{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/7/2015 12:51:35 PM
63
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
Jesus is pretty strong evidence.
English
-
To counter the 3 points in the article; 1- Grave Robbers (that ones easy) 2- There is a very valid theory the apostles saw the Shroud of Turin and refered to it as the resurrection of Jesus. 3- People are suckers.
-
Do you have any evidence you can link to support this?
-
He is publishing his book on the subject soon, so not yet.
-
Confirmed, Chris Angel is Jesus!
-
Despite its attempts to avoid doing so, those arguments are still based on assumptions. The premises of the argument isn't solid enough to go on.
-
Edited by Leo687: 9/11/2015 2:20:20 PMJesus has supposedly been proven to have lived but there is none for the miracles he provided nor any other biblical miracles. Mohammed has been proven to have existed yet by your logic that makes both christianity and Islam the true religions.
-
I'm saying there is some evidence for the resurrection. I am not saying the fact he existed proves anything....
-
There is also evidence that he was never crucified but instead fled to a neighbouring country. As a crappy film once said (the divinci code) the existence of Jesus has been proven his divinity however has not.
-
I would be very interested in seeing your source on that one.
-
That would insinuate I hold the evidence myself. That being said Google,research and delve deep. It's quite commonly believed that before his launch into fame as the messiah relatively nothing is known of jesus's Young years we have his birth (despite the contradiction of his birth not happening in December) and we have his life story from his 30's but nothing in between.
-
I'm always researching my friend. From what I understand, that theory (no crucifixion) has been pretty well refuted and has fallen out of favor. Thought you might have something I missed. To the birthday point. The bible never says anything about that. Dec 25 is catholic dogma, placing Jesus birthday on a pagan holiday, (winter solstice?) to make it more palatable to them. (Sigh) And I wish that more was known about his early years, but I can only infer that since nothing is known, aside from a few tidbits from the bible, that he lived a relatively quiet life.
-
True enough sucks that so many believe whatever they are told though without actually looking through sources themselves. Birthday thing is true yet still argued to be true by more Christians then Catholics in my experience. Same about his early life if only more was known. I have no issues with a God I do however take issue with religion. If there is a god it either created us and is indifferent to us and our struggles/suffering or it created the universe and left it to its own devices kinda like a scientist with a petrol dish of bacteria.
-
I agree with you on that, not enough people can point to a reason for their belief. I also mostly agree with your stance on religion, a lot of man made corruption in it. So based on your current knowledge, (if your so inclined, I understand if you don't have the time) what is your personal response to the three points made in the article I linked?
-
Edited by Leo687: 9/11/2015 5:29:49 PM1 grave robbers,mistaken about which cave,possibly agreed upon to meet at that place prior to the crucifixion. 2 it is believed back then the only ones to know it was in fact jesus would be his apostles/family/close friends any of the 500 he supposedly came back to see may never have met him before and could have actually just spoken with a stranger or apostle sent with a message by Jesus to go and speak to these ppl. Also given the time period this could be claimed with no evidence no one would argue it happened as nobody could prove it didn't. 3 the church grew and has continued to due to human fallibility.many are taught from very you cementing in their minds that it is true if i raised my children with such fervour claiming there's a pink unicorn in the sky they would grow up believing it to be true humans are very easily taught to accept things a true especially when taught from a young age. Also jesus was against organised religion so the church while perhaps sending out his message is doing it in the incorrect way.
-
Ok thanks for the response. One thing about your grave robber hypothesis, going by the methods of other recorded crucifixions, the one executed was stripped of all possessions and would be interred without any valuables. Being that a contingent of roman guards was placed at the tomb, I would question what possible motivation a robber would have in risking death for no reward. It's true that given the time period there is no way to cross examine the witnesses, so we're left with only the documentation. As for the final point, after a certain point this is very true, after all witnesses were dead it became legend and self propagated. But what of the very first century of its growth? Where it's opponents could have easily stamped it out? The fact that there are records of most of the original apostles executions for staying by their testimony? Surely this at least attests to the fact that they truly believed what they said, and rules them out as suspects for stealing the body themselves? Thanks for the back and forth, very engaging.
-
Edited by Leo687: 9/11/2015 7:28:26 PMNo worries I'm not a religion buff though I do try to learn/know my fair share. What do you make of the changing of the meanings to words in the bible? Back in 'those days' many words that are common for something now meant something different then. I.e Mary being said to be Jesus's companion which to us today tends to mean a travel buddy or friend. Yet back then it was used almost exclusively to mean someone's wife/husband. Also I think that of the bible itself (same goes for Quran I guess) if two readers of the same book can walk away with different perspectives to the same chapter/sentence/psalm then how can it be the word of God? Surely the word of God which is meant to be read by all would have a universal meaning to all ppl not multiples per person. Also the fact that every Christian,Catholic,Muslim picks and chooses on an individual basis what is meant physically and what is meant metaphorically is surely cherry picking what they like and agree with over what sounds bad and they dislike. Also when a story such as Noah's flood is on a Sumerian tablet which predates the bible by a couple thousand years it does show their are grains of truth to the stories but how many grains exactly? Then there's the fact that the bible is made up of dozens of books whose contents have been cherry picked by a council to represent the religion how can you be a Christian without the full story? You are basically following half a religion while being blind to the rest.
-
Ah the shifting meaning of translated and retranslated words, I actually just bought Rosetta stone hebrew course with the plan of reading it in its original language (Greek later haha). I intend to do a contextual study of some of the words in question by seeing how the same author in that particular book uses them in other sentences. I'm sure the same process could be used in the translations but I like to be thorough. As for different interpretations, I'm sure many come in with an agenda looking to prove or disprove a preconceived notion. I'm of the opinion that one should read a piece of writing without stretching to make it say something it doesn't. Simplest most apparent meaning. Many sections of the bible are indeed parables and are explained as such, the parts that aren't parables aren't. The text points them out. It was written thousands of years ago to a different culture than ours. I think many people fail to contextualize the message through this lens and use those modern notions of ancient words that you referred to, ending up with wildly different opinions on what it means. Your referring to the epic of Gilgamesh, I believe. Aside from a flood and a few shared characters it reads much differently, kind of like the Iliad or the odyssey. A fictionalization of history. The fact that it is older and written by the Sumerians, the people from which God supposedly called Abraham out from is very interesting. The council of Nicaea, I've actually studied this one in depth. It was called together by emperor Constantine to codify the christian faith. They summoned the leaders of many disparate groups of Christians from all over the empire. What is amazing is that they all believed the same thing, possessed the same writings (somewhere in the neighborhood of 90+ %) and unanimously agreed without argument that this was the faith handed down to them. (If only something like that could happen today haha)
-
Actually modal logic proved Gods existence over 40 years ago. This was proven by Gödel's ontological proofIt has now been tested and proven further with the use of a super computer by two scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
-
Axiom 3 assumes the existence of God, by forcing any model of the logic to feature a god-like entity. The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous.
-
True dat
-
That site seems totally scientific and non-biased....
-
Edited by LaminarFlow77: 9/11/2015 2:40:10 PMThe site is biased, but the source material it was drawn from is not. I used the article as a handy way to link you all into the ongoing research on the topic. Think of it as a bias test... Are you biased? Wouldn't you expect a christian site to report something like this rather than an atheist site? Yes bias is a thing, but do you ignore unbiased evidence if it is presented from a biased person? That's like saying you can't hold an opinion on anything at all or your automatically disregarded. Tldr- look at the damn evidence they have and not the url
-
No, he's not. Just because he might have existed doesn't mean that he's the son of God.
-
Actually modal logic proved Gods existence over 40 years ago. This was proven by Gödel's ontological proofIt has now been tested and proven further with the use of a super computer by two scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
-
Axiom 3 assumes the existence of God, by forcing any model of the logic to feature a god-like entity. The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous.
