What Is The Gospel?

[barnacleben]

I believe what we have here is a classic True Christian who thinks the scholars and denominations all got it wrong.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. As far as denominations, I belong to a synod (an organizational structure of many congregations) and my synod is in fellowship with other synods. I happen to enjoy scholarship a great deal, Christian and otherwise. I also appreciate the work of Christian scholars outside of confessional Lutheran doctrine and organizational structures.

 

Honestly, if someone ever rose from the dead I would listen to what he had to say. So far, there is no evidence that anyone has done that. Mythological characters and others in popular fiction do that frequently, but real life is a bitch when it comes to magic and super powers.

I appreciate your openness. I find the evidence for Jesus' resurrection very persuasive. At the same time, if you were to produce Jesus' bones, then I would walk away and be done with the whole thing. Even something like an early textual referrence to Jesus' burial shrine, or his magical knucklebone would make the case for the resurrection much less compelling. Instead, even the Jewish authorities acknowledge his miracles as the work of demons, and the missing body, claiming that the cowering, denying, doubting disciples stole the corpse from under the nose of the Roman guard.

 

When Paul goes before Agrippa, he points out the public nature of the resurrection:

And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”(Acts26)

[centauri]

 

According to scripture, Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead, God did.

...because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. (John10)

 

God performed the raising, not Jesus.

 

Acts 13:30

But God raised him from the dead:

 

Acts 4:10

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

 

Jesus is secondary to God.

 

John 5:19

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

If you still want to maintain that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you're contradicting scripture.

It's often hard not to contradict scripture as it contradicts itself in many instances.

 

[JamesG]

When Paul goes before Agrippa, he points out the public nature of the resurrection:

And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”(Acts26)

 

Hmm seems to me like out of your mind and would you persuade suggests that the resurrection was not of public record the mere fact that Paul asserts Agrippa knows this does not mean Agrippa knows this. In fact Agrippa questions Paul's ability to convert him.

 

Also are you aware of gods other sons suggested by Genesis 6:2 still waiting for an answer on that because it makes John out to be a liar in John 3:16

[centauri]

 

 

I'm not sure how you know that the New Testament is valid when it contradicts the Old Testament, which outlines a completely different system for salvation.

Jesus is the Lamb of God, sin offering for all nations, fulfilling the sacrifices once for all, he is the scapegoat .

 

A human being is not a valid sin sacrifice according to God's law.

There was virtually nothing about the sacrifice of Jesus that conformed to the law.

The scape goat was an actual goat in Lev 16, not a man.

 

He is the only son who was slain on the same mount where Isaac was led to the slaughter carrying wood on his back. Jesus was the final sacrifice, to which all other sacrifices pointed as type and shadow.

The Old Testament states that sacrifices must conform to the law of God, which was given to the people by Moses.

Also, according to the Old Testament, sacrifices would be continuing in the messianic era.

 

He is God's fulfillment of the law on Israel's behalf.

That's rather odd considering Jesus did not conform to the law with his sacrifice.

According to God's law found in Leviticus, what are some of the basic requirements for a valid sin sacrifice?

 

He is true Israel, Abraham's promised offspring, the blessing of all nations. In Christ, Abraham becomes the father of every nation, language, people, and tongue. In Christ, the seed of the woman crushes the shimmering one's head.

Jesus was never anointed king and never sat on the throne.

Why does this not matter when the promise to Abraham also involves a Davidic king to rule the people and usher in a glorious era of peace and prosperity?

David was also promised by God to have his offspring blessed.

[centauri]

 

 

The New Testament can't even agree with itself and a large chunk of it was written by a Jewish apostate who never met Jesus except in visions.

I think you are misunderstanding what real vision is. Saul encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and Jesus apostled him, speaking to him then and later.

 

Saul(Paul) encountered a shining light that claimed to be Jesus.

According to Paul, Satan can also appear as a light.

How exactly do you define "real vision"?

Paul never met the earthly Jesus and only had his "revelations" and visions to justify his credentials.

 

The men on the road with him heard Jesus' audible voice, but Jesus did not reveal himself to them and blind them. Saul however was rendered physically blind. Furthermore, Saul's conversion makes no sense apart from his encounter with Jesus.

Paul could just as well have experienced Satan pretending to be Jesus.

Paul taught a different gospel than the Jerusalem Christians and had to be reprimanded in Acts 21 for doing so.

It was Paul who caved in to the demands of the Jerusalem council.

You still have a good portion of the New Testament written by a man that used visions to validate his authority.

 

For years, no other Christians in Judea met with or spoke to him, they were afraid of him as he was known as a persecutor of Christians.

Certainly, Paul didn't gain anything material from his conversion, moving from a morally upright life with community standing to a life of misery, poverty, prison, and execution.

He gained in terms of ego gratification, going from a foot soldier policeman to an authoritarian preacher who could claim special powers and knowledge.

 

Given all the details surrounding Paul's conversion, it is difficult to build an alternative theory of his conversion that matches the evidence provided.

The evidence is self serving.

Joseph Smith also had revelations and met a light being.

Is there any particular reason to elevate Paul above Joseph Smith, other than tradition?

 

What issue is the NT in fundamental disagreement with itself on?

There are conflicting rules for salvation and the nature of performing the law.

One can ask a Christian details on how you get saved and you'll get many different answers.

The specifics concerning water baptism, performing works, repenting and confessing, are widely varied.

The issue of Jesus being God is also quite muddy and you'll get conflicting answers there too.

[bornagainathiest]

Barnacleben,

 

Even if you can answer Centauri's points without tripping over the many contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, I contend that there is a much greater, more foundational problem with all of the Gospels - one that renders them (and Jesus' sacrifice) irrelevant. 

 

Specifically, the absolute requirement for a real and historical Fall from Grace.

 

If there was no Fall, then there is no sin and Jesus died for nothing and nobody.

It therefore falls to you (as the one proposing the validity of the Gospels) to properly establish that there was an actual historical event that made God's incarnation as Jesus necessary in the first place.  If you can't do that, then all discussion of the eye-witness testimony in the Gospels, any talk about the content of the Epistles and all the specific details of acceptable blood sacrifices in Mosaic Law are... pointless.

 

I don't envy you the task, btw.

 

As has already been pointed out in this thread, to be valid by any reasonable standards of archaeology and ancient history, the Bible cannot be accepted as a stand-alone, self-referencing and self-authorizing body of information.  To be accepted as historically accurate, it's content has to be corroborated and confirmed by independent, unaffiliated extra-Biblical sources from other extant cultures.  Please note that while I accept that there are some such sources that pertain to the New Testament - it's the early Old Testament that I'm putting under the spotlight in this post.  The Book of Genesis, in fact.  A historically-true Gospel requires a historically-true Fall.

 

Jesus himself spoke of Abraham and Noah.  When asked about divorce he cited passages from Genesis about Adam & Eve. The Gospel genealogies also link Jesus directly to Adam.  So, what's your take on the matter, Ben?  Do you think Jesus spoke about the first man and woman, a global Flood sparing only 8 people and a 100 year-old man fathering a child - because he KNEW these were real people and actual historical events?

 

If so, how do you square Jesus' knowledge of these 'real' people and 'real' events with what science now tells us about the origin of the universe, the lack of evidence for a global flood and the evolution of humans from hominid ancestors?

 

Ben, if you'll pardon the pun, this is the crux of the matter.

A meaningful sacrifice by Jesus for the sins of the world...  demands  ...an original act of disobedience.  The two are joined at the hip and cannot be separated.  So, care to establish the real and historical validity of what Jesus knew about Adam, Eve, Abraham and Noah?  That is, can you please establish from extra-Biblical evidence that there was a 6-day creation, that there was a first man and woman and that there was a global flood, just as Jesus says?  Doing that will help establish the validity of the Gospels, because their content and message rely upon these events.

 

(Btw, if you think this tangent deserves a thread of it's own, please feel free to answer my questions in one of your making.)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Skip the history books. Just present to me Jesus in the flesh. And not some nebulous 'feeling' or voice in my head that is really my own voice. Anything short of that isn't worth spending time on.

 

No Jesus in the flesh = No Jesus, period.

 

 

Knowing that there would never be any evidence for Jesus (because there can be no real evidence of a hoax) one of the New Testament writers came up with a brilliant solution.  He invented a character who was a doubter.  This doubter wanted to see evidence.  This doubter demanded to see evidence.  This doubter could not believe without seeing the evidence.  Now every pastor and priest can mock this doubter character.  Don't be like that doubter!  You will get extra spiritual rewards if you are better than that doubter!!  Oh and by the way, in the story (that never happened) that doubter saw the evidence he wanted to see.  Then that doubter (who never existed) felt very silly!  You be smarter than that.  You believe without needing evidence and it will make you a better Christian than that silly doubter.  See, everybody is a better Christian than the doubter.  Our blind faith pleases God.  We can accept the scam without questioning it.  Don't be a doubter!!!  Don't be a Doubting Thomas!!!

 

 

Doubting Thomas probably keeps those tithing dollars coming in a few more years than without it. I wonder how much money Barnacleben throws away to the church?

[florduh]

 I find the evidence for Jesus' resurrection very persuasive.

 

What evidence? Many heroes of myth rose from the dead, but of course you'll dismiss all but one, won't you?

[midniterider]

 

 At the same time, if you were to produce Jesus' bones, then I would walk away and be done with the whole thing.

 

 

 

 

If you were able to produce Jesus Christ, alive and well, in the flesh I'd believe he exists.

 

The truth is his entire existence is just words in a book. Just like Huckleberry Finn.

[RipVanWinkle]

You irreconcilably conflicting "evidence" of Jesus' resurrection convincing? Why?

[RipVanWinkle]

"What issue is the NT in fundamental disagreement the itself on?"

 

The resurrection. Don't you know that?

[Realist]

 

At the same time, if you were to produce Jesus' bones, then I would walk away and be done with the whole thing. 

 

 

I do not actually believe you on your statement simply because your whole argument and life is involved around those bones NOT being found! 

 

The problem for you is we have all been around religion long enough to know how it works ... it will hide and alter the truth no matter what the cost! The proof of evolution is a prime example ... the way religion takes and uses scientific knowledge only when it is helpful to their cause.

 

You have to get outside your own little circle of indoctrination before you will ever be capable of seeing what I am saying! Religion imprisons the mind in that little eggshell! Factuality can only be seen when one gets outside it and looks back in because it is totally subjective from within! That is why deconversion is so difficult from within ... there has to be a desire of the individual to get outside that "eggshell" protection. That is the only way objectiveness can come into any of your arguments!

 

 

[florduh]

First, evidence that the Jesus character as portrayed in the Bible actually existed. Second, evidence that this character died and came back to life.

 

Evidence. The story can't be used to verify the story. There needs to be other corroboration, otherwise you might as well believe in Xenu or Zeus.

[RipVanWinkle]

florduh: Has barnacleben ever actually answered the question of what he thinks the evidence is for the truth of the bible or the resurrection of Jesus? He's been asked numerous times. He doesn't respond to me for some reason. Has he answered those

questions in any post you are aware of?   bill

[centauri]

I find the evidence for Jesus' resurrection very persuasive. At the same time, if you were to produce Jesus' bones, then I would walk away and be done with the whole thing. Even something like an early textual referrence to Jesus' burial shrine, or his magical knucklebone would make the case for the resurrection much less compelling. Instead, even the Jewish authorities acknowledge his miracles as the work of demons, and the missing body, claiming that the cowering, denying, doubting disciples stole the corpse from under the nose of the Roman guard.

The story about a Roman guard being at the tomb is only found in the Gospel of Matthew.

That's the same Gospel which claims many dead people were resurrected and that they strolled into Jerusalem and were seen by the public.

That must have been an amazing event, but it somehow doesn't get reported by anyone else.

Is there any particular reason someone should trust any of this as factual?

 

When Paul goes before Agrippa, he points out the public nature of the resurrection:

And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.” But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”(Acts26)

But the resurrection was not public in nature. 

Nor was the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus public in nature.

Jesus conveniently only appeared to cult members.

 

Acts 10:40-41

Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

 

Agrippa could only have heard tales and rumors.

There was no public appearance of Jesus.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

florduh: Has barnacleben ever actually answered the question of what he thinks the evidence is for the truth of the bible or the resurrection of Jesus? He's been asked numerous times. He doesn't respond to me for some reason. Has he answered those

questions in any post you are aware of?   bill

 

Jesus is real because Jesus is real.

Unicorns are real because unicorns are real.

[Bhim]

Hi Ben, thank you for your clear and effective communication.  I've had a good number of discussions with Christians on this and other forums in which the Christian either writes poorly or, more often, writes in poorly conceived parables out of an ill-implemented desire to convey profundity.  This is a welcome break from that sort of thing.  Also don't take my earlier reminder to imply that I expect any sort of rapid responses here.  As you say, we all have lives outside of this place and other things to do.
 
 

Did you believe but then unbelieve? Theologically, "a church" is sort of a misnomer. Technically, it is "the church", so you left a congregation, and you also left the church.

 

 
I can certainly understand, the desire to poo on ones upbringing, and the desire to not poo on one's upbringing. How do you feel about me and the others here that "pooed"?

 
To answer your first question, I was obviously not raised Christian but converted as an adult, and left six years later.  I'll spare the details only because you can find them on the testimonies forum.  As to whether I ever believed, I would certainly say I would.  I know Christians believe in perseverence of the saints and would say that I was never a true believer.  But this distinction isn't very important to me.  In any case I studied the Bible and various theologians pretty extensively, so feel free to bring up any part of the Bible as a discussion point.
 
As to your second question, I can't say how I feel about you because I don't know any of the circumstances of how you came to believe in Jesus besides what you've shared here.  I take it you were raised a Christian and then left your denomination at some point.  If you want to provide further details I'd be happy to comment.
 

If Jesus was a liar, then you believe he existed, and if you believe he existed, then why would you believe he was effeminate and european? Christianity is not a European religion but a Hebrew religion for all nations. It is catholic, and not regionally limited. It's initial prominance was not in Europe, but in the Middle East and North Africa. From the Titus' sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD Until the Islamic conquest of North Africa in 700, Alexandria was the preeminant center of Christian thought. Originally, all Gentile converts turned their back on the religions of their upbringing, including those in India.

 
I don't mean to employ sophistry here, but what I believe about Jesus' existence depends on how you define existence.  Every credible historian I know of believes that some figure resembling the Jesus of the Bible was real, and so I'll certainly agree to that.  I certainly don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, and therefore I do not believe that the gospels present accurate accounts of his life.  I couldn't tell you precisely what I believe about Jesus though; since he's irrelevant to my life it's not a topic I contemplate much.  Christianity, on the other hand, is something I think about quite often.
 
Why do I believe Jesus is effeminate and European?  I'm of course referring to the Biblical Jesus here, not the historical Jesus (and since I don't believe in the Bible, there is a distinction as far as I'm concerned).  The Biblical Jesus seems highly influenced by Greek thought as much as by the Bible.  He seems to borrow his concept of the afterlife partly from the Greeks.  Jesus' statements about the glory of martyrdom likewise remind me of Greek epics, where characters often seek out earthly glory as opposed to long life.  No one I'm aware of in the Old Testament taught that martyrdom was ideal; the blessing of God is usually connected with long life and prosperity.  The gospels are themselves written in Greek and quote the Septuagint.  As for Jesus' effeminacy, see my comments on European church portrayals.  I can't comment much on the historical Jesus of course, since I don't think we convincingly know most details of his life.
 
You claim that Christianity is catholic and intended for all nations.  I strongly dispute that and would claim that religion is inextricably tied to culture.  Christianity's culture is European, and thus I wouldn't deem it fit for non-European cultures.
 

While it is true that there have been many European missionaries, there have also been many Asian, African, North American, South American, and Australian missionaries. Recently, it was discovered that African copts were the first Xian missionaries to prosyletize Ireland. It was not Europeans that brought Christianity to India, but the Apostle Thomas.

 
This is the first I'm hearing of the African missionaries, but I've always found it that the Ethiopean Orthodox Church is the only indiginous African church.  Might I remind you that Egyptians (from when the Copts come) are considered a Caucasian race, and don't share much culture with what we typically think of as Africans.
 
The only record I'm aware of of Thomas visiting India is contained in the Acts of Thomas.  This book includes quite a number of heretical teachings.  You sure you want to acknowledge it as a source of accurate information.  It is interesting, though, that you mention the Syrian Orthodox Church in India.  I've met so-called "St. Thomas Christians."  Every one I know is against proselytizing and doesn't believe India should cease to be a Hindu nation.  The only Christians in India who are victims or pepetrators of sectarian violence are Northern Baptists and other evangelicals.  This is why I've always lodged my complaints directly against evangelical Christianity (but I digress).
 

You do not need a rhetorical tool to teach people this. Why not simply use Jesus' own words. If they were his sheep, they would hear his voice, and his words would be far more persuasive than your argument:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.(Matt10)

 
I usually don't cite that passage because Christians tend not to like hearing that their religion is antithetical to family values, and they usually downplay the verses you quoted by saying something along the lines of "Jesus is only saying that you have to love him even more than other familial relations."  That's why I find it easier to simply point to actual cases of Christianity destroying families through evangelism.
 
Do you share the interpretation that I described above?  Or do you interpret this verse at face value?
 

I apologize on behalf of all Christianity for homoerotic portayals of Jesus, particularly, the Jesus-is-my-boyfriend lovesong music.

 
That won't be necessary as you have nothing to do with this.  Again, it's another highly distasteful element of Christian culture.
 

I dont define the gospel, but scripture does:
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.(1Cor15)

Thank you, this is more or less what I was expecting.  Also not inconsistent with the first definition of the gospel that gave, wouldn't you say?

 
 

My prefence would be that you repent and believe the gospel, although I do have my Jonah moments.

 

The only Xian that doesn't want unbelievers to repent and receive the forgiveness of sins is the one that hates his neighbor. 

 

Ah, now here's where things get interesting.  You see, I won't believe in the gospel.  Even putting aside my intellectual objections, the actual reason I won't do this is because I already have a religion and a culture, and "believing in the gospel" carries with it a lot of Western European baggage.  One must go to church, be part of a Christian community.  Not to forget that I would not be able to participate in all the festivities and rituals that are an integral part of Hindu life, for this would be considered idolatry.  There's really not a lot of incentive for me to convert.

 

But there's more.  Christianity is destructive to my way of life.  Indeed, by your own admission you are out to convert Hindus and all other people to Christianity (and I choose the word "convert" because your idea of repentence involves more than just intellectual assent, wouldn't you say?).  Republican Christians here in America talk extensively about taking back America (presumably for Jesus), restoring Christian values, etc.  As much as I am against this mindset I do understand it, since I view Christianity as a moral evil and recognize that it is harmful to my culture.  You might mistakenly think I'm doing the devil's work just as I think you live an evil and harmful lifestyle by being an evangelical Christian, but perhaps we can at least understand each other.

 

I would be particularly interested to hear your thoughts on this issue.  This, you see, is the principle reason I decided to discard Jesus.  While the seeds of my intellectual reasons for rejecting Jesus were present long before I left Jesus, they didn't come to fruition until a year or so later.  Let's face it, almost no one makes such a major lifestyle change for intellectual reasons.  I am reminded of a Christian parable in which a person comes to a pastor and says "I have some issues with the creation account in the Bible."  The pastor's response is "Bullshit, what sin is preventing you from believing God?"  While I don't think disobedience to Biblical rules are the only reason for people to leave Christianity, the underlying truth here is that people often make life decisions like this based on how it will affect them, not based on the philosophical underpinning of what they believe.  That's not true for everyone of course, but it's often the case.  I left Christianity not because I like having a lot of sex or drinking to excess, etc., but because I simply didn't want to throw away millenia of family tradition by worshiping a god that neither I nor my fathers have known (to use a Hebraic phrase).
 

No. I am here for mutliple reasons, including my own enjoyment because I like theology, discussions, writing, and informal debate. I am also genuinely interested to hear the thoughts and journeys of former believers. I am not offended by the existence of unbelievers. In fact, I wish all those in the church who are pretending to believe would have the courage to stop, and give an honest confession of their creedo.

 
Those are fine motives, I think.  While this is largely overshadowed by your belief that everyone here will burn in an eternal hell merely for not worshiping Jesus to the exclusion of other Gods, I can absolutely respect a desire to engage in theological discussion and informal debate.

[florduh]

florduh: Has barnacleben ever actually answered the question of what he thinks the evidence is for the truth of the bible or the resurrection of Jesus? He's been asked numerous times. He doesn't respond to me for some reason. Has he answered those

questions in any post you are aware of?   bill

No, of course not. How could he?

[mymistake]

 

florduh: Has barnacleben ever actually answered the question of what he thinks the evidence is for the truth of the bible or the resurrection of Jesus? He's been asked numerous times. He doesn't respond to me for some reason. Has he answered those

questions in any post you are aware of?   bill

No, of course not. How could he?

 

 

 

With lots of hand waving and distractions about needing faith and trusting in a god of mysterious ways that cannot be judged yet are somehow defined as being higher than human understanding.

[JamesG]

 

 

florduh: Has barnacleben ever actually answered the question of what he thinks the evidence is for the truth of the bible or the resurrection of Jesus? He's been asked numerous times. He doesn't respond to me for some reason. Has he answered those

questions in any post you are aware of?   bill

No, of course not. How could he?

 

 

 

With lots of hand waving and distractions about needing faith and trusting in a god of mysterious ways that cannot be judged yet are somehow defined as being higher than human understanding.

 

well I thought you knew that the bible says we cant trust our own logic as its the work of the devil

[RipVanWinkle]

I didn't mean did he answered the question right. I meant to ask if his answers were ever responsive to the questions? I haven't read all the posts that he made.

[mymistake]

 I find the evidence for Jesus' resurrection very persuasive. At the same time, if you were to produce Jesus' bones, then I would walk away and be done with the whole thing. Even something like an early textual referrence to Jesus' burial shrine, or his magical knucklebone would make the case for the resurrection much less compelling. Instead, even the Jewish authorities acknowledge his miracles as the work of demons, and the missing body, claiming that the cowering, denying, doubting disciples stole the corpse from under the nose of the Roman guard.

 

 

So far you have offered zero evidence for Jesus Christ.

 

Would it take seeing the bones of Santa Claus for you to no longer believe in Santa Claus?  What would it take for you to not believe in the Easter Bunny?  And the Tooth Fairy?

[RipVanWinkle]

They haven't found the bones. But they found the foreskin and displayed it in Europe for hundreds of years. Is that sufficient?

[♦ ficino ♦]

They haven't found the bones. But they found the foreskin and displayed it for in Europe for hundreds of years. Is that sufficient?

Really?  That's a pretty cool relic as relics go.  Where was it?

[chrisstavrous]

I know I have come in here late in the game but I wanted to say something to our christian friend who is trying so hard to make us see the truth of his beliefs. Now I love it when I see everyone unite and band together and use logic and facts to challange these christians and around and around it goes.......but you all may have left out one important fact that barnacleben and other christians needs to hear.

 

We loved jesus with all we had.

 

Don't you get That?

 

We gave jesus all we had.

 

Do you understand?

 

Now all you have to ask yourself is this, have I done the same. If you have then you will know why we left christianity and you can stop wasting our fucking time.