Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 128 by polonius.advice]

Short answer. Because scholars investigate and evaluate the evidence.

Those who claim the Bible as a reliable source do not and rarely produce any evidence beyond the claims made in the Bible.

The "Jesus says..." arguments presumes that Jesus actually said something or other rather than someone writing decades after the fact in order to make converts without presenting any evidence.

It also presumes that Jesus was always correct, as in his claims of his imminent second coming.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

The early Christians felt free to declare that whatever writings served to support their declarations of truth were valid, because the God they declared exists desired it to be known to them that way. Or so they declared. Therefore pseudonymously authentic was considered just as reliable as genuinely authentic would have been, because the Holy Spirit was the true author. At least for those documents that were declared to be valid based on the validity of their doctrine.

"F.F. Bruce writes that Origen rejected many letters “not only because they falsely claimed apostolic authorship (as some of them did) but more especially because they taught false doctrine." https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

Origen (184–254), who was born 150 years after Jesus was executed, used as his criteria for acceptance of any particular christian document that they agreed favorably with is own personal doctrine. Those documents which did not satisfy this criteria were excluded.

Your beliefs are the result of the declarations of others because that is what they preferred to believe themselves. Which explains why you have so much difficulty in getting the facts to line up in your favor. Facts often have little to do with declarations of faith. But don't feel too bad. All religions have undergone a very similar process.

"The fact that 2 Peter was accepted into the canon in spite of these suspicions argues favorably towards its authenticity." https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

That pretty much says it all. 2 Peter must be true otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 127 by Tired of the Nonsense]

t's mainly true that most people in ancient times thought that the world was flat. They weren't all idiots, just ignorant.

Right. but you still have not addressed the fact they were working from the most, "probable and natural" position which you seem to champion, and were wrong.

Let's get this clear. You do NOT assert the existence of God?

I do not assert things I cannot demonstrate. I believe, and am convinced of the existence of God, but this is a far cry from asserting.

The Psalms are written in poetic style too, and were actually meant to be sung.

You are correct, and that is the way in which they should be read, and understood. Many of the Psalms express the feelings, and emotions of the author, which is part of our make up as human beings. With this being the case, I do not believe it wise to assume everything that is communicated is absolute truth, as is the same with Ecclesiastes.

Are there things written therein that are true? Certainly there is, just as there are many things in other forms of poetry that may be true, but the question is, what was the intent. At any rate, all of this is beside the point, because we are talking about what the New Testament records. It is overwhelming clear, and I assert, the authors were intending to communicate, either what they believed to be truth, or they confused, delusional, deceived, etc., or they were intentionally lying. They did not intend to write poetry, myth, what had been passed on to them, or fiction. This is the point, and to bring in the Psalms, Proverbs, or The Odyssey makes me "Tiredofthenonsense."

Lying? Not necessarily. Lying is a willful act and only they knew if they were lying or not. I am not accusing them of lying. "Deceived and gullible?" Well, yes. In fact during the time of Paul and the author of Gospel Luke there were very few Christians in the world. The rest of the world had other beliefs, which leads us to conclude that virtually the entire world was "deceived and gullible," in that they subscribed to total nonsense. There is a good deal of that going on until this day as a matter of fact.

Okay great, so it does now seem we agree that they could have been lying, or that they were deceived, or gullible, and that at least Paul, and the author of Luke, were not attempting to write, fiction, poetry, myth, etc. If this is the case, then this is all I am asking, and we can agree.

The Jews believed at the time that the story was a hoax perpetrated by the disciples of Jesus, and continue to deny the story "until this day." It says so right in scripture.

Let's remember here, you are the one bringing Scripture into the equation. What the Scripture actually tells us is, "on the Day of Pentecost, about 3000 were added to their number." It also tells us very early in Acts, "and God was adding to their number daily those who were being saved." All of "these" would have been Jews according to Scripture because, the Gentiles did not come into the equation until the vision of Peter, and his visit to the house of Cornelius, which would have been several years later. Again, let's be clear, I am not the one who brought up Scripture, but if we are going to talk about Scripture, then let us get it right.

But don't take my word for it. Pick a Jew and ask them. Goat is a Jew. Ask him.

Are you seriously suggesting there are no Jewish Christians? Have you ever heard of, "Jews for Jesus"? To my understanding there is a good number of them. So then, if I were to randomly pick a Jew, the odds would be I would find one who would reject the Christian message, but it would really all depend on which one I asked now wouldn't it?

"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica; "Biblical Literature" p.813).

And you believe all this stuff? Can I ask why?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Right. but you still have not addressed the fact they were working from the most, "probable and natural" position which you seem to champion, and were wrong.

A corpse coming back to life and flying away was improbable 2,000 years ago and remains so today. Nothing has changed.

I do not assert things I cannot demonstrate. I believe, and am convinced of the existence of God, but this is a far cry from asserting.

That's exceedingly wishy-washy of you. Some might even consider it a cop out. But if that's your position I accept it. I do not assert their is no God either, for the record. How could I possibly know that? I just doubt it entirely as nothing more than an example of emotional need; the product of indoctrination and make believe.

You are correct, and that is the way in which they should be read, and understood. Many of the Psalms express the feelings, and emotions of the author, which is part of our make up as human beings. With this being the case, I do not believe it wise to assume everything that is communicated is absolute truth, as is the same with Ecclesiastes.

Are there things written therein that are true? Certainly there is, just as there are many things in other forms of poetry that may be true, but the question is, what was the intent. At any rate, all of this is beside the point, because we are talking about what the New Testament records. It is overwhelming clear, and I assert, the authors were intending to communicate, either what they believed to be truth, or they confused, delusional, deceived, etc., or they were intentionally lying. They did not intend to write poetry, myth, what had been passed on to them, or fiction. This is the point, and to bring in the Psalms, Proverbs, or The Odyssey makes me "Tiredofthenonsense."

I don't disagree with you that the authors were likely true believers in the risen Christ. Were they delusional, deceived or internationally lying? On the one hand that's hard to say. One can easily make the case that the author of Gospel Matthew was one of the most effective liars in all of human history. But that is based largely on the out sized influence his Gospel has had on human history. Paul was clearly delusional, and admits as much himself.

2Cor.12
[1] It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
[2] I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
[3] And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

As for Mark, Luke and John, they may well have written down exactly what they believed to be true. That would make them not delusional liars at all. But deceived, well yes.

Okay great, so it does now seem we agree that they could have been lying, or that they were deceived, or gullible, and that at least Paul, and the author of Luke, were not attempting to write, fiction, poetry, myth, etc. If this is the case, then this is all I am asking, and we can agree.

We can agree.

Let's remember here, you are the one bringing Scripture into the equation. What the Scripture actually tells us is, "on the Day of Pentecost, about 3000 were added to their number." It also tells us very early in Acts, "and God was adding to their number daily those who were being saved." All of "these" would have been Jews according to Scripture because, the Gentiles did not come into the equation until the vision of Peter, and his visit to the house of Cornelius, which would have been several years later. Again, let's be clear, I am not the one who brought up Scripture, but if we are going to talk about Scripture, then let us get it right.

That is 3,000 souls on the Day of Pentecost alone. "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:47) That's a mighty impressive congregation. Many's the pastor or priest that could but dream of such a strong and sizable congregation. But one is forced to wonder, WHERE DID THEY ALL GO? Because the story of the Jerusalem church is the story of it's struggle to survive. Paul is constantly beating the bushes for offerings among the Gentiles to support the Jerusalem church. Where is this congregation of thousands? It is claimed, and then it is gone.

1Cor.16
[1] Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
[2] Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
[3] And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
[4] And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

2Cor.8
[1] Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia;
[2] How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
[3] For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves;
[4] Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.
[5] And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.
[6] Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.
[7] Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.
[8] I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.
[9] For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Rom.15
[25] But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
[26] For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
[27] It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

ACts 24
[17] Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.

Are you seriously suggesting there are no Jewish Christians? Have you ever heard of, "Jews for Jesus"? To my understanding there is a good number of them. So then, if I were to randomly pick a Jew, the odds would be I would find one who would reject the Christian message, but it would really all depend on which one I asked now wouldn't it?

There are some Jews who have accepted Jesus as the messiah in the same way that there are some individuals with science degrees that believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

And you believe all this stuff? Can I ask why?

Does it seem to you that the Encyclopedia Britannica has an agenda to sell it's books by filling them with lies and untruths? Or is their reputation built on the dependability and quality of their scholarship? In fact, between the two, which would seem to have more of an obvious agenda to promote a very particular doctrine, the Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Bible?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

If I was to stand sinless and accepted by God in heaven because I was washed in the blood of Christ then Christ ought to be burning in hell for eternity in place of me!

The simple fact is this guy loses a cheap physical life at an age mind you when many peopled died from disease and rotting teeth anyway..........then gets to go to heaven three days later and lives for eternity at the right hand of the father judging the quick and dead?

What a con job that is..........big deal he gets nailed on a cross and ends up dead for 3 days.

Let me tell you my penality for the wages of sin is eternal damnation .......and this guy gets a weekend pass after physical death to live eternally and that is a sacrifice?

How about all those poor animals slaughtered in the old testament for the same reason and dead without any life after their physical existence? There's a sacrifice.

And if the wages of sin are death............why not really be dead...........look if the goal is eternal life......then why wouldn't this God just end your soul's existence as the wages of sin, no more conscious you.

That's a good enough penality right there.........but no this God has to burn and torture you forever.........that doesn't sound like death.

That verse should say................the wages of sin is eternal torture not death because you are still alive (spiritually that is)

The theology of Christian is absurd and condescending.............even if it wasn't a fairy tale.......

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

The early Christians felt free to declare that whatever writings served to support their declarations of truth were valid, because the God they declared exists desired it to be known to them that way. Or so they declared. Therefore pseudonymously authentic was considered just as reliable as genuinely authentic would have been, because the Holy Spirit was the true author. At least for those documents that were declared to be valid based on the validity of their doctrine.

"F.F. Bruce writes that Origen rejected many letters “not only because they falsely claimed apostolic authorship (as some of them did) but more especially because they taught false doctrine." https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

Origen (184–254), who was born 150 years after Jesus was executed, used as his criteria for acceptance of any particular christian document that they agreed favorably with is own personal doctrine. Those documents which did not satisfy this criteria were excluded.

Your beliefs are the result of the declarations of others because that is what they preferred to believe themselves. Which explains why you have so much difficulty in getting the facts to line up in your favor. Facts often have little to do with declarations of faith. But don't feel too bad. All religions have undergone a very similar process.

"The fact that 2 Peter was accepted into the canon in spite of these suspicions argues favorably towards its authenticity." https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter

That pretty much says it all. 2 Peter must be true otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible.

That pretty much says it all. 2 Peter must be true otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible.

Well no! You have got me all wrong. Because you see, unlike you, I do not simply cite what others have to say, and take their word for it, rather I attempt to think through the process myself in order to come to my own conclusions. This means, I do not simply accept what is contained in the Bible simply because it is there.

A good example of this is the fact that I acknowledge there is a contradiction between the letters attributed to Paul, and the letter attributed to James. That's right, I am saying there is a contradiction.

Of course I read, and listened to those who would attempt to reconcile the two, by saying Paul, and James were in essence saying the same things, and at the time of reading, or listening, they could sort of cause it to make sense. However, when you sit down to read these letters side by side, this explanation is not satisfactory at all!

Then there are those who recognize the contradiction, and their solution is to pick the one they agree with, and decide to reject the other. In other words, if they agree with James, then Paul must be rejected, and his letters excluded, and vise versa.

I, on the other hand continued to study, and struggle with the issue, not willing to simply listen to others, and settle on an unsatisfactory conclusion, that was not convincing. After a long struggle, and much study, I believe I have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, that makes perfect sense, while acknowledging the contradiction.

I will leave you a link at the bottom where you can examine my explanation if you are interested. The point is I did not reach this conclusion by reading what others had to say, or taking their word for it, and as far as I can tell, there is no one else that has ever put forth this argument.

I have a very different way of looking at things as a Christian, and I do not simply follow the herd. Therefore my acceptance of certain books as Scripture is not based in any way, on what the council, or others have to say. In fact, I have been on record as saying, "Christians are hard pressed to demonstrate the Holy Spirit was involved in compiling the Cannon." I understand the need, but the need really boils down to weak minded people in the end.

As I said, I will supply you with the link. I have shared this argument with a number of pastors, and others, and no one thus far has heard it. Therefore, if you read it, and have heard it elsewhere, I would certainly appreciate you sharing this information with me, as it would certainly help me out.

You can certainly read the whole post, but my explanation of the contradiction actually begins at the second quote, if you would like to begin there.

ref:Re: The foundations of Christianity

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Well no! You have got me all wrong. Because you see, unlike you, I do not simply cite what others have to say, and take their word for it, rather I attempt to think through the process myself in order to come to my own conclusions. This means, I do not simply accept what is contained in the Bible simply because it is there.

The Bible says the sun and the moon stopped dead in the sky for about a 24 hour period. That could only happen if the Earth's rotation was arrested. Do you believe this story is accurate, yes or no? Do you believe the entire planet was once covered in water for several months, right up to and over the top of Mt. Everest? Do you believe that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem? These things are all contained in the Bible. If you refuse to deny that they are likely to be true, then your claims that you do not accept all of what is contained in the Bible are completely hollow. And if you do acknowledge that there are things contained in the Bible which are too spectacularly improbable to be true, why would you choose to believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away?

A good example of this is the fact that I acknowledge there is a contradiction between the letters attributed to Paul, and the letter attributed to James. That's right, I am saying there is a contradiction.

Of course I read, and listened to those who would attempt to reconcile the two, by saying Paul, and James were in essence saying the same things, and at the time of reading, or listening, they could sort of cause it to make sense. However, when you sit down to read these letters side by side, this explanation is not satisfactory at all!

Then there are those who recognize the contradiction, and their solution is to pick the one they agree with, and decide to reject the other. In other words, if they agree with James, then Paul must be rejected, and his letters excluded, and vise versa.

I, on the other hand continued to study, and struggle with the issue, not willing to simply listen to others, and settle on an unsatisfactory conclusion, that was not convincing. After a long struggle, and much study, I believe I have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, that makes perfect sense, while acknowledging the contradiction.

I am glad to know that you are capable of critical thought. In fact, I suspected as much.

I have a very different way of looking at things as a Christian, and I do not simply follow the herd. Therefore my acceptance of certain books as Scripture is not based in any way, on what the council, or others have to say. In fact, I have been on record as saying, "Christians are hard pressed to demonstrate the Holy Spirit was involved in compiling the Cannon." I understand the need, but the need really boils down to weak minded people in the end.

Weak minded people indeed. And you are not one of them. You are closer to being one of us than you realize. The question remains, can you hold your skepticism in check indefinitely? And what would the consequences be for your life if you cannot? I reached the conclusion that religion is nonsense relatively early in life, which allowed me to construct my life around my lack of belief. Those who arrive at such a conclusion later in life often find themselves faced with monumental and potentially life altering decisions to make. For many people it's just easier to suppress their skepticism and deny their rational conclusions. If that is your chosen course of action, a religious debate forum such as this one is a poor choice. Because your preferred beliefs will never hold up to a process of genuine scrutiny of them.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

Well no! You have got me all wrong. Because you see, unlike you, I do not simply cite what others have to say, and take their word for it, rather I attempt to think through the process myself in order to come to my own conclusions. This means, I do not simply accept what is contained in the Bible simply because it is there.

The Bible says the sun and the moon stopped dead in the sky for about a 24 hour period. That could only happen if the Earth's rotation was arrested. Do you believe this story is accurate, yes or no? Do you believe the entire planet was once covered in water for several months, right up to and over the top of Mt. Everest? Do you believe that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem? These things are all contained in the Bible. If you refuse to deny that they are likely to be true, then your claims that you do not accept all of what is contained in the Bible are completely hollow. And if you do acknowledge that there are things contained in the Bible which are too spectacularly improbable to be true, why would you choose to believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away?

A good example of this is the fact that I acknowledge there is a contradiction between the letters attributed to Paul, and the letter attributed to James. That's right, I am saying there is a contradiction.

Of course I read, and listened to those who would attempt to reconcile the two, by saying Paul, and James were in essence saying the same things, and at the time of reading, or listening, they could sort of cause it to make sense. However, when you sit down to read these letters side by side, this explanation is not satisfactory at all!

Then there are those who recognize the contradiction, and their solution is to pick the one they agree with, and decide to reject the other. In other words, if they agree with James, then Paul must be rejected, and his letters excluded, and vise versa.

I, on the other hand continued to study, and struggle with the issue, not willing to simply listen to others, and settle on an unsatisfactory conclusion, that was not convincing. After a long struggle, and much study, I believe I have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, that makes perfect sense, while acknowledging the contradiction.

I am glad to know that you are capable of critical thought. In fact, I suspected as much.

I have a very different way of looking at things as a Christian, and I do not simply follow the herd. Therefore my acceptance of certain books as Scripture is not based in any way, on what the council, or others have to say. In fact, I have been on record as saying, "Christians are hard pressed to demonstrate the Holy Spirit was involved in compiling the Cannon." I understand the need, but the need really boils down to weak minded people in the end.

Weak minded people indeed. And you are not one of them. You are closer to being one of us than you realize. The question remains, can you hold your skepticism in check indefinitely? And what would the consequences be for your life if you cannot? I reached the conclusion that religion is nonsense relatively early in life, which allowed me to construct my life around my lack of belief. Those who arrive at such a conclusion later in life often find themselves faced with monumental and potentially life altering decisions to make. For many people it's just easier to suppress their skepticism and deny their rational conclusions. If that is your chosen course of action, a religious debate forum such as this one is a poor choice. Because your preferred beliefs will never hold up to a process of genuine scrutiny of them.

The Bible says the sun and the moon stopped dead in the sky for about a 24 hour period. That could only happen if the Earth's rotation was arrested. Do you believe this story is accurate, yes or no? Do you believe the entire planet was once covered in water for several months, right up to and over the top of Mt. Everest? Do you believe that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem? These things are all contained in the Bible. If you refuse to deny that they are likely to be true, then your claims that you do not accept all of what is contained in the Bible are completely hollow. And if you do acknowledge that there are things contained in the Bible which are too spectacularly improbable to be true, why would you choose to believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away?

If you will notice, I was not speaking of these sort of things, rather I was speaking of the particular writings included in the Bible. As far as these other things you bring up, such as the stopping of the earth's rotation, I do believe them to an extent. When I use the word, "extent" what I mean is I believe the stories are accurate, but that does not mean I know the extent. In other words, we may read something and believe we understand what is being communicated only later to discover we misunderstood. Allow me to give an example.

When Jesus is said to be on the cross, it is reported He told the thief beside Him, "truly I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise." Now a quick glance at this passage may cause you to understand Jesus to be telling the thief, that he would be with Jesus in paradise, that very day. However, it really depends on where, and if a punctuation is inserted.

So then, if a comma is inserted after the word, "you" then it would read,

truly I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise

This would clearly indicate that, Jesus was indicating the thief would be with Him in paradise, that very Friday, if you will. However, if we move the comma and insert it after the word today, it will give this sentence a totally different meaning.

truly I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise

With this being the case the meaning is completely changed. So then the point is, I believe what the Bible records, to the extent I understand it. If I have misunderstood it, or if there are other interpretations I have not considered, I am certainly open to correction.

You are closer to being one of us than you realize.

You may well be correct, but at this point I highly doubt it. I really do not know how long I have been on this site, but I have thoroughly enjoyed it. When I arrived, I thought I would be debating other Christians concerning doctrine. Of course when I arrived I realized there were not many Christians here, therefore my reason for staying was to determine for myself if what I believed would hold up to the arguments of those opposed to me. Having said that, I will have to say, my time on this site, has certainly increased what it is I believe concerning Christianity.

Now this does not have anything at all to do with the weakness of the arguments of those opposed to me, or the strength of the arguments I have put forth, but rather those opposed have truly cased me to think more deeply, and for this I am indebted, and thankful. I realize I am the only one who can know this, so I am not sharing this as an attempt to make a stab, truly I just thought I would let you know that at least at this point, I highly doubt I will be making the move from one side to the other.

And what would the consequences be for your life if you cannot?

Actually, this does not concern me at all. If I were to become convinced Christianity was false, I would simply change my course of life. I would no longer attend Church, pray, give money to the Church, etc. I certainly understand what you are saying, and I realize there have been many people who have went through devastation with the change in belief. But I really do not have that much confidence in myself, because I realize the errors, and mistakes I have made in the past, so to discover I was wrong about something else in life, would not be all that shocking.

I guess what I am saying is, when I become convinced of something, I am convinced, and live according to my convictions, but this does not mean, that I am convinced that I could not possibly be wrong. This cause one, not to defend a position to the death, and also allows one to transition without devastation. But thanks for the warning.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

If you will notice, I was not speaking of these sort of things, rather I was speaking of the particular writings included in the Bible. As far as these other things you bring up, such as the stopping of the earth's rotation, I do believe them to an extent. When I use the word, "extent" what I mean is I believe the stories are accurate, but that does not mean I know the extent. In other words, we may read something and believe we understand what is being communicated only later to discover we misunderstood.

Joshua gives a very specific time frame.

Joshua 10:2
So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

One could make the claim that "a whole day" refers to the hours of daylight, which would mean that the sun stood in place for roughly 12 hours. But this to could only have been accomplished by stopping the Earth's rotation, however. You either believe it's true or you don't. Since you apparently do believe it, that leaves me free to heap scorn and derision on you. Actually heaping scorn and derision on you would violate the rules of the forum of course, so you will have to imagine me doing it. But I certainly would have every RIGHT to heap scorn and derision on you. It is at this point that Christians begin to complain that the non believers are mocking them. What choice do believers leave us, really?

When Jesus is said to be on the cross, it is reported He told the thief beside Him, "truly I say unto you today you will be with me in paradise." Now a quick glance at this passage may cause you to understand Jesus to be telling the thief, that he would be with Jesus in paradise, that very day. However, it really depends on where, and if a punctuation is inserted.

So then, if a comma is inserted after the word, "you" then it would read,

Quote:
truly I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise


This would clearly indicate that, Jesus was indicating the thief would be with Him in paradise, that very Friday, if you will. However, if we move the comma and insert it after the word today, it will give this sentence a totally different meaning.

Quote:
truly I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise


With this being the case the meaning is completely changed. So then the point is, I believe what the Bible records, to the extent I understand it. If I have misunderstood it, or if there are other interpretations I have not considered, I am certainly open to correction.

The line you refer to is in Luke 23:43

[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The Greek Interlinear Translation presents it this way:

[43]AND said to-him THE Jesus verily I-AM-sayING to-YOU toDay WITH ME YOU-SHALL-BE IN THE PARK (paradise)

The author of Gospel Luke never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for ANY part of what he is reporting in his Gospel. The author of Gospel Luke was clearly an apostle of Paul. Paul also never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for any of the events contained in the Gospels. We have no way of verifying that Jesus said ANYTHING that was attributed to him decades after his execution by individuals who never even knew Jesus, and were not even present for any of the events they depict. And meanwhile you're trying to determine where the punctuation for the words placed into Jesus' mouth by the author of Gospel Luke should go? Doesn't this smack you as the tiniest bit useless AT ALL?

You are closer to being one of us than you realize.

You may well be correct, but at this point I highly doubt it. I really do not know how long I have been on this site, but I have thoroughly enjoyed it. When I arrived, I thought I would be debating other Christians concerning doctrine. Of course when I arrived I realized there were not many Christians here, therefore my reason for staying was to determine for myself if what I believed would hold up to the arguments of those opposed to me. Having said that, I will have to say, my time on this site, has certainly increased what it is I believe concerning Christianity.

Now this does not have anything at all to do with the weakness of the arguments of those opposed to me, or the strength of the arguments I have put forth, but rather those opposed have truly cased me to think more deeply, and for this I am indebted, and thankful. I realize I am the only one who can know this, so I am not sharing this as an attempt to make a stab, truly I just thought I would let you know that at least at this point, I highly doubt I will be making the move from one side to the other.

You have been a member for about two years now. I am into my seventh year as a member. I get bored or frustrated with the forum from time to time and leave for awhile. So far I have always returned. But your motivations for being here are different than mine.

And what would the consequences be for your life if you cannot?

Actually, this does not concern me at all. If I were to become convinced Christianity was false, I would simply change my course of life. I would no longer attend Church, pray, give money to the Church, etc. I certainly understand what you are saying, and I realize there have been many people who have went through devastation with the change in belief. But I really do not have that much confidence in myself, because I realize the errors, and mistakes I have made in the past, so to discover I was wrong about something else in life, would not be all that shocking. Actually, this does not concern me at all. If I were to become convinced Christianity was false, I would simply change my course of life. I would no longer attend Church, pray, give money to the Church, etc. I certainly understand what you are saying, and I realize there have been many people who have went through devastation with the change in belief. But I really do not have that much confidence in myself, because I realize the errors, and mistakes I have made in the past, so to discover I was wrong about something else in life, would not be all that shocking.

The choice to believe or not to believe may no longer be in your hands. Many people find that, once they no longer believe, then can no longer believe. You may not be that far along yet. But you just might be. Once the ball of doubt is rolling, it's difficult to stop it. At some point all belief simply evaporates, very much like believing in Santa did as a child. Once you no longer believe, you question why you ever once even suspected it was true.

If you have no close ties to anyone, then changing the course of your life will be relatively easy. This also depends quite a lot on what part of the country you live in. Perhaps you have told me, but I have forgotten. Being openly atheist in the Bible belt can be a problem. If you have much close family that are religious, then your problems will be multiplied 100 fold. Polls indicate that atheists are considered to be lower than rapists by religious people. Religious people often consider atheism to be akin to Satanism. And that CLEARLY tells us how totally clueless many religious people are about atheists.

I guess what I am saying is, when I become convinced of something, I am convinced, and live according to my convictions, but this does not mean, that I am convinced that I could not possibly be wrong. This cause one, not to defend a position to the death, and also allows one to transition without devastation. But thanks for the warning.

You have a thinking mind. A thinking mind can be a terrible burden to the process of blind faith. Some do manage to pull it off though.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 138 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Since you apparently do believe it, that leaves me free to heap scorn and derision on you. Actually heaping scorn and derision on you would violate the rules of the forum of course, so you will have to imagine me doing it. But I certainly would have every RIGHT to heap scorn and derision on you. It is at this point that Christians begin to complain that the non believers are mocking them. What choice do believers leave us, really?

I understand the rules of the forum, but you certainly do not have to worry about me complaining. As far as I am concerned you are free to heap all the scorn on me you wish. I will not take offense because I would much rather people not hold back and say exactly what is on their mind, in this way we do not have to wonder exactly what the other is attempting to communicate. So remember there is always private messaging which you have used with me in the past, to send what I believe most people would have considered a rather threatening message, but I did not complain or report it to the moderators because as I said, I would rather people be frank.

I happen to hold a position at work where I have to negotiate with others at times. This puts us all in a situation where we may have to debate certain issues. I sort of enjoy this activity because there is all types of communication going on during these meetings, and some of this communication is silent. Therefore, when I am present in these meetings I am not only listening to the words, I am also watching for the body language, different looks from people, along with tone.

In these meetings there is all sorts of tactics going on. In other words, there are those such as myself who simply deal with the facts, and allow the facts to determine the outcome. However, there are those who have an agenda, and will resort to tactics in order to get their way.

The point I am attempting to make here is, I would rather people be in an environment in which they are free to express themselves however they wish with out restraint, because you can certainly learn a lot about someone in this way, which will also tell you what type of person you are dealing with.

The author of Gospel Luke never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for ANY part of what he is reporting in his Gospel. The author of Gospel Luke was clearly an apostle of Paul. Paul also never knew Jesus personally, nor was he present for any of the events contained in the Gospels. We have no way of verifying that Jesus said ANYTHING that was attributed to him decades after his execution by individuals who never even knew Jesus, and were not even present for any of the events they depict. And meanwhile you're trying to determine where the punctuation for the words placed into Jesus' mouth by the author of Gospel Luke should go? Doesn't this smack you as the tiniest bit useless AT ALL?

You talk about becoming frustrated on this forum at times, and I certainly understand this, because the above is extremely frustrating. I used the passage simply to demonstrate that we can only understand things to an extent, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the passage. I could have used an example that has nothing to do with the Bible like as a young child your parents may tell you something that is absolutely true. Later on as you develop you discover that it is not true, and complain to your parents, only to discover you misunderstood what was communicated to begin with. So the point was, I could read the passage in question and be convinced we all go to Paradise the moment we die, only later to discover the punctuation should have been inserted differently.

So then the question was, do I believe what is recorded in the Bible, and I attempt to explain that I certainly do to the extent I understand it, with an example from Scripture, and you run off on a tangent, on whether the passage I use is actually communicating a truth, which causes discussions to go off track.

The choice to believe or not to believe may no longer be in your hands.

I never imagined that it ever was.

Once the ball of doubt is rolling, it's difficult to stop it.

"The ball of doubt" is always rolling in my case, and not simply with Christianity. I usually doubt all things, but I am the type of person who will not let doubt rest, and I certainly could never suppress my doubts, even if I wanted to. I am the type of person who will chase doubt down, until have those doubts are resolved one way or the other, and I am not afraid of where that road my lead.

If I were to come to the conclusion that Christianity was false, I would simply sit my family, friends, pastor, etc., down, and calmly explain to them how I have arrived to my conclusion, by explaining the evidence, and facts, no emotion necessary. As I have said, I have had to do this in the past with other issues I was certain about, only later to discover I was wrong. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, which really helps me to hear all arguments.

Once you no longer believe, you question why you ever once even suspected it was true.

I do not believe I will have this problem, because I certainly at this point understand what it is I believe, and why I believe it. Therefore, if my beliefs were to change, I believe I would certainly remember why I use to believe. Now I can certainly understand this happening to someone who has not put much thought into what they believe, but for someone such as myself, this will not be a problem.

Being openly atheist in the Bible belt can be a problem.

I really do not know what you mean by being, "openly atheist?" I mean as a Christian, I am not walking around screaming to everyone, "I'M A CHRISTIAN!" I do not wear my beliefs on my sleeve, and will only speak to someone concerning my faith, if it happens to come up in conversation, and I never attempt to force it in, so I can't imagine that will change if I were to some day become atheist.

A thinking mind can be a terrible burden to the process of blind faith

Leaving Christianity, and atheism completely out of the equation here, a thinking mind can be a terrible burden in a world where many people do not think. There are times when I wish I could turn my mind off, and live like many others.

At any rate, I do not believe a thinking mind could possibly have a, "blind faith." I know my mind would not allow it. So let's take the word "blind" out of the sentence to see how it reads,

A thinking mind can be a terrible burden to the process of faith

Well, I could certainly understand how that could be true, but if you consider me to have a thinking mind then at least in my case it is not true. It seems to me, the more I think, the more convinced I become, and as I have said, being on this site has certainly challenged me to think even more deeply, and seems to have strengthened my belief.

Lets look at it this way. There are many unbelievers on this site who were at one time believers. Now many of these same folk, openly admit to not using their mind when they arrived to faith. At some point they claim to have began to use their minds, and it was at this point they lost their faith. My question is, if you are the type of person who could actually believe something without thinking about it, then what makes us now believe you are thinking?

I am sorry but it seems to me many of them are not. Many of them have rejected Christianity because certain things did not occur as they thought they should have, but what they expected to happen was never a promise from Scripture. If they were not thinking as a Christian, then they certainly cannot say they understood what it taught, but now that they have rejected it, all of a sudden they are experts, on what it teaches. Well guess what? I ain't buying it, and here is a good example.

There is a particular member here who dropped out of school, to go to the mission field in order to fulfill the "Great Commission," because he was convinced it was commanded in Scripture. He did this believing if he obeyed, God would supply all of his needs. Lets also remember he does all of this without using his mind, to his own admission. When things do not turn out the way in which he thought they should have, all of a sudden, he now claims he began to think. Oh really?

Well here is what he thought. Christianity is false because things did not go the way I thought they should have. It never once crossed his mind...... that just maybe I may have not read the Bible correctly.

Because you see, when Jesus gives the "Great Commission" he is speaking to the Apostles. And guess what? Later on Paul actually tells us, "the Gospel has been preached in all the world." On top of this, if we were all as Christians commanded to go to the mission fields, then why would Paul not be asking the Romans, Ephesians, etc., why they are still at home, and not on the mission fields? Why would Paul explain that we all have different talents and abilities, and that not all of us have the same gifts? You see, this is what a thinking person would begin to think about.

The point is, after thinking about it, you may come to the conclusion Christianity is false, but do not tell me you have thought about it, and have rejected it, based on something I can clearly demonstrate is not even taught.

So then, you may think it is impossible for a thinking Christian to remain on this site without having serious doubts concerning their beliefs, but behind the scenes, my mind is absorbing all of this information, and in fact strengthening what I believe.