To those who would stop posting because of Hate slurs. - Page 4

Preacherman · 02-05-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

How did he cross examine the witnesses? Were his sources reliable and unprejudiced? What about official documents? Was there proof in the Roman bureaucracy of a resurrection?

There are letters found from people, both for and against Jesus that verify the resurrection. That and several miricals he performed. Many said he did it with the power of Demons. But he did it regardless. I'll try to find the artical.

They proved it in a court of law not to long ago in Italy. Not fact mind you, but beyond the reason of doubt

teethandclaws · 02-05-2007, 09:52 AM

Was the court religiously biased? Did they have faith, pre-existing the trial? If so, there isn't objectivity, and the results of the trial are null and void.

Preacherman · 02-05-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teethandclaws

Was the court religiously biased? Did they have faith, pre-existing the trial? If so, there isn't objectivity, and the results of the trial are null and void.

From what I understand, the professor conducting the study was accualy out to prove Christ never existed. I cant seem to find it though, so I guess its moot.

indago · 02-05-2007, 10:16 AM

There is a movie out that has been on cable a couple of times recently called The Man Who Sued God. It's about a man who's fishing boat was struck by a lightning bolt, and caught fire and burned. He went to collect from his insurance company, and they said it was an Act of God, and wouldn't pay him. So he filed a lawsuit in the court, naming God as the Defendant.

An interesting movie, with a lot of really good dialogue.

Jaxian · 02-05-2007, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Thanks to the work of Simon Greenleaf, sometimes you have to love lawyers, we can say with certainty that according to history the Resurrection of Jesus did occur. Furthermore, since Jesus peformed miracles, was resurrected we know him to be the Son of God. Taking that the 4 Gospels of the New Testament revolve around what Jesus taught, and what Jesus said, we can know about God. For it is his words that are spoken through the son, for God and Christ are one and the same. Religion does not require faith, for faith is believing in the absence of proof, yet time and again, science has proven the Bible to be correct. So it would seem that not only do we have faith, but we have scientific evidence supporting our beliefs. Not bad for a 2000 year old book.......

dmk

I think you are mistaken about Simon Greenleaf. If I remember correctly, the only thing he did is show that some pieces of the New Testament should be accepted as what they appear to be in a court of law. The only thing he needs to prove to do this is that these documents originated in a place you'd expect to find them, and that there are no signs of forgery. The burden of proving those documents false was placed on the person who objects to them.

These rules for accepting an ancient document into a court are proof of nothing, and they are not scientific. There is not, as I am aware, any evidence that Jesus existed other than the testimony of his disciples.

OhDear · 02-05-2007, 11:52 AM

I am a believer, albeit, a bit of a wobbly one, I guess...

Still, I don't get why believers want evidence for their faith. If something has evidence, then the receiving it as true is no longer a matter of faith, is it?

And if one believes what the Bible says, it says that without faith it is impossible to please God.

Faith is suppose to be THE EVIDENCE. It is a whole different category of perception. There is no evidence to conclude faith. In this matter, you start with faith, not work up to it, by a series of tests, by weights and measures.

Faith is not something you can compel another to by evidence, by sense, by reason. Faith is without those. It is a mystery and is as Brennan Manning says, spoiled by a word.

And yet, there is much speaking in faith circles, trying to find a way to "save face" as a believer. Trying to make it a logical thing to have.

The Case for Christ, The Case for the Resurrection, no. Once you would be able to truly make a case for it, if you truly could, you have stripped it of its mystery. Stripped it of its wonder. And the truth be told, if there are no doubts, there is no real and living faith.

Faith only exists in the atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty.

OD

Antithesis · 02-05-2007, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

I am a believer, albeit, a bit of a wobbly one, I guess...

Still, I don't get why believers want evidence for their faith. If something has evidence, then the receiving it as true is no longer a matter of faith, is it?

And if one believes what the Bible says, it says that without faith it is impossible to please God.

Faith is suppose to be THE EVIDENCE. It is a whole different category of perception. There is no evidence to conclude faith. In this matter, you start with faith, not work up to it, by a series of tests, by weights and measures.

Faith is not something you can compel another to by evidence, by sense, by reason. Faith is without those. It is a mystery and is as Brennan Manning says, spoiled by a word.

And yet, there is much speaking in faith circles, trying to find a way to "save face" as a believer. Trying to make it a logical thing to have.

The Case for Christ, The Case for the Resurrection, no. Once you would be able to truly make a case for it, if you truly could, you have stripped it of its mystery. Stripped it of its wonder. And the truth be told, if there are no doubts, there is no real and living faith.

Faith only exists in the atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty.

OD

The problem with that is that faith clouds people's reason and makes them claim things to be true simply because they "feel" it.

OhDear · 02-05-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

The problem with that is that faith clouds people's reason and makes them claim things to be true simply because they "feel" it.

I don't feel anything right now Anti. And it would be easy based on how very "numb" I am to discard faith. In fact, maybe I have tonight.

But I can't help believing against all feelings, against all reason, that there is a God in heaven who sees me and though my faith flickers like a dim, nearly burnt out little light, He is. And He is mine even as I am His.

A feeling? No, I can't say that. More of a possession.

OD

Antithesis · 02-05-2007, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhDear

I don't feel anything right now Anti. And it would be easy based on how very "numb" I am to discard faith. In fact, maybe I have tonight.

But I can't help believing against all feelings, against all reason, that there is a God in heaven who sees me and though my faith flickers like a dim, nearly burnt out little light, He is. And He is mine even as I am His.

A feeling? No, I can't say that. More of a possession.

OD

Well, yeah, it's the same with me. That's probably the biggest reason why I'm not an atheist. I just can't confirm or deny god's existence, so I'm left up in the air, but it's a hell of a lot better than blindly taking direction from a book that I'm not even in moral agreement with.

hevusa · 02-06-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Well, yeah, it's the same with me. That's probably the biggest reason why I'm not an atheist. I just can't confirm or deny god's existence, so I'm left up in the air, but it's a hell of a lot better than blindly taking direction from a book that I'm not even in moral agreement with.

I could not agree more with this idea of honesty you put forth. This is my stance on God as well. Athiests and Christians are on the same immoral level for me since they both claim knowledge about something which cannot be known. For me this equates to lying and I would never do that in regards to an idea like God (I simply respect the theory too much).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode