[QUOTE="MatrixSamurai27"]

I was referring to Islam as well as other religions here.

GabuEx

But... they can't all be true, can they?

You aren't reading what I said correctly. I was stating that there is a crucial difference between the Apostles who died for their religion and people like Muslims who die for their religion today. The Apostles didn't just believe, but claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead. Thus, they would have firsthand knowledge of whether it was true or not. Unlike them, Muslims today merely claim to believe in Allah, and have no firsthand knowledge of whether or not he exists.

The author(sw) of the new testament claimed that it was true. There is no empiracle proof as to them actually believing in what is written about.BumFluff122

Yes there is. We have the book of Acts showing that they claimed Jesus had risen from the dead, as well as the gospels showing this as well. The books were written as history. The onus is on you to show that the authors of these books were lying about them claiming this.

I would also be interested in learning where the factual evidence for the martyrdoms are.BumFluff122

I will get you the sources. It will take some time to get the list of sources together.

And sicne every christian belives somethign differently, I meant your own personal beliefs.BumFluff122

For starters, I affirm the Nicene Creed among other things...

Using the New Testament to prove the Old Testmanents credibility is merely using curcular logic. You are using the same books that your religion si based on.BumFluff122

I'm not arguing for the credibility of the OT here, but Jesus' resurrection.

Provide soem factual evidence outside of any religious text to make your point.BumFluff122

Like I said, the sources are outside the Bible, but factual evidence can be found in religious texts.

-Born in a region that never heard of the word of God and the the story of salvation, well they burn in hell forever.Shhadow_Viper

Thank you for giving reasons. Anyway, the Bible actually teaches that these people still have a chance at salvation.

-Rape and Kill hundreds or even thousands of people, then repent and take the lord into your heart, well they get a eternity of pleasure and luxury in heaven.Shhadow_Viper

They may get to spend eternity with God, but they will still be judged for their crimes. Paul says when talking of what Christians did with their lives,

"If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

-1st Corinthians 3:14-15

People's choices in this life will affect the quality of their eternity, whether it's in Heaven or Hell.

-You live a sincerely honest life of literal moral perfection, yet choose an alternate religion, you are worshipping a false idol and will burn in hell forever.Shhadow_Viper

It can only be considered a morally perfect life if the wrong standard is used. If God's standard is the correct one, then no one lives a morally perfect life. Also, the Bible does not teach that people will literally burn in Hell, but will experience varying degrees of shame.

[QUOTE="MatrixSamurai27"]

3. People do not die for something they know to be a lie.

4. Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

GabuEx

Does that also mean that Islam is correct because of all the people that died for it as well?

It seems likely that they thought that Jesus rose from the dead, but that doesn't prove that he did.

I was referring to Islam as well as other religions here.

*Notice an important nuance in the argument. They didn't merely claim to believe he rose from the dead, but that they had seen him risen from the dead. Please don't make comparisons to people today who die for their religion who have no firsthand knowledge of its truthfulness.MatrixSamurai27

I am asking for you personal Christian beliefs.BumFluff122

Specifically, my beliefs about the origin of the universe and life? Or are you talking about what I think makes one a Christian?

Your second post basically uses the bible to prove the bibles credibility. Which I am sure we can both agree is circular reasoning.

BumFluff122

Nope. The NT is used to show point 1 to be correct, but only that they claimed that. Like I said earlier, I don't think the 4 gospels prove the historicity of the resurrection. As for point 2, the NT only records one of the 11 martrydoms, and the knowlegde of the other 10 come from sources outside the NT. Ball is in your court.

Perhaps we should discuss what your personal beliefs are concerning Christianity because I'm fairly certain that everything that is brought up you will merely shoot down as being a metaphor of something else. In order to have an argument over the accuracies of the bible, as it pertains to your beliefs, we first need a ground on which to stand.BumFluff122

I'm not sure what information your asking of me here.

And what is the evidence for his resurrection?BumFluff122

There are several lines of evidence. We will discuss one for right now.

1. The 12 Apostles claimed to have seen Jesus risen from the dead.

2. 11 of them suffered martydom for their faith because they didn't recant. The other died of old age.

3. People do not die for something they know to be a lie.

4. Therefore, Jesus rose from the dead.

*Notice an important nuance in the argument. They didn't merely claim to believe he rose from the dead, but that they had seen him risen from the dead. Please don't make comparisons to people today who die for their religion who have no firsthand knowledge of its truthfulness.

**If you're going to claim they hallunicated in seeing him, you better be ready to explain how that was possible considering the circumstances.

I have stated above that post was meant as a joke. Me stating "So I heard", which I did, would imply that I do not have first hand knowledge of it.BumFluff122

I took that to refer to the point about Satan, not what you said about the commandment. You seemed to be saying that in response to my request for showing why God's killings were immoral, not my request for where Satan is said to kill people.

It is generally thought that the God of the old testaments was a cruel God even amongst plenty of Christians. I have not debated the bible or what it says to great length, I'm fairly certain that someone else who is more knwoledgeable of the bible would be hapy to tell you just why the God of the old testament is considered cruel.BumFluff122

I am aware of why non-Christians think he is cruel, but Christians usually don't think he was.

As for your first statement, you asked me what scientific facts suport the belief that the bible is false? I listed some, and that was only from the first few sentences of the bible. Then you go on to state that "Well that is a metaphor for what really happened" more or less.BumFluff122

Um, I said the hebrew word for "create" means exactly what it means, not that it was a figure of speech for something else.

He was actually called Yeshua(spelling) and not Jesus, the letter J didnt exist then.

Free_Marxet

Oh no! Everything I have believed is a lie!

LOL

Do you seriously think your point was something in favor of your case? I am quite aware the Bible wasn't written in modern English.

and also, thats not "circular"

i think u mean its a paradox or something to that effect

and maybe ur right

but that also means Christianity is a paradox

and why put ur faith in something that u cant understand or explain

and also im not saying it isnt right

Christianity may be the true answer

but I personally would need proof, and even then

just not my cup of tea

and if i have to burn in hell for all eternity because of MY ideals

so be it

i-rock-socks

Your display of the rationality and reason of unbelief in your post is so incredible that I am seriously considering deconverting.

We have no conclusive evidence that he existed, and if he did all of his super natural abilities were just as valid as any other divine story. In other words, bogus. I need empirical evidence that literally shows without a shadow of any doubt that jesus walked on water... right after you prove he existed in the first place.Free_Marxet

The idea that Jesus wasn't even a historical person is bunk. It goes against the consensus of Christian and non-Christian scholars. Therefore, the burden is on you to show why the scholarly consensus is wrong. As for the other parts you want evidence for, I need to know what you mean by empirical.