A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[Easyrider]

As a matter of fact, thinking that a man is God is very much against my religion.

And which religion is that? Care to identify and defend it or don't you think it can stand up to some scrutiny?

I have identified it a few times here. I am sorry if you are unable to follow things. However, I don't feel that I have to 'give it out on demand', particularly when someone is being as rude as you.

I've never seen it. Got a link? I think I'd like to take a look at it.

[Cathar1950]

Easyrider:

Well, Jesus (God himself) differs with you. He correctly stated that the Law and the Prophets wrote about him, and a review of all the respective Messianic passages gives us a compelling portrait so clear that it cannot be denied with a straight face.

This is your belief system not a statement of fact.
You are a Pauline Christian. I and others do not take the bible as God's word it may contain God's word for you but it is not the same as God's reasoning or his actual words. It was written by humans.
We have no actual words of jesus we have what later writers wrote of him and said he said. So you are not taking Jesus' words for it you are taking Pauline followers words for what Jesus said. You don't know what he stated or if it was correct. It is your belief and not convincing.
As for goat's religion , I am guessing Jewish because he said he was.
I also think he is correct about your interpretation.

[Easyrider]

You are a Pauline Christian.

Thanks for the compliment, but I am also a big, big fan of the Gospel's Jesus, and all the rest of the Bible as well. It all comes together quite well IMO.

We have no actual words of jesus we have what later writers wrote of him and said he said.

By the same standard you then have no actual words of most important people from antiquity - just what later writers wrote of them and said they said. So will you now be casting your history books in the trash?

So you are not taking Jesus' words for it you are taking Pauline followers words for what Jesus said. You don't know what he stated or if it was correct. It is your belief

See my previous comments.

As for goat's religion , I am guessing Jewish because he said he was.

That would be my guess as well. And probably more along the lines of Reform Judaism since there's no practice of stoning wrongdoers or sacrificing animals for sins going on or being defended.

[Cathar1950]

By the same standard you then have no actual words of most important people from antiquity - just what later writers wrote of them and said they said. So will you now be casting your history books in the trash?

No, do you think Augustus was the “son of God”? Are going to say they all are equal the word of God too?
Do you see the difference here? Who are you to say what is trash or what is God’s word? Are you going to prove the bible is right because it say it is and Jesus is God because you read it that way and so it says it is. Can you see the self-reference? It is ultimately because you think it is.
You think it is because it says so.
Jesus says so because the bible says he said it and the bible says he is God.
Only a believer could say such things and not understand how it is arbitrary and personal even if you are doing it in hoards and half the scholars believe it. (I am being generous)

[Easyrider]

No, do you think Augustus was the “son of God”? Are going to say they all are equal the word of God too? Do you see the difference here? Who are you to say what is trash or what is God’s word?

One who has had a magnificent, personal, supernatural experience with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Try it sometime.

Are you going to prove the bible is right because it say it is and Jesus is God because you read it that way and so it says it is. Can you see the self-reference? It is ultimately because you think it is.
You think it is because it says so.

See above. Add to that the reliable and compelling accounts of God's Word.

[Cathar1950]

See above. Add to that the reliable and compelling accounts of God's Word.

I do not find them reliable or compelling or accounts. Many scholars that are not liberal also question them as well as believers. It is your personal opinion you are indorsing no matter who agrees with you. You are a believer and are not going to see it any other way except as you believe.

One who has had a magnificent, personal, supernatural experience with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Try it sometime.

Is this your above? Then are you appealing to your own experience? Others have experiences different and believe different. So experience the same and some experience different. Is it something you try on like a pair of shoes? Many a positive schizophrenic has had magnificent supernatural experiences, some even describe sex that way.
What is your point?

[Easyrider]

I do not find them reliable or compelling or accounts. Many scholars that are not liberal also question them as well as believers. It is your personal opinion you are indorsing no matter who agrees with you. You are a believer and are not going to see it any other way except as you believe.

No Christian I know of or have ever met thinks the Bible is a joke. Not a single one. Oh, there might be one somewhere, but I haven't met that person yet. The resurrection accounts of Christ are redundant and compelling. Even the former Harvard University skeptic of Christianity, Simon Greenleaf, who compiled the "Laws of Evidence," when challenged to examine the Gospel accounts, etc., changed his mind and became a Christian after applying the laws of evidence to the accounts of Jesus.

Then are you appealing to your own experience? Others have experiences different and believe different. So experience the same and some experience different. Is it something you try on like a pair of shoes? Many a positive schizophrenic has had magnificent supernatural experiences, some even describe sex that way.
What is your point?

You asked who I was to say what is trash or what is God’s word, and I told you. Maybe you should apply your own skeptical, non-believing attitude towards the different (non-Christian) religious experiences of others. At least then you'll be consistent.

[Lotan]

Even the former Harvard University skeptic of Christianity, Simon Greenleaf, who compiled the "Laws of Evidence," when challenged to examine the Gospel accounts, etc., changed his mind and became a Christian after applying the laws of evidence to the accounts of Jesus.

Greenleaf was about as objective as you are.

[Easyrider]

Even the former Harvard University skeptic of Christianity, Simon Greenleaf, who compiled the "Laws of Evidence," when challenged to examine the Gospel accounts, etc., changed his mind and became a Christian after applying the laws of evidence to the accounts of Jesus.

Greenleaf was about as objective as you are.

Now it's Kill the messenger and Legal Expert.....

[Lotan]

Now it's Kill the messenger and Legal Expert.....

Greenleaf "went home" quite some time ago. What's funny is that you think that a "Legal Expert" is qualified to judge the historicity (or not) of the gospel accounts, or that "applying the laws of evidence" as used in a court of law is the proper means to do so! What complete nonsense!

Let's take an example from Greenleaf...

(BTW, here is the corrected link for "Testimony of the Evangelists")

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

What lunacy! In a court of law a defendant may be presumed innocent, but such a bias has no place in scientific inquiry. By this standard, the Pyramid Texts of Unas should be presumed to be "genuine" and the burden of proof would fall on anyone skeptical of the existence of Osiris, Nephthys, Thoth, Horus, etc.