By all means, question everything. That's what Ehrman did. Deep, in depth study indicates bias and tunnel vision to you? What would indicate a lack of bias? No study and just picking what you feel like believing? Does that have more integrity? - - - Updated - - - Very true.
Zero. Never heard the term before reading your post. Are those the people who use history to prove the Bible correct? If so, that does not impress me as I know that some of the Bible is based upon actual history. But just because some of it is accurate does not mean that it all is. How does the Bible prove the resurrection of Jesus? How does it prove that woman came from a man's rib?
Yes, they use history, and a few other things. I don't think you really want the "Bible" to prove the resurrection or the woman from a rib, as that would be circular reasoning, but if you do honest investigation on those apologetics books and websites, they can give you some pretty good info.
I do not seek pretty good info, I seek provable fact. I do not want anything from the Bible, it is just an inanimate object, a book, but I would like to see proof that some of the key events in the Bible like the resurrection of Christ is real. Without facts on this I cannot believe. I seek facts not in an attempt to discredit Christianity, but because I want to believe. I cannot take it all on faith alone and do not understand how any can. Like I have said, I believe in God because of the experiences I have had in my life, not because I read it in a book. But if someone could prove to me the resurrection of Christ which IMO is a seminal moment in Christian history, then I would be a believer.
Apologetics is the discipline of making the incredible sound credible. It tries to justify the many inconsistencies of scripture and convince you that they have disappeared. If you are inclined to want to believe, it provides a framework to allow yourself to. If you investigate their claims too carefully, though, not only are the scriptures discredited, but so are the apologists.
The resurrection is a the seminal point to put it as lightly as possible. Without the resurrection, He's just a cool, dead dude in the ground, nothing more nothing less. So what would it take for you to believe the resurrection?
It would take proof. But how can one possibly prove that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven to forum some holy trinity? It would probably take Jesus himself appearing before me for me to believe. That or a time machine, a video recorder and an invisibility cloak so I could go back to the time of Christ and see the events for myself. Do you have proof that Jesus was resurrected? If you offer up the Bible as proof then I will need you to prove that the passages that you select are factually based for them to be taken seriously by me. But its all in reality just an exercise in futility as one cannot prove the intangible.
If he was put in the ground he ended up in the Graveyard of the Condemned if he was lucky enough not to end up on a trash heap/
I don't think I would use scripture to "prove" the resurrection" to you as I said in post #33 that would be "circular reasoning". So you say it would take "proof", and then talk about how difficult it would be to prove it. Is it safe to say you don't want proof? The same as I want proof? If Christ came down and somehow proved to you that He was real, and that scripture was all true, what effects would that have on your life?
He doesn't want proof like you want proof. You want it so much you will compromise the meaning of the word to feel like you have discovered it.
I have no idea where you are getting the circular reasoning. I think what I am saying and what your interpretation of what I am saying is two different things. I see a line not a circle. You want me to believe that Jesus is God then use the Bible to prove your point... I take it one step further and ask why I should believe the Bible is anything other than man's interpretation of God? If you have no proof that the entire body of the Bible is fact, then on what grounds do you expect me to believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Sounds to me like you are rationalizing what I am saying in a way that makes sense to you rather than truly understanding what I am saying. I want to see proof that Jesus was resurrected if such proof exists. What I want is fact based truth. If you or others see this as a coy play to discredit Christianity then I say believe what you want about me and my intentions. Some people just demand actual proof and cannot just take it all on faith alone. Perhaps that intimidates or angers some Christians, I am not sure. But been decades now and as of yet no one has been able to prove that Jesus was resurrected, and I refuse to dishonor Christianity by pretending to believe when I don't. No idea, but I suspect much would change in my outlook in many different ways.
The resurrection story is told in a different version in Luke chapter 15 when Jesus tells the story about the Prodigal Son who returned home. In verse 24 (CEB) the father character says: "because this son of mine was dead and has come back to life! He was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate." We know that the son wasn't actually dead. He had simply been away from his family for a long time. When he finally returned it was if he had returned to life because his prolonged absence was the equivalent of him being dead in his father's heart. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15 Paul goes into a convoluted explanation about the resurrection of Jesus. In verse 16 (CEB) he says: "If the dead aren’t raised, then Christ hasn’t been raised either." This is probably the most important verse in the whole Bible. Physically dead people do not return to life. Modern medicine techniques can resuscitate some people who are in the process of dying but those techniques can not revive a truly dead person. No one who had died 2,000 ears ago ever returned to the land of the living. Paul clearly made the resurrection of Jesus a subset of the dead returning to life. He did not make it an unique event. Therefore, Jesus may have been resurrected as an idea but he was not resurrected as a living, breathing, walking, eating person. Don't forget, he had lost most of his followers when he told them that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 6:53-67&version=CEB Paul resurrected the Jesus character when he started converting the Gentiles.
i love this stuff It is weird that years back, the concepts still reonante when the words are understood. You are the life (light) of your previous generations, alive. It's stupid easy oe.... go loook in da mirror, they are all alive
It seems like the biggest person of compromise around here is you. It seems like you've compromised your beliefs so much that you haven't found something to actually stand on. Tell me bb, have you ever stood for anything? I haven't seen you take a stand yet.
I think I may be missing you and you may be missing me. I will not use the bible to prove the bible. I am agreeing with you here. That's what I'm trying to say, I AGREE WITH YOU!!! We're on the same page. I respect your intellect enough not to try to prove God or Jesus to you by using scripture to prove scripture. When you do that, it is called "circular reasoning". If you have any question as to what circular reasoning is, look it up, the fact that I'm not using it is a testimony to the fact that I respect your intellect. I had thought me and you were on a better "footing" than that. Now your next point about needing proof of the resurrection, I understand that, and I can agree with that. You want "fact based truth", and I ask you again, what "proof" are you looking for? what would you like to see? I understand your point and respect it completely, I'm just not sure you've completely taken all of your belief systems to their next logical conclusions, because at some point you're going to take something on faith. Its just a part of our finite humanity not being omniscient. This in no way intimidates me or angers me, and as a side point if you have friends that get "angry" or "intimidated" because you want proof, then that's NOT your problem, that's THEIR problem. They're not very secure in their beliefs. The reason I ask about how your life would change if you found Christ to be real, is because its my belief that once you admit to God, you have to submit to God. Once you come to the realization that Christ is real, then you come to a fork in the road, there is a decision to be made. Do I submit to Christ, or just go my own way in light of the new knowledge.
I beg to differ. What I won't compromise is my decision to use my mind in the process of pursuing an authentic faith. Since I can find no way that the "truth" of God can be genuinely known, I am an agnostic. That doesn't mean I don't believe in God, though I can't be honest and say I have fully embraced the idea. But I won't make some arbitrary faith commitment because I can find no reason to do so. I have taken a stand, but it is one you don't respect. It is a stand for intellectual honesty. You use a word like "proof" as if you can instill it with some new definition. What you can't seem to understand is that not taking a theological stand is the result of not being willing to compromise. If I "haven't found something to actually stand on" it isn't because I'm wishy-washy, it's because I won't let the inconsistencies and incongruities slide. They matter. I am not so desperate to be seen as having THE answer or to imagine to myself that I do that I am willing to not engage my mind fully in application to the task. The reason you think I haven't taken a stand is because the stand I take does not provide a false sense of comfort, a neat wrap up of theological concerns. At the end of my preaching days, I took a baby step in leading the congregation to a more authentic faith than traditional Christianity provides. I started to talk about the mystery of faith, and how it must be embraced. I preached the humility required to admit that there is so much we don't know, and that we will never know in this life, regarding God. I used scripture to support the idea, like Isaiah 55:8-9. I wanted to have the people understand that a militant Christianity is a false one. So if admitting that there are things one can never know is your vision of compromise, I leave you to your chosen arrogance. It has led you to actually stating on these boards that no matter what you learn, it will never change a thing for you. Now that, to me, is not only compromise but intellectual surrender. And I can't do that. That I will stand for.
But that's what I'm talking about, you wont take a stand on anything. You say that you take a stand on "intellectual honesty", yet wont have the intestinal fortitude to have it challenged on this forum. Somehow, you cast yourself as being intellectually honest, and more so than the doctors of apologetics and theology. You belittle the education that they have attained, by saying your stance is somehow more intellectually honest than theirs. Now that my friend is the height of arrogance. Yes, there are a lot of places where I may be wrong, however I have not been convinced that I am. That may be an intelligence problem on my part or a persuasive problem on their part. But, I will take a stand on something until I'm moved off. However, you think NOT taking a theological stand is somehow intellectually honest. By not taking a theological stand, you have taken a theological stand. Their are probably inconsistencies in your view, but you wont allow them to be challenged, for some strange reason.
Don't know how I can be more transparent or consistent. I am taking a stand. God can not be known. What isn't clear about that? You can test my intellectual honesty all you like. However, saying that I have to be touched by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture doesn't tickle me there. What is intellectually testable about that? As discussions wear on, it always comes down to some version of that argument, and it holds no intellectual water. It may satisfy emotionally, but the "think" test doesn't get passed. You seem confused, anyway. You say I am not taking a stand, so I am taking a stand. Sounds like you need to choose a side of that equation and decide where I land. Where have I refused to have my ideas challenged? Do you think having a reply to a theological suggestion means I am not allowing a challenge? I just find the vast majority of them extremely easy challenges to meet. They hold no water when held up to scrutiny. I could never state what you have, that no matter what you find out, no matter what you learn, you will never change. You are steadfast in your beliefs regardless of where the evidence leads. Knowledge is irrelevant, the faith must be defended at all costs. You have stated this. I never could. That's where I stand. I can't make categorical doctrinal statements because I don't think anyone has a clue, though people with extremely disparate beliefs are equally convinced that they are the keeper of the keys.
An interesting interpretation that I have not heard before. My problem is that it still lacks any proof. There are so many views, interpretations and opinions on the point of Jesus that is makes it impossible for me to believe any of it. The more I talk with Christians the more convinced I become that Christianity is not based on facts or truth, but on interpretation and blind faith. If that works for Christians, awesome and I honestly say more power to ya. But for me I cannot believe in Jesus as God without proof of his resurrection.
The place that I refer to not allowing your ideas to be challenged is when I said wanted to know where you stood, me and a few others, and you refused to go further. Then I said we could start a new thread, and you wouldn't do that either. so that was what I was referring too. If you're saying that you're ready to discuss your worldview and how you came to it, we can do so. Is that what you're proposing?
