous first hand eyewitness accounts of the ressurection. Using your logic then all of secular history must be thrown out a s well.
Bring me the eyewitnesses from that period that deny the ressurection of Christ.
Right now the score is 500+ eyewitnesses for the ressurection, 0 against.
*sigh* do I really need to point out how stupid that statement is?
That said, eyewitness accounts are not necessarily reliable, even in number (besides which, to my knowledge, these accounts are documented nowhere besides The Bible, which seems just a little suspicious). Think of how many people have claimed to have seen aliens. Think of how many children have claimed there are monsters in their rooms. I guess we should accept that aliens and monsters exist as well. :o
Rational thought about the evidence is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Only to the natural man. The Bible has been proven to be a highly accurate record of history and there are numerous first hand eyewitness accounts of the ressurection. Using your logic then all of secular history must be thrown out a s well.
Bring me the eyewitnesses from that period that deny the ressurection of Christ.
Right now the score is 500+ eyewitnesses for the ressurection, 0 against.
blackregiment
*sigh* do I really need to point out how stupid that statement is?
That said, eyewitness accounts are not necessarily reliable, even in number (besides which, to my knowledge, these accounts are documented nowhere besides The Bible, which seems just a little suspicious). Think of how many people have claimed to have seen aliens. Think of how many children have claimed there are monsters in their rooms. I guess we should accept that aliens and monsters exist as well. :o
Rational thought is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
You know, people have been through this post with you many times, and you still continue to post it. Well, at least you seem to have stopped the whole "everything from nothing" straw man about the Big Bang...
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
*sigh* do I really need to point out how stupid that statement is?
That said, eyewitness accounts are not necessarily reliable, even in number (besides which, to my knowledge, these accounts are documented nowhere besides The Bible, which seems just a little suspicious). Think of how many people have claimed to have seen aliens. Think of how many children have claimed there are monsters in their rooms. I guess we should accept that aliens and monsters exist as well. :o
chessmaster1989
Rational thought is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
You know, people have been through this post with you many times, and you still continue to post it. Well, at least you seem to have stopped the whole "everything from nothing" straw man about the Big Bang...
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
I have had no reason to point out the reality that nauralists that do not believe in a Creator, by default must assume that without a creator, that the universe created itself, that everything came from nothing. While you may deny it, if you study the big bng theory, you will find that it proposes that the singularity popped into existence from nothing since space and time did not exist at that instant.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Only to the natural man. The Bible has been proven to be a highly accurate record of history and there are numerous first hand eyewitness accounts of the ressurection. Using your logic then all of secular history must be thrown out a s well.
Bring me the eyewitnesses from that period that deny the ressurection of Christ.
Right now the score is 500+ eyewitnesses for the ressurection, 0 against.
blackregiment
*sigh* do I really need to point out how stupid that statement is?
That said, eyewitness accounts are not necessarily reliable, even in number (besides which, to my knowledge, these accounts are documented nowhere besides The Bible, which seems just a little suspicious). Think of how many people have claimed to have seen aliens. Think of how many children have claimed there are monsters in their rooms. I guess we should accept that aliens and monsters exist as well. :o
Rational thought is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the ressurection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
If the claims all come from one source (the Bible) they can't be taken as factual claims... Also, Christianity grew so fast because of Rome, Constantine adopted the religion as the state religion and everybody converted to it. It actually grew because there was an end to the persecution of it. Oh yeah, and about those fulfilled prophecies? Do you even know why Jewish people reject Jesus as the messiah?Prophecies as given by the bible. Prophjecies that were written in biblical scripture befure that were merely copied into the new scripture. If Jesus ultimately fullfilled that which it is said he did there wouldn't have been so many that questioned him. It is the reason why there are still Jews and Muslims after. again, you are using that which is in the bible as proof the bible is true. The Roman authorities wanted to stamp out christianity because it gave power to the individual rather than to the church and state. That is also why the early church grew so quickly. Why did the Islamic religion grow so quickly in the world in which it began? Both can't be true. You speak of being rational. A rational person does not believe someone can walk on water without special effects or someoen can rise from the dead or perform the miracles attributed to Jesus. Your score at the end is laughable considering you don't even know how many 'eyewitnesses' there were aside from that which is written in the bible. You are basing your argument on made up data.Rational thought is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the ressurection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
blackregiment
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Only to the natural man. The Bible has been proven to be a highly accurate record of history and there are numerous first hand eyewitness accounts of the ressurection. Using your logic then all of secular history must be thrown out a s well.
Bring me the eyewitnesses from that period that deny the ressurection of Christ.
Right now the score is 500+ eyewitnesses for the ressurection, 0 against.
blackregiment
*sigh* do I really need to point out how stupid that statement is?
That said, eyewitness accounts are not necessarily reliable, even in number (besides which, to my knowledge, these accounts are documented nowhere besides The Bible, which seems just a little suspicious). Think of how many people have claimed to have seen aliens. Think of how many children have claimed there are monsters in their rooms. I guess we should accept that aliens and monsters exist as well. :o
Rational thought is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
blackregiment, you do not seem to realize that it is impossible for someone to be an eyewitness against something not happening (in the sense you describe). Why would someone record that they did not see Jesus resurrected? If you cannot accept this simple fact, I really don't know what to say.
Now, I'll just deal with your post quickly. First of all, the tomb of Jesus has never verifiably been found (to my knowledge). A possible tomb was found a few years ago, though I confess I do not know what was made of it.
An empty tomb itself is not proof of the resurrection of Jesus; it is merely proof that Jesus' body is not there. It may never have been entombed there (at times, when a body is not available for burial, a grave is constructed nonetheless). Even if it was entombed there, there are other explanations (such as graverobbers).
I have never claimed the apostles lied. They may have imagined it; they may have seen Jesus in a dream and mistaken it for reality. The eyewitness accounts are recorded only in The Bible, which casts doubt upon their credibility. It is true that members of many religions have sacrificed themselves for their beliefs, making your point about the sufferings of the apostles irrelevant.
The next point about their strength following the "resurrection" is explained whether they thought the resurrection occurred, or whether it actually occurred. It is, thus, not a valid argument.
Again, to your next point, I have not said they lied. They may have well believed what they did, and been willing to die thinking they'd go to heaven.
The Church, to my knowledge, did not grow particularly quickly; in any case, Emperor Constantine did a good deal to help the spread of Christianity. Moreover, I would like to see the sources of your claims to this effect.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Rational thought is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
blackregiment
You know, people have been through this post with you many times, and you still continue to post it. Well, at least you seem to have stopped the whole "everything from nothing" straw man about the Big Bang...
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
I have had no reason to point out the reality that nauralists that do not believe in a Creator, by default assume that the universe created itself, that everything came from nothing.
*sigh* more proof that you don't actually know what the Big Bang theory states.
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Rational thought is required.
Is this a joke? :/ he has a dry sense of humour.[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
*sigh* do I really need to point out how stupid that statement is?
That said, eyewitness accounts are not necessarily reliable, even in number (besides which, to my knowledge, these accounts are documented nowhere besides The Bible, which seems just a little suspicious). Think of how many people have claimed to have seen aliens. Think of how many children have claimed there are monsters in their rooms. I guess we should accept that aliens and monsters exist as well. :o
chessmaster1989
Rational thought about the evidence is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
blackregiment, you do not seem to realize that it is impossible for someone to be an eyewitness against something not happening (in the sense you describe). Why would someone record that they did not see Jesus resurrected? If you cannot accept this simple fact, I really don't know what to say.
Now, I'll just deal with your post quickly. First of all, the tomb of Jesus has never verifiably been found (to my knowledge). A possible tomb was found a few years ago, though I confess I do not know what was made of it.
An empty tomb itself is not proof of the resurrection of Jesus; it is merely proof that Jesus' body is not there. It may never have been entombed there (at times, when a body is not available for burial, a grave is constructed nonetheless). Even if it was entombed there, there are other explanations (such as graverobbers).
I have never claimed the apostles lied. They may have imagined it; they may have seen Jesus in a dream and mistaken it for reality. The eyewitness accounts are recorded only in The Bible, which casts doubt upon their credibility. It is true that members of many religions have sacrificed themselves for their beliefs, making your point about the sufferings of the apostles irrelevant.
The next point about their strength following the "resurrection" is explained whether they thought the resurrection occurred, or whether it actually occurred. It is, thus, not a valid argument.
Again, to your next point, I have not said they lied. They may have well believed what they did, and been willing to die thinking they'd go to heaven.
The Church, to my knowledge, did not grow particularly quickly; in any case, Emperor Constantine did a good deal to help the spread of Christianity. Moreover, I would like to see the sources of your claims to this effect.
Feel free to believe what you choose and speculate all you want but I must inform you that the vast majority of scholars, both secular and Biblical dispute your speculations regarding the empty tomb and what and why the Apostles believed wht they did. Mass dreams across several different people, all having the same dream at the same time is more ludicrous than believing the universe and life creating itself.
Grave robbers huh? With a company of Roman soldiers guarding a sealed tomb, under penalty of death if anything should go amiss, yea right!
Also, there is a vast difference in dying for what one believes to be true and what one knows to be true because they were eyewitnesses.
[QUOTE="Schultz38"]Hell doesn't exist. He has all the time in the world to make the right decisions, and among those would be to not be a Christian.If Heaven and Hell is real, and you go to Hell, you'll have plenty of time to think about it when you're in Hell. Spend the time to think about it now, to save you from an eternity in Hell.
Don't take this the wrong way, please, I'm just saying why you should think about it now.
Genetic_Code
wow why do you not like christians so much???
1. Then cite some sources that verify what you claim about these scholars. Granted that these scholars are to be trusted.1. Feel free to believe what you choose and speculate all you want but I must inform you that the vast majority of scholars, both secular and Biblical dispute your speculations regarding the empty tomb and what and why the Apostles believed wht they did.2. Mass dreams across several different people, all having the same dream at the same time is more ludicrous than believing the universe and life creating itself.
3. Grave robbers huh? With a company of Roman soldiers guarding a sealed tomb, under penalty of death if anything should go amiss, yea right!
4. Also, there is a vast difference in dying for what one believes to be true and what one knows to be true because they were eyewitnesses.
blackregiment
2. Mass delusions happened quite often in an environment of religious zeal.
3. Were the Roman Soldiers guarding it from 30+ AD, till now, constantly? I think not.
4. Which proves absolutely nothing.
Hell doesn't exist. He has all the time in the world to make the right decisions, and among those would be to not be a Christian.[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Schultz38"]
If Heaven and Hell is real, and you go to Hell, you'll have plenty of time to think about it when you're in Hell. Spend the time to think about it now, to save you from an eternity in Hell.
Don't take this the wrong way, please, I'm just saying why you should think about it now.
njean777
wow why do you not like christians so much???
He doesn't.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Rational thought about the evidence is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
blackregiment
blackregiment, you do not seem to realize that it is impossible for someone to be an eyewitness against something not happening (in the sense you describe). Why would someone record that they did not see Jesus resurrected? If you cannot accept this simple fact, I really don't know what to say.
Now, I'll just deal with your post quickly. First of all, the tomb of Jesus has never verifiably been found (to my knowledge). A possible tomb was found a few years ago, though I confess I do not know what was made of it.
An empty tomb itself is not proof of the resurrection of Jesus; it is merely proof that Jesus' body is not there. It may never have been entombed there (at times, when a body is not available for burial, a grave is constructed nonetheless). Even if it was entombed there, there are other explanations (such as graverobbers).
I have never claimed the apostles lied. They may have imagined it; they may have seen Jesus in a dream and mistaken it for reality. The eyewitness accounts are recorded only in The Bible, which casts doubt upon their credibility. It is true that members of many religions have sacrificed themselves for their beliefs, making your point about the sufferings of the apostles irrelevant.
The next point about their strength following the "resurrection" is explained whether they thought the resurrection occurred, or whether it actually occurred. It is, thus, not a valid argument.
Again, to your next point, I have not said they lied. They may have well believed what they did, and been willing to die thinking they'd go to heaven.
The Church, to my knowledge, did not grow particularly quickly; in any case, Emperor Constantine did a good deal to help the spread of Christianity. Moreover, I would like to see the sources of your claims to this effect.
Feel free to believe what you choose and speculate all you want but I must inform you that the vast majority of scholars, both secular and Biblical dispute your speculations regarding the empty tomb and what and why the Apostles believed wht they did. Mass dreams across several different people, all having the same dream at the same time is more ludicrous than believing the universe and life creating itself.
Grave robbers huh? With a company of Roman soldiers guarding a sealed tomb, under penalty of death if anything should go amiss, yea right!
Also, there is a vast difference in dying for what one believes to be true and what one knows to be true because they were eyewitnesses.
You have ignored my point about not having the verified tomb of Jesus. Thus, describing the tomb as empty is a fallacy. Moreover, the tomb most certainly would not have been guarded by Roman soldiers for hundreds of years, particularly not after the fall of the empire. There have been many centuries over which the body could have been taken.
You again ignore the problem of eyewitness testimony not being necessarily accurate...
As an additional note, blackregiment, please provide me a source to support the statement I have bolded.
...
chessmaster1989
You put up a hell of an argument. :P
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="blackregiment"]
Rational thought about the evidence is required.
In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .
They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.
A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead.
A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.
Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?
Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs or be required to think rationally, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.
The score remains, 500+ eyewitness for the resurrection, 0 eyewitnesses against.
blackregiment
blackregiment, you do not seem to realize that it is impossible for someone to be an eyewitness against something not happening (in the sense you describe). Why would someone record that they did not see Jesus resurrected? If you cannot accept this simple fact, I really don't know what to say.
Now, I'll just deal with your post quickly. First of all, the tomb of Jesus has never verifiably been found (to my knowledge). A possible tomb was found a few years ago, though I confess I do not know what was made of it.
An empty tomb itself is not proof of the resurrection of Jesus; it is merely proof that Jesus' body is not there. It may never have been entombed there (at times, when a body is not available for burial, a grave is constructed nonetheless). Even if it was entombed there, there are other explanations (such as graverobbers).
I have never claimed the apostles lied. They may have imagined it; they may have seen Jesus in a dream and mistaken it for reality. The eyewitness accounts are recorded only in The Bible, which casts doubt upon their credibility. It is true that members of many religions have sacrificed themselves for their beliefs, making your point about the sufferings of the apostles irrelevant.
The next point about their strength following the "resurrection" is explained whether they thought the resurrection occurred, or whether it actually occurred. It is, thus, not a valid argument.
Again, to your next point, I have not said they lied. They may have well believed what they did, and been willing to die thinking they'd go to heaven.
The Church, to my knowledge, did not grow particularly quickly; in any case, Emperor Constantine did a good deal to help the spread of Christianity. Moreover, I would like to see the sources of your claims to this effect.
Feel free to believe what you choose and speculate all you want but I must inform you that the vast majority of scholars, both secular and Biblical dispute your speculations regarding the empty tomb and what and why the Apostles believed wht they did. Mass dreams across several different people, all having the same dream at the same time is more ludicrous than believing the universe and life creating itself.
Grave robbers huh? With a company of Roman soldiers guarding a sealed tomb, under penalty of death if anything should go amiss, yea right!
Also, there is a vast difference in dying for what one believes to be true and what one knows to be true because they were eyewitnesses.
Wow... so some man living in the sky clicked his fingers and BANG the earth and EVERYTHING just appeared. Atleast science has proof.
Look at it this way.....
Conventional Logic: "I got a baseball." "Oh yea? Prove it" "Here it is"
Religious Logic: " I got a baseball." "Oh yea? Prove it." "YOU CAN'T PROVE I DON'T!"
I used to be called an anglican, I just believe if you do the right things and help people out and there is a God, even if you don't believe, which I do, you will have an enternal life or w/e.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
...
ghoklebutter
You put up a hell of an argument. :P
Thank you.
By the way, I enjoyed your latest blog post on Islam.
this question is wack..... Is it a coincidence how unique a religion is?! what does that mean?! it was at the total discretion of its creators! It's not unique, it's false. A better question would be: "Do you believe in Christianity?". If this is some sort of attempt to make a point that Christianity is true..... [spoiler] EPIC FAIL [/spoiler] Really, read this question over.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
...
chessmaster1989
You put up a hell of an argument. :P
Thank you.
By the way, I enjoyed your latest blog post on Islam.
Thanks, I do what I can.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]
You put up a hell of an argument. :P
ghoklebutter
Thank you.
By the way, I enjoyed your latest blog post on Islam.
Thanks, I do what I can.
Out of curiosity, are you a Muslim?
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Thank you.
By the way, I enjoyed your latest blog post on Islam.
chessmaster1989
Thanks, I do what I can.
Out of curiosity, are you a Muslim?
Yes I am.
3. Were the Roman Soldiers guarding it from 30+ AD, till now, constantly? I think not. Teenaged
I don't hate Christians. I hate their religion.wow why do you not like christians so much???
njean777
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] 3. Were the Roman Soldiers guarding it from 30+ AD, till now, constantly? I think not. Crushmaster
Try again. ;)
I am talking about the empty tomb they found in modern years. And about that you might want to read Chessmaster's post in this page which explains more on the issue.
Also TC, you fail to realize that Christianity isn't the only religion that respects women. Islam and Judaism are also very focused on women's rights. The bible is NOT the only book with scientific "facts," the Koran and Torah also have those. This is why I am Muslim; all of these books are the same in a way and Islam is merely a conclusion to the Abrahamic faith. Although that doesn't give me the right to preach inceassantly about it, unlike many Christians that I see. I respect your opinion though. But don't expect GS users to be conviced by your post. (Save for users like mindstorm and blackregiment.) ghoklebutter
Eye witnesses recorded in the Bible are not verified.
Try again. ;)
I am talking about the empty tomb they found in modern years. And about that you might want to read Chessmaster's post in this page which explains more on the issue. Teenaged
I don't hate Christians. I hate their religion.Genetic_Code
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Eye witnesses recorded in the Bible are not verified.
Try again. ;)
I am talking about the empty tomb they found in modern years. And about that you might want to read Chessmaster's post in this page which explains more on the issue. Crushmaster
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"] I don't hate Christians. I hate their religion.Crushmaster
May I ask you why do you feel the need to judge people based on their beliefs ?
[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Eye witnesses recorded in the Bible are not verified.
Try again. ;)
I am talking about the empty tomb they found in modern years. And about that you might want to read Chessmaster's post in this page which explains more on the issue. Teenaged
O no you di'nt :o
You are right. There was nothing to disprove in the first place. Teenaged
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Also TC, you fail to realize that Christianity isn't the only religion that respects women. Islam and Judaism are also very focused on women's rights. The bible is NOT the only book with scientific "facts," the Koran and Torah also have those. This is why I am Muslim; all of these books are the same in a way and Islam is merely a conclusion to the Abrahamic faith. Although that doesn't give me the right to preach inceassantly about it, unlike many Christians that I see. I respect your opinion though. But don't expect GS users to be conviced by your post. (Save for users like mindstorm and blackregiment.) Crushmaster
You need to understand the context of those verses, those websites just pick the verses out of their context. Islam has almost the exact same laws for women like in Judaism, undeniably.
Muhammad only fought in self-defense, not for the heck of it. He wasn't a pedophile, because if he was, the Jews in Arabia would have a problem with it, no? But they didn't, and she was very mature for her age.
Allah means "the God" in Arabic. I should know since I can speak Arabic. We believe your idea of god is twisted, but we still think we worship the same, one, true god.
Please, do your reasearch before you critcize my religion. At least I do my research for Christianity. (And no, I don't hate Jews and Christians. )
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] You are right. There was nothing to disprove in the first place. Crushmaster
why even bother coming to OT in the first place?
[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"] I don't hate Christians. I hate their religion.flordeceres
May I ask you why do you feel the need to judge people based on their beliefs ?
What exactly do you mean by that?[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Eye witnesses recorded in the Bible are not verified.
Try again. ;)
I am talking about the empty tomb they found in modern years. And about that you might want to read Chessmaster's post in this page which explains more on the issue. Crushmaster
1. The data you have are not strong enough, are not verified and are susceptible to a lot of criticism due to their fallibility.
That renders your position fragile and easily refutable. Therefore I dont need to go back in time with my camera and record thieves taking away Jesus' body from the grave to prove you wrong.
On the other hand something tells me that even if I did and showed you the video, your answer would be: "Sorry, nothing you said disproves me"
-_-
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Also TC, you fail to realize that Christianity isn't the only religion that respects women. Islam and Judaism are also very focused on women's rights. The bible is NOT the only book with scientific "facts," the Koran and Torah also have those. This is why I am Muslim; all of these books are the same in a way and Islam is merely a conclusion to the Abrahamic faith. Although that doesn't give me the right to preach inceassantly about it, unlike many Christians that I see. I respect your opinion though. But don't expect GS users to be conviced by your post. (Save for users like mindstorm and blackregiment.) Crushmaster
sigh...... and you wonder why people are turning away from christianity.
[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Eye witnesses recorded in the Bible are not verified.
Try again. ;)
I am talking about the empty tomb they found in modern years. And about that you might want to read Chessmaster's post in this page which explains more on the issue. Teenaged
1. The data you have are not strong enough, are not verified and are susceptible to a lot of criticism due to their fallibility.
That renders your position fragile and easily refutable. Therefore I dont need to go back in time with my camera and record thieves taking away Jesus' body from the grave to prove you wrong.
On the other hand something tells me that even if I did and showed you the video, your answer would be: "Sorry, nothing you said disproves me"
-_-
Sorry if Crushmaster or someone else has asked you this, but are you saying Jesus IS real, and he DID live?
Its very ironic seeing you blaim other religions for the position they have reserved for women...
As to Islam respecting women? No. Look at this - quotes about women from the Koran.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/interesting-quotes-about-women-quranCrushmaster
Ah Christ, I thought we were done with this thread. Welcome back Crushmaster. :V
[QUOTE="flordeceres"][QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Genetic, may I ask why you hate Christianity?Crushmaster
May I ask you why do you feel the need to judge people based on their beliefs ?
What exactly do you mean by that? How can she be clearer?And now for a serious answer.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
Sorry, nothing you said disproves me.Schultz38
1. The data you have are not strong enough, are not verified and are susceptible to a lot of criticism due to their fallibility.
That renders your position fragile and easily refutable. Therefore I dont need to go back in time with my camera and record thieves taking away Jesus' body from the grave to prove you wrong.
On the other hand something tells me that even if I did and showed you the video, your answer would be: "Sorry, nothing you said disproves me"
-_-
Sorry if Crushmaster or someone else has asked you this, but are you saying Jesus IS real, and he DID live?
He did exist, though he isn't alive anymore.
You need to understand the context of those verses, those websites just pick the verses out of their context. Islam has almost the exact same laws for women like in Judaism, undeniably. ghoklebutter
Muhammad only fought in self-defense, not for the heck of it. He wasn't a pedophile, because if he was, the Jews in Arabia would have a problem with it, no? But they didn't, and she was very mature for her age. ghoklebutter
Allah means "the God" in Arabic. I should know since I can speak Arabic. We believe your idea of god is twisted, but we still think we worship the same, one, true god. ghoklebutter
Its very ironic seeing you blaim other religions for the position they have reserved for women...[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]
As to Islam respecting women? No. Look at this - quotes about women from the Koran.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/interesting-quotes-about-women-quranTeenaged
That information is false anyway.
What exactly do you mean by that? How can she be clearer?Ah Christ, I thought we were done with this thread. Welcome back Crushmaster. :V [QUOTE="Crushmaster"][QUOTE="flordeceres"]
May I ask you why do you feel the need to judge people based on their beliefs ?
MrPraline
Yeah, she could. Crushmaster is not "judge(ing) people based on their beleifs."
Ghokle, let me ask you a question. Would you consider yourself to be a good person?Crushmaster
That's what I meant. I don't need to say anything else.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment