Question For The Christians

[centauri]

The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

Yet, Matthew tried to tie the death of Jesus into a mass resurrection of the dead.

The stories were written after the "fact", which means embellishments and retrofitting to match scriptural interpretation could easily have occurred.

 

Their leader had been crucified as a criminal after being beaten beyond recognition.

Where do the Gospels say he was beaten beyond recognition?

 

However, it is not debatable that the disciples went through a radical change rather suddenly. The creed from 1 Cor. 15:1-3 traces back to as early as within 24 months of the resurrection, which is astounding in historical analysis.

Paul never met Jesus, was instructed by visions, claimed that he learned his gospel from no man, and the specifics he gives in 1 Cor 15:1-3 are not validated by the Gospels or Acts.

The legend of Jessica Lynch can be traced back to within hours of her capture in Iraq.

The legend of Pat Tillman can be traced back to within days after his death.

The legend of Bill Moyers being a radical Marxist arose within hours after Glenn Beck declared it to be so.

Legends and rumors can arise and spread quickly.

 

The post-mortem appearances are attested to by 3 of the 4 Gospels, Acts and other NT books. In other words, it is a multiply attested fact.

It’s a “fact” found only in cult writings that were written to validate cult teachings.

It’s a multiple attested cult story that hasn’t been proven to be factual.

 

Her(Anne Frank) sins condemned her to hell, like ours do for us. Her only hope was to trust in Jesus. I don't know whether she did that, so I don't know what her eternal destiny is.

Glad to see you finally admitting that unbelief in Jesus results in damnation.

[Ouroboros]

There is no other reasonable way to explain this change

 

 

OTHER THAN IT IS A PIECE OF UNSUBSTANTUATED FICTION. Period. Get it yet, moron?

 

A dead guy magically became undead. Yeah, real 'reasonable.'

Don't you know? It must be true because 90% of the Christian Biblical scholars agree it must be true. (Strange that 10% of the Christian scholars do NOT agree.)

 

Facts are proven by referendum and quorum in the Christian world.

[Ouroboros]

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

So who was Lazarus? Are you saying that Jesus resurrected him AFTER his own resurrection? How about Tabita (spelling, or was that her name, don't remember), wasn't she dead and resurrected by Jesus? Or the people the prophets resurrected from the dead in the Old Testament?

 

So they basically didn't believe their own holy scriptures or the events they just had experienced?

 

Or perhaps you are saying that those stories never happened, and only Jesus's resurrection is historical. Well, congratulations, you have now decided that a big chunk of the Bible is just a story without historical backing.

 

Their leader had been crucified as a criminal after being beaten beyond recognition. However, it is not debatable that the disciples went through a radical change rather suddenly. The creed from 1 Cor. 15:1-3 traces back to as early as within 24 months of the resurrection, which is astounding in historical analysis. The post-mortem appearances are attested to by 3 of the 4 Gospels, Acts and other NT books. In other words, it is a multiply attested fact. There is no other reasonable way to explain this change than that they saw what they claimed, the risen Jesus.

 

Except that they are all written from the same story.

 

There are multiple versions of Romeo and Juliette. There are modern adaptations as movies, set in New York and who knows what. That means that Romeo and Juliette were real individuals and the story is true. How else can so many "eyewitnesses" testify about the same story and just get a few details different?

[bdp]

 

The creed from 1 Cor. 15:1-3 traces back to as early as within 24 months of the resurrection

 

Prove it.

 

 

 

it is a multiply attested fact.

 

 

Bullshit - the 'gospel' accounts are fiction that contain NO eyewitnesses to any 'resurrection' and the other NT 'accounts' are hearsay. Acts - does Luke ever claim he saw a risen 'christ'? No, he clearly says he's regurgitating what he had been TOLD by someone else. Is this shit really the best you/Habermas can come up with? And you claim WE can't understand shit.

[Antlerman]

However, I would be more than happy to moderate a debate between LNC and someone like Bob if he were willing. In fact as a moderator on the site, I think if would be most beneficial for this to happen. It could perhaps cut to the chase, rather than the absurd 3 month delays to posts, in some effort to address each and every point of everyone. That makes for an unfocused, circling mess that is less about any real discussion as something else. So, Bob? Interested? Let's make that Arena useful again?

I guess it would depend on the rules, the topic, and the kind of commitment it would take from me to do it justice, but yes, in principle I would be willing to do something like that.

 

--Bob

Choose a topic you would be interested in discussing with him, run it by him, agree on a set of rules, run it by me. If all looks good, I'll set it up. What's nice about this sort of format of one on one, is that you don't fall behind if you take a week to respond. I would just suggest no more than one week delays between responses, unless agreed upon in advance. You can look at the agreed upon rules in some of the other topics there of some ideas. I'll see if I can't suggest a few topics for discussion, but others are free to offer their suggestions as well. Go with whatever you wish.

 

Also, if you'd like to have "round table discussion" style such as Alice and I did before, I might be interested in that along with you since you and I seem to engage in some pretty good thought topics together. That would be interesting. Of course it would have to be a topic I would care enough about, such as "What is the value of all this effort in getting a Master's degree in Apologetics?", aka, "Does debating how you believe you're right, communicate anything meaningful beyond showcasing your arguments?"

[Phanta]

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

So who was Lazarus? Are you saying that Jesus resurrected him AFTER his own resurrection? How about Tabita (spelling, or was that her name, don't remember), wasn't she dead and resurrected by Jesus? Or the people the prophets resurrected from the dead in the Old Testament?

 

So they basically didn't believe their own holy scriptures or the events they just had experienced?

 

Or perhaps you are saying that those stories never happened, and only Jesus's resurrection is historical. Well, congratulations, you have now decided that a big chunk of the Bible is just a story without historical backing.

 

I'll be interested to see the answer to this.

 

Phanta

[Mister Pappy]

I know of many scholars that give him great credibility. N.T. Wright, J.D. Crossan, Robert Price, Richard Bauckham just to name a few.

 

[Deva]

Again Mister P, you show your lack of understanding of historical analysis and the situation in question. The fact is that the apostles would have had every reason to believe that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. They had no belief in resurrections prior to the final resurrection.

 

Excuse me, LNC but really how the hell would you know that?? I can't mind read someone in the same room with me, much less 2,000 years ago in a different country, different customs, different influences... I could go on but I see that common sense has flown the coop here.

 

I'm betting is cause you heard Habermas say it. YOU really have no idea what people thought in that day and age.

[Mister Pappy]

I could go on but I see that common sense has flown the coop here.

Common sense never showed up to begin with here Deva.

[DesertBob]

Choose a topic you would be interested in discussing with him, run it by him, agree on a set of rules, run it by me. If all looks good, I'll set it up.

I messaged him but no response. I know that I sometimes don't see the private message notification, it's rather unobtrusive. So I'm also posting here in case LNC is more likely to see it -- please check your private message and respond to let me know if you would like to engage in a formal debate.

 

--Bob

[Mister Pappy]

I don't think he will agree to debate you Bob. It is far too obvious that he has nothing to stand on. His arguments fall apart instantly. I can't imagine him agreeing to be made a fool of in public.

[bdp]

Choose a topic you would be interested in discussing with him, run it by him, agree on a set of rules, run it by me. If all looks good, I'll set it up.

I messaged him but no response. I know that I sometimes don't see the private message notification, it's rather unobtrusive. So I'm also posting here in case LNC is more likely to see it -- please check your private message and respond to let me know if you would like to engage in a formal debate.

 

--Bob

 

He'll see this far into the thread in two or three weeks.

[Ouroboros]

He'll see this far into the thread in two or three weeks.

And he tends to pick posts both forward and backward in time, so even if he gets here, he might skip it for another five weeks and respond to some newer posts and then go back to this one later.

[Mister Pappy]

Don't you have an email address for him?

[Ouroboros]

Don't you have an email address for him?

Sure. And?

 

He should have the same kind of message system that everyone has on the forum if you want to send him something.

[Mister Pappy]

Sure. And?

I was suggesting that perhaps Antlerman could send him a direct email instead of waiting for him to eventually get around to reading the post here.

[Ouroboros]

Sure. And?

I was suggesting that perhaps Antlerman could send him a direct email instead of waiting for him to eventually get around to reading the post here.

Ah! Ok.

[LNC]

I don't think that was AM's point. My take on it in any case is that any system of belief that has real value should point to ultimate truth, such that one can transcend any mere "-ism" including the belief system's own "-ism". Presumably any system is imperfect or at least imperfectly accessible without a certain level of awareness and understanding. You find this even in within the belief system of scripture, where the Law is characterized as a teacher that leads one to a higher truth, namely grace, where "all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable" -- where the Law, the teaching of the entire Old Testament, is fulfilled and transcended and yet on another level not at all invalidated. Both are correct, neither is incorrect.

 

I agree with AM that Christianity tends to focus on proving itself as "correct" and its rival belief systems as "incorrect" rather than acting as a path to greater understanding. Paradoxically, truth isn't a matter of "correctness" so much as it is a matter of enlightenment, of greater and greater awareness, larger and larger perspective, fewer and fewer preconceptions, etc.

 

I agree with some of what you have said here. Yes, a system of belief that has ultimate value should point to what is true (I don't believe in degrees of truth however). I'm not sure that I would toss out all "isms" as being necessarily untrue. For example, I believe that theism is true, but that physicalism is false (being defined as all that exists is physical). Now, as for your claim that any system is presumably imperfect or imperfectly accessible without a certain level of awareness and understanding - I would say that is true; however, you have not defined what that level is and that is where we might differ. However, I cannot say as you have not indicated what that level is. Yes, the Law was given as a tutor or a guide to show people that grace was necessary for salvation; however, that was not an unfamiliar concept in the OT. Paul shows in Romans 4 that Abraham and David both understood the concept of grace and, I would guess, so did those who realized that the keeping of the standards of the Law was not possible. They knew, as James points out, that being guilty of one point of the Law was the same as being guilty of the whole of the Law (James 2:10)

 

Where do you get the concept that Christianity is focused on proving itself correct and rival systems incorrect? Is that something you see Jesus doing? I don't. In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is just what you were looking for, a path to greater understanding. He is actually bringing proper and fuller understanding to the OT Law.

 

You say that truth isn't a matter of "correctness" but enlightenment. I would ask, enlightenment of what? Can a person be enlightened about anything? For example, could a person be enlightened, as were many charismatic leaders throughout history, that one ethnic group was superior to another? Or, suppose that enlightenment told a person that everyone should drink poisoned Kool-Aid, would that count? Both of these examples are real world examples of people or groups of people who claimed enlightenment. Should we not check that enlightenment against the real world and determine whether it is true? I guess that I can't agree with your definition as it seems to leave too much up to the individual and that leads to relativism. We need something to check these perspectives and preconceptions against, otherwise who is to judge whether poisoned Kool-Aid should be the happy hour drink?

 

I agree that God, if he exists, would not conflict with science -- or, I'd add, with reason. All Stephen Hawking is doing, though, is saying that we lack evidence he exists, and as posited, he would conflict with both science and reason. A Christian cannot go there, even if the facts lead him there, because he is attached to the idea or necessity of god -- or at least, to a particular understanding of god. Stephen can go there because he is not married to any preconceptions about god.

 

 

No, Hawking is taking it a step farther. He is saying that God does not exist and is unnecessary. There is a difference, I believe, between atheism (God does not exist) and agnosticism (I don't know whether God exists). Hawking has attempted the atheist route, although I believe, without success. He has refuted his own arguments within his book. The fact is that I believe we do have evidence that God exists. He may not want to accept it, but he needs to do a better job refuting the arguments for God's existence without relying on unproven, and possibly unprovable scientific hypotheses. Also, before he can use reason for his argument for naturalism/physicalism, it would seem wise to ground reason within that worldview. I'm afraid that will be an impossible task for him as it has been tried by wiser men in this field than he and has not worked out. However, one area that he starts to cut his legs out from underneath him is to say that philosophy is dead (I believe within the first three paragraphs of the book), while then going on to argue philosophically for a position that cannot be proved scientifically - that all of reality is physical.

 

Your argument as to why a Christian cannot go there with these arguments is invalid as it would cut off Hawking at the pass just as much as he is committed to physicalism (as are many scientist and philosophers) and that knife cuts both ways. However, one does not have to assume his or her position to make an argument - that is not a philosophical necessity and when it is done, as is the case with Hawking and his physicalist stance, it is easily detected and called out as such.

 

This is an understandable concern and one that I used to share. It is what I call a "slippery slope" concern based on a perceived need for absolutes or at least for certitude. I've come to the conclusion, though, that it's a needless concern -- or, at least, a pointless one, as the real world doesn't operate that way.

 

To say that there is no absolute right or wrong is no more a capitulating to moral apathy than is to say that because Newtonian physics is not a completely comprehensive description of reality, you can't calculate a trajectory or know the boiling point of water using Newtonian physics. However, in some contexts, Newtonian physics does break down.

 

In the same way, in some contexts, right and wrong break down and get fuzzy. If you want a Biblical referent, consider again how grace is an environment where "all things are lawful". How's that for moral relativism? It's not that the Law was bogus, just that it was not a complete moral framework -- it was relatively simplistic, a blunt, tone-deaf instrument for going through the motions of being a moral being.

 

So, you're saying that unless we can have exhaustive truth, we can't have any objective understanding of truth? Yes, we don't have exhaustive truth of Newtonian physics, but that doesn't prevent us from knowing real truth about the way that the physical world truly operates. Even on the quantum level, we don't understand why it operates the way that it does, but we can make objectively true statements about the quantum world.

 

I think you are confusing having objective truth with having exhaustive truth. For example, can you explain to me when it would be right to torture innocent babies for fun? Now, some will pose the hypothetical by asking what if you were given an ultimatum of torturing a baby or someone is going to kill a million people. That is the lesser of two evils scenario and it doesn't make one right and the other wrong, it is simply choosing the lesser of two evils, so that doesn't work. You must show me that torturing an innocent baby for fun would be a good thing. I don't think it is possible, so therefore, it would be objectively wrong to do.

 

When you quote the verse from the Bible, have you really understood the context? Did the author (Paul) really mean all as in anything is lawful? Or, did he mean that the dietary restrictions put on the Jews no longer applied to Jewish people who have trusted in Christ? It is not relativism because it is a change in the Law, not an appeal that whatever a person thinks is right is right. There was a new standard, not an appeal that it is up to the individual. It isn't that the Law was arbitrarily abandoned, it was that the Law was fulfilled. It would be like a judge saying to a convicted criminal, "you are free" after the prisoner has served his sentence. The judge is not being arbitrary in his application of the law (although, unfortunately, many judges in our courts are), he is simply saying that the law has been fulfilled. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law and now Paul was applying that to the application of the Law for the Jewish Christians. This is one of the problems today in that people read the Bible without understanding the context and then apply relativistic interpretations to it. I would encourage you to read the whole chapter and even the whole book from which you pull these verses so that you understand the context. However, simply reading the paragraph in which this verse is contained (1 Cor. 10:23-30) would have helped in this case. Relativism is a difficult, if not, impossible viewpoint to justify.

 

LNC

[LNC]

There, now you cannot claim that you didn't know the gospel. I made it very plain and clear. Now you have the choice as to whether you will receive that gift and trust in Jesus or reject that gift and suffer the penalty that you have already earned and are due. In essence, Jesus lives within every believer, so Jesus has come to you and to everyone who reads this message and said, "trust in me for forgiveness of sins, lest you suffer the punishment that you rightly deserve." What will you answer?

 

LNC

 

But LNC, that goes back to the Jews. So, in short, Anne Frank will be punished in your opinion, right? You said earlier that you didn't think she would go to hell, in which I agree. Ironically, I hold a good deal of Catholic theology within my independant Christian walk. But, now I'm a little confused with where you stand on the topic?

 

I don't judge and cannot judge where Anne Frank is or what she was trusting when she died, can you? Can you really know what she believed? Apparently, she had a strong faith in God. Do you really know that she rejected the gospel? If she rejected Christ, which I can't say for sure that she did, then she would have rejected her only hope of salvation. However, there were Christians in those concentrations camps as well as Jews, so she very well could have heard the gospel and trusted in Jesus, so I will not judge her eternal destiny, that is not my place.

 

Let me ask you, do you believe in hell? If so, do you believe that anyone is in hell? If so, on what basis does a person go to hell and on what basis does a person avoid going to hell? On what do you base your beliefs? I think that I made the gospel pretty clear in my previous post and that is based on the NT. I was raised Catholic, but realized in college that Catholic teachings deviated from how the gospel was clearly proclaimed in the NT. I will look forward to hearing what your views are in regard to these questions.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

Let me ask you, do you believe in hell? If so, do you believe that anyone is in hell? If so, on what basis does a person go to hell and on what basis does a person avoid going to hell? On what do you base your beliefs? I think that I made the gospel pretty clear in my previous post and that is based on the NT. I was raised Catholic, but realized in college that Catholic teachings deviated from how the gospel was clearly proclaimed in the NT. I will look forward to hearing what your views are in regard to these questions.

In case Abiyoyo doesn't come back, I just wanted to give you an FYI about him. He used to be a doubting Christian, posting on this board, participating in many discussions, but about a year ago or so, he became more involved in his faith, and to my understanding, Abiyoyo is a Christian and a fundamentalist. However, I think he never really could fully accept the concept of Hell and eternal punishment. If he comes back, he can correct me if I got him wrong.

[LNC]

Reading the text in it's original language will remove the problem of ambiguity caused by approximations in translation. If something is translated into another language, it can lose some of it's meaning, because not all languages have words that are exact synonyms for words in other languages. Checking which word is used removes any ambiguity that might exist because of translations.

 

I would agree with you completely here.

 

The passage in John, involving the woman caught in adultery, indicates that jesus was simply teaching the woman's accusers that it is not their place to punish her, but rather that role was reserved for someone who was without sin. The word used for what is commonly translated as 'condemn' in the English translation, is a form of 'krino' the verb for judge. The Greeks had a word for condemn, but it was not this word that they used in this passage. However, it is often translated as condemn in English. Jesus is saying he won't judge her, not that he won't condemn her.

 

Yes, however, this passage is not found in the original manuscripts, and that was what I was pointing out. It doesn't mean that it was not a teaching from Jesus, but it is missing from the originals. So, in light of that I don't think I would base any doctrine on that passage.

 

I honestly think you are grasping at scriptural straws to back up your claims. These verses do not abrogate in any way the emphatic and clear explanation of salvation given in Mark. You are just producing these verses to try to support your interpretation of salvation, when they are insufficient to counteract more valid and explicit explanations given elsewhere.

 

Such as?

 

You feel uncomfortable that Anne Frank burns in hell, because you can't reconcile it with your concept of god as a loving being. That is why you are producing these verses in an attempt to challenge it. However, the reality is that the bible explicitly says that people who don't believe in jesus will burn in hell. That is the ONLY way you gain access to salvation. This makes you feel uncomfortable, because you, being a moral, kind person, recognise the inherent injustice and unfairness of this. You are seeing the side of god we all saw when we read the bible and noticed that god's press (that he's loving and kind) does not match his behaviour (that he burns people in hell who worship him because they don't worship him the right way).

 

I stopped clutching at straws and saw this for what it is -- a major inconsistency in the character of god. I stopped trying to find convoluted apologetics for why things were this way, and just accepted that god does crappy things. I shouldn't need to defend god's character if I'm a christian by using elaborate apologetics. If god was real, and he was all he was cracked up to be, then he wouldn't send people to hell. You know this, it just makes you uncomfortable.

 

I have made no judgments of Anne Frank's eternal destiny, because I don't know what that is. However, if Anne Frank is in hell (which again, I cannot say with certainty), it would be because she rebelled against God, as is the case with everyone in hell. Sure, people who don't trust in Jesus (not believe, because the demons also believed and shuddered) will go to hell, but they go to hell because of rebellion against God, which does, in some cases, include the rejection of Jesus, but that is a part of their larger rebellion, which is what I have been saying all along. So again, you have to make the distinction between what condemns a person and what can save a person.

 

I don't know how you can make judgments about me, how do you know what makes me uncomfortable? No, I don't find God's standards unjust or immoral. It seems you do, can you explain why? Also, please indicate your standard of morality as it must transcend, if it is possible, God, since you seem to want to indict God in this case; can you explain this? I believe in God's perfect justice and mercy, so I will trust his judgment.

 

If God does "crappy things" as you claim, there are two possibilities: 1) that god as you understand him, doesn't exist; or, 2) you have misunderstood God. If God were the way that you think of him, he wouldn't be God as we understand God by definition (a perfect being). However, the problem with that view is that now morality is not grounded in any objective reality and so your moral sensibilities are not based in any objective reality either. In other words, if you think certain things are right and wrong, then that is just a feeling, but not an objective reality, so you have a choice of just ignoring your feelings and moving on. However, if you believe that your moral sensibilities are real in an objective sense, then God has to exist and, if that is the case, then you have merely misunderstood him. Which would you say is true of you? You see, it doesn't take convoluted apologetics to understand this, it just takes proper definitions and the use of a little logic.

 

I think that the arguments for God's existence are solid and the fact that we are using one of the faculties that points to the existence of God, reason, is evidence of that reality. Consciousness and reason are things that we take for granted, but cannot be grounded in naturalism as my studies are indicating. However, there are many other good evidences as well to point to God's existence, another being the existence of objective morality. I will leave it at those two for now and look forward to hearing back from you.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Do you mean because the individual sins, or because of Original Sin (the sin of Adam and Eve)?

 

Because if you think people are not sent to hell because of Original Sin, you are denying that the fall of man brought sin into the world, and in fact the only other explanation for this would be if god put sin into the world, so that he could send people to hell for sinning. Without original sin, there would be no reason for salvation. We'd all be happy as proverbial Larry in the garden of eden. Jesus would be unnecessary. We would need no salvation, because we wouldn't be contaminated by sin.

 

The doctrine of original sin is repulsive because it ascribes guilt on someone for the actions of another. It basically puts the individual in a shitty position and then says "dig yourself out". What kind of god puts humanity in such an awful position? A loving god would never have engineered reality to allow that to happen.

 

If a person is sent to hell for sin, why would rebelling against god do anything? They are already going to hell for original sin, which they can't undo. It's like sending someone to hell for a murder someone else committed, and also because the person stole a packet of paper clips from the stationary cupboard at work. It's overkill. Infinite punishment for a finite crime.

 

So, are people sent to hell because of original sin, or because they rebel against god? Which one is it?

 

I believe it is both. I can't think of a case where a person would be in hell simply because of original sin. Now, you might say, what about babies. Well, I would point out what Jesus said about children (not to mention David and others in the OT). He said that unless one has faith like a child, one cannot enter the Kingdom of God (Matt. 18:3). So, apparently Jesus saw children differently than he did adults. Yes, we are all tainted by Adam's sin, but we quickly add to that with our own sin, even children.

 

The idea of someone being guilty for the sins of another is not a foreign or unjust concept. Nations are judged to be guilty for the actions of their leaders all the time and the people all suffer the consequences. We put sanctions on nations for the actions of their rogue leaders which affects all the people (although, generally the leaders suffer least because they have all the power and money). Families also suffer when a member is punished. If a father or mother commits a crime, the family suffers the loss of that family member and the support that he or she provides. Even in sports, when a hockey player commits a penalty, the team suffers. So, I'm not sure where you get your sensibilities on this topic, but they don't seem to be in keeping with what we generally know and experience. There are two views on Adam's sin: one is that he was the legal representative of the rest of humanity who would follow and his guilt is passed onto us; the second is that we shared in his sin in that we receive our souls from a descendant of Adam. In either case, I see nothing unjust about that. In this case, God provides a simple way to have the guilt expunged. It is our fault if we pass on that offer, isn't it? If you don't believe this to be true, explain why.

 

You say a loving God would have have never done such a thing, can you explain how you came to that conclusion? If he provides the forgiveness, why is he wrong for ascribing true guilt? However, we, as I mentioned, have our own personal guilt to deal with in that none of us has lived a perfect life. We are guilty based upon our own actions. God could completely overlook our guilt in Adam and none of us would fair any better, we would be guilty of our own rebellion. So, yes, it is our rebellion that sends us to hell.

 

Do you know of anyone whose sole sin is as trivial as stealing a pack of paper clips? Seriously, if anyone of us had our sins broadcast, it would not leave any doubt as to our guilt before God. Also, people are sent to hell for eternity (not infinitely, that is not the right category), because they remain in rebellion for eternity. Consider the story of the rich man and Lazerus, the rich man never repents of his rebellion, he simply wants to try to prevent his brothers from ending up where he is. The problem, according to Jesus, is that they had the same revelation that he did and they reject it just as he did, so there is nothing more that God can do to turn their hearts and minds around. People saw the risen Jesus and still rejected him. It is a heart problem, not an evidential problem - the heart is rebellious. If you are in rebellion, I would urge you to turn from it to trust in Jesus, the only hope of salvation.

 

LNC

 

LNC

[LNC]

Welcome to LNC's world of theology mind games.

 

He can't think for himself. He's constantly appealing to some doctrine or accepted interpretation or another. The dude cannot look at the bible himself and use his own brain, his comments are constantly filtered through the approved doctrines and thoughts of other theologians.

 

Your reply sounds like it came straight from RichardDawkins.net or infidels.org. Listen, I can play that same game back at you.

 

LNC

[LNC]

What does it mean, exactly, to "trust in Jesus"? What does that look like?

 

I think I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask anyway: Why did Jesus' death not automatically cover everybody? Why the requirement of trust? What is it that makes trusting necessary?

 

Phanta

 

Jesus' death was sufficient to cover everybody's sins but only efficient (effective) for those who trust in him. Jesus lived a perfect life, as we might expect a God/man to do. He fulfilled the perfect Law of God, which is what Adam was supposed to do, but failed to do. In fulfilling the Law, Jesus was qualified to make the sacrifice (something that bulls and goats could only do temporarily) for all people for all time. He fulfilled all righteousness and his death served as the means of taking away sin (as it was put on him as our legal representative) and gave us his righteousness. That is the meaning of the word redemption. We use it here in the states in regard to things like coupons. They have redemption value. You give the coupon and they give you the value off of your purchase. Jesus took our sin and gave us his righteousness (value).

 

When Jesus died, he said, "It is finished." (John 19:30). The literal Greek word used (it was one Greek word translated into three English words) was Tetelestai, which literally means, paid in full. It was a transactional term used when a person paid off a debt, on the loan document would be written tetelestai to indicate that it was paid, along with a stamp, signature, or seal of some sort. Jesus put his stamp of righteousness on by dying and rising from the dead. Our trust is in him and the fact that his act was sufficient and efficient to cover our sins. We trust in him as the God/man qualified to be our savior.

 

I hope that helps.

 

LNC

[Dagan]

Welcome to LNC's world of theology mind games.

 

He can't think for himself. He's constantly appealing to some doctrine or accepted interpretation or another. The dude cannot look at the bible himself and use his own brain, his comments are constantly filtered through the approved doctrines and thoughts of other theologians.

 

Your reply sounds like it came straight from RichardDawkins.net or infidels.org. Listen, I can play that same game back at you.

 

LNC

 

Hey, you're not a bot after all! Whaddya know.

 

And thanks for the website links, I've never visited them before, I think I will check them out.

 

Since I've got your attention, how come you are always affecting an air of intellectual superiority, explaining to us how we can't really understand these theological concepts unless we know the meaning of the root Greek words, or aren't putting it together right like your favourite theologians do?

 

If this is the most important message ever from God to man, what's the dealio? Why all the misunderstanding? Why all the confusion explaining THE TRUTH which apparently can only be understood through approved theologians who are paid by donations from the faithful?