Let's cut to the chase: did the resurrection happen?

[Haven]

Recently, there have been a lot of threads on topics related to the resurrection of Jesus (empty tomb, supernaturalism vs. naturalism, historical records, and so on). I think it may be helpful to discuss the big picture: did the resurrection of Jesus happen or not? This thread is the place to discuss it: offer any argument for or against the resurrection. Hopefully this will be a good discussion.

Debate question: Was Jesus resurrected from the dead?

_________
Thread rules:
1) Offer evidence or logical argument. Simply providing Bible quotes isn't sufficient.
2) Faith, while valid on a personal level, isn't evidence for a claim. Provide empirical evidence from history, textual criticism, physics, and so on, not simply statements of faith.
3) Be kind to each other. All of us, regardless of our religious position, are conscious beings deserving of respect and civility.

[Hamsaka]

Z asked me how to identify if the "spirit is the Devil" and i told him, you test spirits by Christ's name. I then referenced two things that collaborate what I'm talking about, the 3 Epistles of John and a testimony from a youtube video, which he apparently rejected..

That assumes Christianity is true, what if the name of Christ had no power? How do you identify if a spirit is lying about being God, if Christianity itself is false? What if a spirit wants to manipulate you into believing in Christianity by faking being compelled by the name of Christ? What you said here doesn't cover any of these scenarios.

Well that wasn't the question. The original question was as followed.

If (for sake of discussion) a magical / superhuman entity DID appear and claimed to be God, HOW would anyone know it was not actually "Satan" pretending to be God?

According to Christendom "Satan" is a great deceiver with superhuman capabilities, right?

Or, could such an apparition be one of the thousand of other "gods" or even an advanced alien with amazing "superhuman" capabilities?

If whatever it was claimed to be God (knowing that humans tend to believe in gods), how would YOU know it was an imposter?

This is a straightforward question. It does assume, for the sake of argument, that supernatural entities exist and 'cause things to happen', interact/communicate with humans, and have characters and qualities we can (sort of) identify with.

The question doesn't only assume Christianity is true (because i think the question implied 'how would christianity, or a christian know'?) but it also assumes spirits and real and the devil is true.

Yes . . . and so, how would you know if the experience you have of your god is 'the genuine article' from Christ, versus a smooth-talking Satan who can also quote scripture?

I think if the supernatural is true, if the 'deceiver' or the Devil is true, thats evidence of Christianity. You need to rethink your question...

Correct, we are assuming, for the sake of this argument, that the supernatural is 'true'. If we've agreed on that, then we still need to agree on what god or gods/demons/spirits/angels/whatevers are legitimately members of the supernatural. You jumped wayyy to quickly from 'supernatural=true' to 'therefore, Christ."

There's a lot more going on, here. It's entirely possible, if the devil is a real supernatural being, and behaves the way Christians say he does, that he could fool any human, any time and in ways we can't imagine.

Most people I know who claim a subjective experience of God or Christ (be it that 'still small voice' or feelings and impressions) admit they just KNOW they are experiencing God. They don't know how they know, they just do.

I was a psychiatric nurse for many years and met me a few folks who 'just knew' they were hearing from the devil, and would get just as defensive and angry as the one's hearing from Jesus get when they are questioned.

If Christianity was false then using Christ's name would be meaningless, but thats not what i believe is true and i even linked an nonbeliever who used Christ's name and demonstrated that it is true.

But if Christianity is false Christ's name would be meaningless.

Exactly. So your task is to demonstrate Christ's name is not meaninglessness. You apprehend correctly that Christ's name is meaningless without evidence. And, it seems wise to have some idea how to determine which supernatural being you are 'hearing' from that has more teeth than 'I just know'.

Especially considering how easily a person can be fooled by a powerful and evil supernatural being.

Well if this is a debate about if Christianity is true, or Christ's name is the power of God, thats a pretty big debate and is pretty much the center piece of the entire web site. People may have subjective experiences in God but we don't say these prove truth to everyone.

I'm with ya so far . . .

Instead we look to what Christianity is,

woops ya lost me right here. Instead of trying to prove 'truth' by claiming subjective experience is objectively true, instead we look to what Christianity is.

Then, you don't say what it is, but seem to imply what it is is obvious, but it isn't, and I'm not seeing that you picked this back up in this quote. I know it seems picky, but this 'is' is as fundamental as an 'if' (I think I got after you about an 'if' a few days ago come to think of it).

and if their "subjective" truths about Christ are in line with scripture these truths would become more objective then subjective.

This adds weight to credibility of a subjective experience *if* the scripture is indeed what Christians claim it to be -- the word of God. Since that can't be shown to be true, what you are left with is a personal resonance with one of many religious texts and beliefs.

If the scripture holds truth regardless of what you and I believe then that is objective truth and that is what we would be looking for.

Dang I jinxed myself by mentioning that 'if'. Until it can be shown logically or empirically the bible holds the kind of truth Christians claim, then this is just one more claim without support.

But a debate about if Christianity is true is a pretty big debate to take. This particular debate is that if the resurrection is true and i had a detailed response in post # 6. Which spiraled into a debate about whether or not Paul's testimony would be credible, which i dont think anyone gave good debate on Paul's testimony being false.

It's asking for trouble to attempt to show the resurrection is true without previously showing that the Christian god/Christ exists and is indeed the god who inspired or wrote the bible.

Here's a metaphor for you; trying to show that the resurrection is true before showing God exists at all is like claiming a value for y after doing the algebra in your head (not showing your work, how you arrived at a value for y), and then blaming your inability to balance the equation on the limitations of algebra.

[DefenderofTruth]

Z asked me how to identify if the "spirit is the Devil" and i told him, you test spirits by Christ's name. I then referenced two things that collaborate what I'm talking about, the 3 Epistles of John and a testimony from a youtube video, which he apparently rejected..

That assumes Christianity is true, what if the name of Christ had no power? How do you identify if a spirit is lying about being God, if Christianity itself is false? What if a spirit wants to manipulate you into believing in Christianity by faking being compelled by the name of Christ? What you said here doesn't cover any of these scenarios.

Well that wasn't the question. The original question was as followed.

If (for sake of discussion) a magical / superhuman entity DID appear and claimed to be God, HOW would anyone know it was not actually "Satan" pretending to be God?

According to Christendom "Satan" is a great deceiver with superhuman capabilities, right?

Or, could such an apparition be one of the thousand of other "gods" or even an advanced alien with amazing "superhuman" capabilities?

If whatever it was claimed to be God (knowing that humans tend to believe in gods), how would YOU know it was an imposter?

This is a straightforward question. It does assume, for the sake of argument, that supernatural entities exist and 'cause things to happen', interact/communicate with humans, and have characters and qualities we can (sort of) identify with.

The question doesn't only assume Christianity is true (because i think the question implied 'how would christianity, or a christian know'?) but it also assumes spirits and real and the devil is true.

Yes . . . and so, how would you know if the experience you have of your god is 'the genuine article' from Christ, versus a smooth-talking Satan who can also quote scripture?

I think if the supernatural is true, if the 'deceiver' or the Devil is true, thats evidence of Christianity. You need to rethink your question...

Correct, we are assuming, for the sake of this argument, that the supernatural is 'true'. If we've agreed on that, then we still need to agree on what god or gods/demons/spirits/angels/whatevers are legitimately members of the supernatural. You jumped wayyy to quickly from 'supernatural=true' to 'therefore, Christ."

There's a lot more going on, here. It's entirely possible, if the devil is a real supernatural being, and behaves the way Christians say he does, that he could fool any human, any time and in ways we can't imagine.

Most people I know who claim a subjective experience of God or Christ (be it that 'still small voice' or feelings and impressions) admit they just KNOW they are experiencing God. They don't know how they know, they just do.

I was a psychiatric nurse for many years and met me a few folks who 'just knew' they were hearing from the devil, and would get just as defensive and angry as the one's hearing from Jesus get when they are questioned.

If Christianity was false then using Christ's name would be meaningless, but thats not what i believe is true and i even linked an nonbeliever who used Christ's name and demonstrated that it is true.

But if Christianity is false Christ's name would be meaningless.

Exactly. So your task is to demonstrate Christ's name is not meaninglessness. You apprehend correctly that Christ's name is meaningless without evidence. And, it seems wise to have some idea how to determine which supernatural being you are 'hearing' from that has more teeth than 'I just know'.

Especially considering how easily a person can be fooled by a powerful and evil supernatural being.

Well if this is a debate about if Christianity is true, or Christ's name is the power of God, thats a pretty big debate and is pretty much the center piece of the entire web site. People may have subjective experiences in God but we don't say these prove truth to everyone.

I'm with ya so far . . .

Instead we look to what Christianity is,

woops ya lost me right here. Instead of trying to prove 'truth' by claiming subjective experience is objectively true, instead we look to what Christianity is.

Then, you don't say what it is, but seem to imply what it is is obvious, but it isn't, and I'm not seeing that you picked this back up in this quote. I know it seems picky, but this 'is' is as fundamental as an 'if' (I think I got after you about an 'if' a few days ago come to think of it).

and if their "subjective" truths about Christ are in line with scripture these truths would become more objective then subjective.

This adds weight to credibility of a subjective experience *if* the scripture is indeed what Christians claim it to be -- the word of God. Since that can't be shown to be true, what you are left with is a personal resonance with one of many religious texts and beliefs.

If the scripture holds truth regardless of what you and I believe then that is objective truth and that is what we would be looking for.

Dang I jinxed myself by mentioning that 'if'. Until it can be shown logically or empirically the bible holds the kind of truth Christians claim, then this is just one more claim without support.

But a debate about if Christianity is true is a pretty big debate to take. This particular debate is that if the resurrection is true and i had a detailed response in post # 6. Which spiraled into a debate about whether or not Paul's testimony would be credible, which i dont think anyone gave good debate on Paul's testimony being false.

It's asking for trouble to attempt to show the resurrection is true without previously showing that the Christian god/Christ exists and is indeed the god who inspired or wrote the bible.

Here's a metaphor for you; trying to show that the resurrection is true before showing God exists at all is like claiming a value for y after doing the algebra in your head (not showing your work, how you arrived at a value for y), and then blaming your inability to balance the equation on the limitations of algebra.

Actually i would like to amuse this argument, because if the resurrection is true then that is in fact evidence of God. And if God is true than that would be evidence that the resurrection is possible. I don't think your metaphor is relevant. But my last post, i thought, was a break through in this debate in which wasn't responded to. Doesn't make sense to me, was it ignored...?

[tam]

Hamsaka, thank you for that thoughtful, civil, and considered response. I do not really want to parse with you because your response is about the best I think I could have heard on this. I look forward to further discussions with you around the forum.

I must make one clarification, not to contend, but just for the sake of accuracy - it is the voice of Christ I hear. Not God, Himself.

In summary, if supernatural beings exist and can detectably interact with humans in ways we can understand, and the supernatural beings in question are indeed Christ and/or Satan, a person has these three resources to use to determine who they are 'hearing' from.

Yes, that is an accurate summary.

As for the first one, I think everyone can relate with that 'still small voice'. When we hear someone say " . . . and then I thought, 'that person is lying to me'" we understand what they mean -- one thought process was 'interrupted' suddenly by another, and at a subjective level of feeling, there is this sense of 'yes!' . There is 'concurrence', so to speak. To me, it is a kind of gut instinct, not words or even feelings, but definitely an awareness (that is uncommonly accurate the older I get).

Yes, it can be very much like this... though I would offer that instead of hearing 'that person is lying to me', as one might say to oneself; one might hear instead, 'that person is lying to you.'

I don't know what it is like to have a god's voice (or however it works) inside my mind. I have known plenty of people who say they have. My honest self appraisal (above) doesn't sound that different on paper, but it could be a million miles different for all I know about what it is really like. I have expectations that are gleaned from 50 years of life on Planet Earth about what it would be like, but so far what I do experience is not nearly so dramatic or riveting as I expect having God's voice speak within me would be.

I think people can expect something dramatic - or not realize that Christ speaks at all - and so miss that He has been speaking to them all along. At least, that was true of me.

I would expect it to tell me things I could not possibly know. I don't mean String Theory or lottery numbers, but just every day type stuff. A god would know much more than I do, and would ostensibly know what would be helpful to me (and what wouldn't be).

Yes.

I would expect it not to 'sound' anything like 'me'. Does a voice in one's mind have a 'sound'? Very Happy

I would say in one's spirit, rather than in one's mind (for the sake of accuracy, not to contend) but I do understand what you are asking. He does not have an audible - physical - sound. But His voice is still heard. His voice is quiet, calm, sure, patient... but the most defining 'tone' I have heard in His voice, or at least the most moving to me, is love.

I have a good friend who is a Christian, and like you, I believe her when she says God speaks to her. She is utterly mundane and down-to-earth, and is the first to admit she can't explain it rationally. Maybe that's exactly what's happening with her, maybe her mind works a bit differently than mine and other skeptical types. Maybe God only talks to certain people.

What tips the scales in the skeptical direction for me is the correlation between the cultural religion and the god this member of the culture hears from. We hear from the gods we know and not from the gods we've never heard of. Even Moses heard from a local god.

So if the gods are all different, and universally, historically, humans apprehend gods with the exact same bodies, minds, intellects and emotions -- either all of the gods are 'true' (thus the question Zz and I were asking, its reasonable they could interfere with one another) or the 'truth' does not lie within a god, but within human apprehension.

I understand what you mean by what tips the scales to the skeptical side of things for you. One is unlikely to attribute a voice/spirit that they hear (if they hear) to a 'god' they do not know... and even less likely to believe that 'still small voice' if it conflicts with their religion or what they believe to be true (including among Christianity).


But I do understand your point, and discussing that would probably make for an entirely new thread (or two or three, lol).



Thank you again for the civil and thoughtful discourse, Hamsaka, and also to the owners/mods for providing a place that allows such things.

May you have peace, and ears to hear if that is something you want,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Bust Nak]

Well that wasn't the question. The original question was as followed.

If (for sake of discussion) a magical / superhuman entity DID appear and claimed to be God, HOW would anyone know it was not actually "Satan" pretending to be God?

According to Christendom "Satan" is a great deceiver with superhuman capabilities, right?

Or, could such an apparition be one of the thousand of other "gods" or even an advanced alien with amazing "superhuman" capabilities?

If whatever it was claimed to be God (knowing that humans tend to believe in gods), how would YOU know it was an imposter?

The question doesn't only assume Christianity is true (because i think the question implied 'how would christianity, or a christian know'?) but it also assumes spirits and real and the devil is true.

I think if the supernatural is true, if the 'deceiver' or the Devil is true, thats evidence of Christianity. You need to rethink your question...

That's not how I read it. Note the "or" in the question. It proposed three scenarios.
1) Satan pretending to be God.
2) Other gods.
3) Aliens.

Only scenario 1 assume Christianity and the devil is true, scenario 1 and 2 assumes spirits and supernatural are real. Scenario 3 does not assume either. Your response covered scenario 1.

But even the materialistic atheist usually admit there is truth, and absolute truth, but if we are just matter in motion and nothing more then stardust than how would you make sense of truth, like objective moral truth's?

That's easy. We make sense of absolute truth by appealing to absolute reality. No supernatural agency required. You question is also kinda loaded. Many of us are subjectivists and reject the notion of objective morality.

As for Presuppositional Apologetics. Consider the following, to make sense of absolute truths:

The presuppositional apologists presupposes:
God exist.
Reality exist.
God gave us accurate senses of reality.
God gave us the rationality to understand reality in the from of truths.

The materialist presupposes:
Reality exist.
We have accurate senses of reality.
We have the rationality to understand reality in the from of truths.

I propose that the materialist's presuppositions have fewer unknown than the apologists alternative; and as such, should be preferred according to the principle of parsimony.

[Blastcat]

How do you know what you believe in is TRUE?

How do i know what i believe is true? Well if you think that it is possible the we are in the matrix, and aliens control our brains, and these huge kind of conspiracies are possible then how would anyone be able to say they know truth to you?

You don't think these are possibilities?

Good.. now prove that they aren't possibilities.

If you have a bit of trouble doing that.. you are in the same exact position I find myself in.

We are in the same boat.

I can't prove your god doesn't exists, I can't prove aliens don't exist, I can't prove Santa doesn't exist.. I can't prove we aren't in the Matrix, I can't prove that Allah isn't the only real god, I can't prove that it's not ZEUS after all, I can't prove that none of these gods are real because it's the BUDDHA nature that is the only one true reality.

But you can?

Please, write your paper.. you honorary Phd's await you.

For all you know, if we even amuse the possibility of the matrix, the principles of physics might just be dowloaded in a computer that controls our brains... That is a lot of mysterious possibilities you play with...

I don't play with them at all. I can't prove that we aren't in a Matrix, so I don't BOTHER myself with it. But it's a possibility JUST like your GOD is a possibility.

PURE POSSIBILITY... but I BOTHER with god beliefs because so many people HAVE them .. and that's a huge problem for the world I live in.

But if Christianity is true, then God is made known to us. A Holy God is made known to us.

Well, wouldn't the world be a different place IF it were all just true and we could prove it. .. GUESS WHAT?

I wouldn't be DEBATING if it WERE true anymore.

But the FACT is.. it's not at all proved true.

All these god beliefs.. all... just like the Matrix belief.. ohhh possible.. but true?

NAH.... and HOW are we to ever find OUT.. only after we are DEAD..... well, that's perfectly useless to the LIVING.

Thats what it meant when Jesus said, "I am the light", that truth can be known to humanity. That is what it means, it means truth is able to be made know.

Yeah, so you have this great big TRUTH that you know... WELL how did you get to know it?

What was the METHOD that you used to "know" it?

Because if you method is GREAT.. we should all be able to use it. So.. show me that your method is a great one, and I'll be HAPPY to use it.. and I guess have that super duper knowledge you like to crow about.

If we played with the idea of the Matrix then who's to say that any truth can be made known? If the Matrix is true then NOBODY knows truth.. It would be hidden away from us if that was true, but that goes against the teaching of a "Holy God".

Oh it goes AGAINST your teachings. Well, that's that, then.

But can you DISPROVE that we are living in the Matrix and you don't KNOW about it?

Can I DISPROVE that your god is all real and I just don't KNOW about it?

HOW can I know if I'm in a MATRIX or not?
How can YOU know if all of your god beliefs are TRUE or not?

HOW?

Thats what Presuppositional Apologetics is all about.

Your god beliefs all just TRUE.. no questions asked about methods.

Well, that's the end of THAT discussion.

You say that which is unknown might be the real truth, you can't even make sense of "truth" in that world view.

Then that's the end of any discussion about the "truth" of your god beliefs.
I can't even make sense out of it, according to you.
Well, I don't want to waste your time.

We say truth starts with God, and truth is known by all.

Well, if you SAY it , it MUST be just true from the get go, no questions asked.
I wont ask you any more questions.. because without god in your view, i can't even know what the truth would BE.

So that's the end of this conversation about how you know that your god is true.
Apparently, I can't DO that.

If there is absolute truth, Presuppositional Apologetics says that is proof that God exists.

Well, Presuppositional Apologetics SAYS that it's all true.. so it MUST BE SO.

If people can agree that there is absolute truths then your world view doesn't make sense, like the possibility of the matrix.

How can I argue with someone who KNOWS the truth , when I can't even know what that MEANS?

There can BE no "debate" with a person holding an absolutely closed position. So you get to keep your absolutely closed position.

But that's the END of any rational discussion about them.
I don't like to babble incoherently about something that apparently doesn't even make SENSE to me, according to you.

But even the materialistic atheist usually admit there is truth, and absolute truth, but if we are just matter in motion and nothing more then stardust than how would you make sense of truth, like objective moral truth's?

I can't argue with that.
I can't argue with ANYTHING you say.
Everything you say is JUST going to be true for you by presupposing that it is.

I think were done here. I don't know HOW to proceed from there.
Maybe that's the POINT of presuppositional apologetics.. after all, atheists ask such PESKY questions.

Presuppositional if there is truth in the world, and it is able to be made know, then that is proof God exists.

OH.. right because when Presuppositional Apologetics SAYS something it HAS to be true.
Well, if you believe THAT.. I guess there's no POINT of any discussion.

actually this street preacher, and Christian debater, Sye Ten like to debate this topic.

Oh well if SYE says it , it HAS to be true.

I don't know... but if you say so and I can't even MAKE SENSE out of things without God, WHO AM I TO SAY NO ?

I guess Sye really shut ME up.

I don't usually debate using Presuppositional Apologetics but you pretty much set the stage up...I personally think Presuppositional Apologetics is an intriguing thing to think about

Well, it wins every time.
You can't lose when you stack the deck so perfectly.

Bravo. Your beliefs are perfectly safe from scrutiny.

They are JUST TRUE.

And that's that.
Well, we can all go home now.

I can't even KNOW what the truth is.. and you say you have it.
I can't tell, and you can.

No discussion POSSIBLE .[/quote]

[DefenderofTruth]

Well that wasn't the question. The original question was as followed.

If (for sake of discussion) a magical / superhuman entity DID appear and claimed to be God, HOW would anyone know it was not actually "Satan" pretending to be God?

According to Christendom "Satan" is a great deceiver with superhuman capabilities, right?

Or, could such an apparition be one of the thousand of other "gods" or even an advanced alien with amazing "superhuman" capabilities?

If whatever it was claimed to be God (knowing that humans tend to believe in gods), how would YOU know it was an imposter?

The question doesn't only assume Christianity is true (because i think the question implied 'how would christianity, or a christian know'?) but it also assumes spirits and real and the devil is true.

I think if the supernatural is true, if the 'deceiver' or the Devil is true, thats evidence of Christianity. You need to rethink your question...

That's not how I read it. Note the "or" in the question. It proposed three scenarios.
1) Satan pretending to be God.
2) Other gods.
3) Aliens.

Only scenario 1 assume Christianity and the devil is true, scenario 1 and 2 assumes spirits and supernatural are real. Scenario 3 does not assume either. Your response covered scenario 1.

But even the materialistic atheist usually admit there is truth, and absolute truth, but if we are just matter in motion and nothing more then stardust than how would you make sense of truth, like objective moral truth's?

That's easy. We make sense of absolute truth by appealing to absolute reality. No supernatural agency required. You question is also kinda loaded. Many of us are subjectivists and reject the notion of objective morality.

As for Presuppositional Apologetics. Consider the following, to make sense of absolute truths:

The presuppositional apologists presupposes:
God exist.
Reality exist.
God gave us accurate senses of reality.
God gave us the rationality to understand reality in the from of truths.

The materialist presupposes:
Reality exist.
We have accurate senses of reality.
We have the rationality to understand reality in the from of truths.

I propose that the materialist's presuppositions have fewer unknown than the apologists alternative; and as such, should be preferred according to the principle of parsimony.

Ok, so people reject objective morality? Its based on subjectiveness? Then anyones subjective reality would be valid? Like Hitlers? Who sure used "rationality" to justify killing humans who were deemed subhuman, or less human then others. Thats why he killed people with mental illnesses and cognitive disorders, as well as the Jewish people, b;lack people, homosexuals. Shoot if morality is subjective, then maybe i can win this debate by hacking the website and banning all those who debate against me. Why can't i win the debate that way? Or do i have to accept objective morality?

I think truths would presuppose rationality. It isn't our rationality that creates truths, it is instead from truths that our rationality can understand those truths. Truth would be subjective to our rationality, but truth isn't subjective to an individuals rationality, truth is universal. The question is, is there absolute truths outside of our own rationality? Id say absolutely, our rationality doesn't create truth, it is truths that our rationality can perceive. The question is where does truth come from? Not from rationality of humans, and not from humans at all for that matter.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 106 by tam]

DoT is correct in that one can and (and we are told TO) test the inspired expression (and/or spirit that spoke):

You can test what is being heard (by you or by someone else who shares it with you) against Christ... directly... if you have the faith to hear Him. Anything that contradicts him is not from Him.

You can test what you are hearing against what is written - beginning with what Christ is written to have said, because His words take precedence over anything else that is written. He is the One God told us to listen TO. Again, anything that contradicts Him is not from Him.

You can test what you are hearing against love. If you are hearing something that is against love, then either you have misunderstood what you are hearing, or you are not hearing from Christ (and so also not His Father). Any spirit that tells you to go harm someone else... you will know that is not from Christ; because Christ never did that nor taught that, and in fact teaches opposite that.


If the message is false, contradicting Christ, and contradicting love... then the spirit speaking to you (or to another) is not from Christ. Or you have misunderstood something about the message.

I think this is what Zz was after, and it is certainly what I myself was after, thank you

In summary, if supernatural beings exist and can detectably interact with humans in ways we can understand, and the supernatural beings in question are indeed Christ and/or Satan, a person has these three resources to use to determine who they are 'hearing' from.

They are sensible in and of themselves, and the latter two are especially sensible, in that there is a Bible to reference and 'love' being pretty much a universal human experience. Even a young child can verbalize the difference between what is 'loving' and what isn't.

As for the first one, I think everyone can relate with that 'still small voice'. When we hear someone say " . . . and then I thought, 'that person is lying to me'" we understand what they mean -- one thought process was 'interrupted' suddenly by another, and at a subjective level of feeling, there is this sense of 'yes!' . There is 'concurrence', so to speak. To me, it is a kind of gut instinct, not words or even feelings, but definitely an awareness (that is uncommonly accurate the older I get).

I don't know what it is like to have a god's voice (or however it works) inside my mind. I have known plenty of people who say they have. My honest self appraisal (above) doesn't sound that different on paper, but it could be a million miles different for all I know about what it is really like. I have expectations that are gleaned from 50 years of life on Planet Earth about what it would be like, but so far what I do experience is not nearly so dramatic or riveting as I expect having God's voice speak within me would be.

I would expect it to tell me things I could not possibly know. I don't mean String Theory or lottery numbers, but just every day type stuff. A god would know much more than I do, and would ostensibly know what would be helpful to me (and what wouldn't be). I would expect it not to 'sound' anything like 'me'. Does a voice in one's mind have a 'sound'?

I have a good friend who is a Christian, and like you, I believe her when she says God speaks to her. She is utterly mundane and down-to-earth, and is the first to admit she can't explain it rationally. Maybe that's exactly what's happening with her, maybe her mind works a bit differently than mine and other skeptical types. Maybe God only talks to certain people.

What tips the scales in the skeptical direction for me is the correlation between the cultural religion and the god this member of the culture hears from. We hear from the gods we know and not from the gods we've never heard of. Even Moses heard from a local god.

So if the gods are all different, and universally, historically, humans apprehend gods with the exact same bodies, minds, intellects and emotions -- either all of the gods are 'true' (thus the question Zz and I were asking, its reasonable they could interfere with one another) or the 'truth' does not lie within a god, but within human apprehension.

Thank you, I bolded quotes that i want to responds to, and again thank you, this is exactly where this debate started from. It was all sparked from Paul's "vision" of the resurrected Christ. No one has acknowledged the possibility of a personal vision as a message from God, but i agree with what you said.

"I would expect it to tell me things I could not possibly know. I don't mean String Theory or lottery numbers, but just every day type stuff. A god would know much more than I do, and would ostensibly know what would be helpful to me (and what wouldn't be). I would expect it not to 'sound' anything like 'me'. Does a voice in one's mind have a 'sound'?" ~Hamsaka

If we look at Paul's experience, and take it not as a fabrication, this is exactly what Paul experienced. It gave him in-depth knowledge, not of winning lottery numbers, but of the Theology of Christ. This is exactly where this debate originated. This is why if you read my original post (i think # 6) i state that Paul might have been the one who received the evidence you are looking for from God. I said you guys should take the message seriously if that is the kind of experience you look to for evidence of God.

I have no problem at all accepting Paul had 'one of those' transcendent experiences, that are universal to all human peoples from all time. We have them in abundance, some people obviously a lot more than others. These experiences are the SOURCE of our religious/spiritual impulses, and just like a baby grows into an adult, the experiences 'grow' and mature with the accretion of further human hopes, fears and experience.

There IS 'the transcendent' (experience) yet across the human race, there's no consensus as to what they mean, where they come from, or why they even happen.

In typical human style, we perceive with a lot more than eyeballs, ears and skin. We perceive with what we yearn for and what we fear.

This, right here, is the 'pivot', as it were, where 'the transcendent' is co-opted by the human needs of the individual (who had the experience) AS this person is embedded inextricably within a cultural context. We are not 'separate' from our environment, we carry it around with us as much as it carries us around within itself. I'm not claiming this to be true, but I am claiming it to be an extensively explored and reasonable 'start' that is grounded in human psychology. Here's an accessible link discussing the interaction between 'self' and 'environment' for starters: http://www.simplypsychology.org/informa ... ssing.html

What does this have me conclude about Paul and his revelation? That the 'information' of his revelation is inextricably bound with Paul's humanity and the environment within which he existed. Therefore, the applications of his revelation, while obviously powerful, had an inbuilt limitation. Paul could only 'tell us' about himself and his world. Even if THE God were shouting directly in his ear, it is unlikely Paul could use the language and knowledge available to him to accurately portray what he 'received'.

What I hear you claiming is the correctness and all-time truth of Paul's message. That is a matter of faith, which glosses over (ignores) the natural limitations of anyone's transcendent experiences. I'm not convinced at all Paul's revelations have anything to do with life on Planet Earth today, or me, or us in some eschatological way. It is not reasonable or tenable that they are, except by an admission of faith that a person will accept Paul's words and their implications, as written, in whole.

And i want to point out that your skepticism doesn't even hold for Paul.

"What tips the scales in the skeptical direction for me is the correlation between the cultural religion and the god this member of the culture hears from. We hear from the gods we know and not from the gods we've never heard of. Even Moses heard from a local god."~Hamsaka

This is why if you read 1 Corinthians 15, Paul specifically says he was converted as an "abnormally born". This is exactly where this debate originated and I'm glad we are getting to the bottom of this. This is precisely what Paul's testimony was and he was specifically chose by God to be witness to the gentiles, so i think we should take his testimony seriously if this is the kind of evidence from God in which you are looking for.

This is where I did some reading on that scripture. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-8.htm

The commentary offered interprets the 'abnormally born' not as a cultural difference but as comparing oneself to an aborted or prematurely born infant. How pathetic, unformed and weak they are. Obviously this is some kind of common derogatory description you can make about another person, or yourself, to describe how humble or inadequate you are.

So I don't agree that Paul's use of the term 'abnormally born' gives his message any greater value than perhaps it had when he was building the church. His message does not 'defy' cultural boundaries that I can see except in the most generalized way. Plenty of other cultures have come up with the Golden Rule, exhortations to be kind to one another as a rule, how to deal with badly behaved people, and the rewards for living an examined life.

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 115 by Blastcat]

Dude the point is we can know truth. Anyone who says that we CANT know truth has given up knowledge in their world view. They have folded to absurdity. Like saying we can't know if Santa Claus in real or not. Certainly we CAN know if Santa is real or not. There is no one flying around in a slay on Christmas Eve giving out presents, there is no one living at the north pole, there is no Santa. Saying we can't know what is true or not is giving up knowledge. If anyone takes that position they have given up knowledge, but that world view is certainly unlivable because people DO have knowledge. I don't care who you are everyone has some sort of knowledge. You know what the color blue looks like, you know 2+2=4, we know things. Knowledge is a real thing and saying we can't know what truth is is not only a contradiction but it is also unlivable.

And it isn't because i say something, or because Sye says something, or because Presuppositional Apologetics says something that makes these things true. A universal truth doesn't matter who says it. For instance, The gravitational constant (approximately 6.674×10^−11 N⋅m2/kg2) isn't true because Newton said it is, its true because that is how the universe is. There is truth in the physics of the universe.

If someone says "Christianity is true", it doesn't matter what their belief is, if Christianity is true it is irrelevant of their belief or of your belief or mine. What would make it true is if Christ was the Crucified Jewish Messiah. That is what would make Christianity true which is irrelevant to what you or i believe personally.

So in the end, if someone says truth cant be known i highly disagree with that. Truth is known. And we are free to investigate the truths in the world, like if Christianity is true, or if Islam is true, or if Santa Claus is real. We have the ability to investigate truth and saying otherwise, saying we can't investigate truth and we can't know what is true, that is absurdity and those who say that have folded knowledge. They have given up knowledge of truth, which isn't only a contradiction but its also unlivable.

[Hamsaka]

Hamsaka, thank you for that thoughtful, civil, and considered response. I do not really want to parse with you because your response is about the best I think I could have heard on this. I look forward to further discussions with you around the forum.

I must make one clarification, not to contend, but just for the sake of accuracy - it is the voice of Christ I hear. Not God, Himself.

In summary, if supernatural beings exist and can detectably interact with humans in ways we can understand, and the supernatural beings in question are indeed Christ and/or Satan, a person has these three resources to use to determine who they are 'hearing' from.

Yes, that is an accurate summary.

As for the first one, I think everyone can relate with that 'still small voice'. When we hear someone say " . . . and then I thought, 'that person is lying to me'" we understand what they mean -- one thought process was 'interrupted' suddenly by another, and at a subjective level of feeling, there is this sense of 'yes!' . There is 'concurrence', so to speak. To me, it is a kind of gut instinct, not words or even feelings, but definitely an awareness (that is uncommonly accurate the older I get).

Yes, it can be very much like this... though I would offer that instead of hearing 'that person is lying to me', as one might say to oneself; one might hear instead, 'that person is lying to you.'

I don't know what it is like to have a god's voice (or however it works) inside my mind. I have known plenty of people who say they have. My honest self appraisal (above) doesn't sound that different on paper, but it could be a million miles different for all I know about what it is really like. I have expectations that are gleaned from 50 years of life on Planet Earth about what it would be like, but so far what I do experience is not nearly so dramatic or riveting as I expect having God's voice speak within me would be.

I think people can expect something dramatic - or not realize that Christ speaks at all - and so miss that He has been speaking to them all along. At least, that was true of me.

I would expect it to tell me things I could not possibly know. I don't mean String Theory or lottery numbers, but just every day type stuff. A god would know much more than I do, and would ostensibly know what would be helpful to me (and what wouldn't be).

Yes.

I would expect it not to 'sound' anything like 'me'. Does a voice in one's mind have a 'sound'? Very Happy

I would say in one's spirit, rather than in one's mind (for the sake of accuracy, not to contend) but I do understand what you are asking. He does not have an audible - physical - sound. But His voice is still heard. His voice is quiet, calm, sure, patient... but the most defining 'tone' I have heard in His voice, or at least the most moving to me, is love.

I have a good friend who is a Christian, and like you, I believe her when she says God speaks to her. She is utterly mundane and down-to-earth, and is the first to admit she can't explain it rationally. Maybe that's exactly what's happening with her, maybe her mind works a bit differently than mine and other skeptical types. Maybe God only talks to certain people.

What tips the scales in the skeptical direction for me is the correlation between the cultural religion and the god this member of the culture hears from. We hear from the gods we know and not from the gods we've never heard of. Even Moses heard from a local god.

So if the gods are all different, and universally, historically, humans apprehend gods with the exact same bodies, minds, intellects and emotions -- either all of the gods are 'true' (thus the question Zz and I were asking, its reasonable they could interfere with one another) or the 'truth' does not lie within a god, but within human apprehension.

I understand what you mean by what tips the scales to the skeptical side of things for you. One is unlikely to attribute a voice/spirit that they hear (if they hear) to a 'god' they do not know... and even less likely to believe that 'still small voice' if it conflicts with their religion or what they believe to be true (including among Christianity).


But I do understand your point, and discussing that would probably make for an entirely new thread (or two or three, lol).



Thank you again for the civil and thoughtful discourse, Hamsaka, and also to the owners/mods for providing a place that allows such things.

May you have peace, and ears to hear if that is something you want,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

I am glad to have 'clicked' so well with what you've told me that I don't feel any further need to 'parse' either. Your clarifications are reasonable within the context, which is about as good as it gets I look forward to future discussions as well.

(Whoever is singing Kumbaya, I can 'hear' you and who knew atheists could nail those chords?)

[DefenderofTruth]

[Replying to post 106 by tam]

DoT is correct in that one can and (and we are told TO) test the inspired expression (and/or spirit that spoke):

You can test what is being heard (by you or by someone else who shares it with you) against Christ... directly... if you have the faith to hear Him. Anything that contradicts him is not from Him.

You can test what you are hearing against what is written - beginning with what Christ is written to have said, because His words take precedence over anything else that is written. He is the One God told us to listen TO. Again, anything that contradicts Him is not from Him.

You can test what you are hearing against love. If you are hearing something that is against love, then either you have misunderstood what you are hearing, or you are not hearing from Christ (and so also not His Father). Any spirit that tells you to go harm someone else... you will know that is not from Christ; because Christ never did that nor taught that, and in fact teaches opposite that.


If the message is false, contradicting Christ, and contradicting love... then the spirit speaking to you (or to another) is not from Christ. Or you have misunderstood something about the message.

I think this is what Zz was after, and it is certainly what I myself was after, thank you

In summary, if supernatural beings exist and can detectably interact with humans in ways we can understand, and the supernatural beings in question are indeed Christ and/or Satan, a person has these three resources to use to determine who they are 'hearing' from.

They are sensible in and of themselves, and the latter two are especially sensible, in that there is a Bible to reference and 'love' being pretty much a universal human experience. Even a young child can verbalize the difference between what is 'loving' and what isn't.

As for the first one, I think everyone can relate with that 'still small voice'. When we hear someone say " . . . and then I thought, 'that person is lying to me'" we understand what they mean -- one thought process was 'interrupted' suddenly by another, and at a subjective level of feeling, there is this sense of 'yes!' . There is 'concurrence', so to speak. To me, it is a kind of gut instinct, not words or even feelings, but definitely an awareness (that is uncommonly accurate the older I get).

I don't know what it is like to have a god's voice (or however it works) inside my mind. I have known plenty of people who say they have. My honest self appraisal (above) doesn't sound that different on paper, but it could be a million miles different for all I know about what it is really like. I have expectations that are gleaned from 50 years of life on Planet Earth about what it would be like, but so far what I do experience is not nearly so dramatic or riveting as I expect having God's voice speak within me would be.

I would expect it to tell me things I could not possibly know. I don't mean String Theory or lottery numbers, but just every day type stuff. A god would know much more than I do, and would ostensibly know what would be helpful to me (and what wouldn't be). I would expect it not to 'sound' anything like 'me'. Does a voice in one's mind have a 'sound'?

I have a good friend who is a Christian, and like you, I believe her when she says God speaks to her. She is utterly mundane and down-to-earth, and is the first to admit she can't explain it rationally. Maybe that's exactly what's happening with her, maybe her mind works a bit differently than mine and other skeptical types. Maybe God only talks to certain people.

What tips the scales in the skeptical direction for me is the correlation between the cultural religion and the god this member of the culture hears from. We hear from the gods we know and not from the gods we've never heard of. Even Moses heard from a local god.

So if the gods are all different, and universally, historically, humans apprehend gods with the exact same bodies, minds, intellects and emotions -- either all of the gods are 'true' (thus the question Zz and I were asking, its reasonable they could interfere with one another) or the 'truth' does not lie within a god, but within human apprehension.

Thank you, I bolded quotes that i want to responds to, and again thank you, this is exactly where this debate started from. It was all sparked from Paul's "vision" of the resurrected Christ. No one has acknowledged the possibility of a personal vision as a message from God, but i agree with what you said.

"I would expect it to tell me things I could not possibly know. I don't mean String Theory or lottery numbers, but just every day type stuff. A god would know much more than I do, and would ostensibly know what would be helpful to me (and what wouldn't be). I would expect it not to 'sound' anything like 'me'. Does a voice in one's mind have a 'sound'?" ~Hamsaka

If we look at Paul's experience, and take it not as a fabrication, this is exactly what Paul experienced. It gave him in-depth knowledge, not of winning lottery numbers, but of the Theology of Christ. This is exactly where this debate originated. This is why if you read my original post (i think # 6) i state that Paul might have been the one who received the evidence you are looking for from God. I said you guys should take the message seriously if that is the kind of experience you look to for evidence of God.

I have no problem at all accepting Paul had 'one of those' transcendent experiences, that are universal to all human peoples from all time. We have them in abundance, some people obviously a lot more than others. These experiences are the SOURCE of our religious/spiritual impulses, and just like a baby grows into an adult, the experiences 'grow' and mature with the accretion of further human hopes, fears and experience.

There IS 'the transcendent' (experience) yet across the human race, there's no consensus as to what they mean, where they come from, or why they even happen.

In typical human style, we perceive with a lot more than eyeballs, ears and skin. We perceive with what we yearn for and what we fear.

This, right here, is the 'pivot', as it were, where 'the transcendent' is co-opted by the human needs of the individual (who had the experience) AS this person is embedded inextricably within a cultural context. We are not 'separate' from our environment, we carry it around with us as much as it carries us around within itself. I'm not claiming this to be true, but I am claiming it to be an extensively explored and reasonable 'start' that is grounded in human psychology. Here's an accessible link discussing the interaction between 'self' and 'environment' for starters: http://www.simplypsychology.org/informa ... ssing.html

What does this have me conclude about Paul and his revelation? That the 'information' of his revelation is inextricably bound with Paul's humanity and the environment within which he existed. Therefore, the applications of his revelation, while obviously powerful, had an inbuilt limitation. Paul could only 'tell us' about himself and his world. Even if THE God were shouting directly in his ear, it is unlikely Paul could use the language and knowledge available to him to accurately portray what he 'received'.

What I hear you claiming is the correctness and all-time truth of Paul's message. That is a matter of faith, which glosses over (ignores) the natural limitations of anyone's transcendent experiences. I'm not convinced at all Paul's revelations have anything to do with life on Planet Earth today, or me, or us in some eschatological way. It is not reasonable or tenable that they are, except by an admission of faith that a person will accept Paul's words and their implications, as written, in whole.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Paul wouldn't be able to "accurately portray what he 'received'.".. Did it go over my head? Did i miss how you came to that conclusion?

Actually I don't think one believes in Paul's message by Faith. Actually i think Paul's message had very sound reasoning and is absolutely relevant to life today. He tackled profound theological principles that dealt with thing you and i deal with on a day to day basic. For example, he talked extensively on the "Law", but more of the concept of the law and how it relates to sin and to humanity, and to people personally, and even how it relates to faith and salvation. He tackled the ideas of living spiritually, or living with the "spirit", he talked works and of the church (which is still relevant today), and the flesh and of human relationships, and of Faith and of God and how God relates to humanity, and the miracle of Jesus Christ. Paul talked on all of these things and i think they are relevant to life today.

Actually i think the biggest misconception people hold is the idea of "faith". Faith was never used to form a belief without evidence, faith was used as a principle of righteous living. The idea of faith was used as a principle of action. For example, the Bibles says that those who suffer according to Gods will are blessed, it is faith that people hold as a principle for their actions. Just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."(Romans 1).

I don't think we need faith to see the soundness of Paul's theology, and how he tackles these different areas that are relevant to humanity. I might say an 'open mind' is needed, because i think usually people have an irrational rejection of an approach to interpreting the scripture, but Faith is used more as a principle to live by, opposed to believing things we don't know of. I personally think the Bible has sound teachings and is very much relevant to the world as it is today. I wouldn't believe it, and be debating it, if it didn't show truth.

And i want to point out that your skepticism doesn't even hold for Paul.

"What tips the scales in the skeptical direction for me is the correlation between the cultural religion and the god this member of the culture hears from. We hear from the gods we know and not from the gods we've never heard of. Even Moses heard from a local god."~Hamsaka

This is why if you read 1 Corinthians 15, Paul specifically says he was converted as an "abnormally born". This is exactly where this debate originated and I'm glad we are getting to the bottom of this. This is precisely what Paul's testimony was and he was specifically chose by God to be witness to the gentiles, so i think we should take his testimony seriously if this is the kind of evidence from God in which you are looking for.

This is where I did some reading on that scripture. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-8.htm

The commentary offered interprets the 'abnormally born' not as a cultural difference but as comparing oneself to an aborted or prematurely born infant. How pathetic, unformed and weak they are. Obviously this is some kind of common derogatory description you can make about another person, or yourself, to describe how humble or inadequate you are.

So I don't agree that Paul's use of the term 'abnormally born' gives his message any greater value than perhaps it had when he was building the church. His message does not 'defy' cultural boundaries that I can see except in the most generalized way. Plenty of other cultures have come up with the Golden Rule, exhortations to be kind to one another as a rule, how to deal with badly behaved people, and the rewards for living an examined life.

Like i said in my original post, Paul didn't believe in Christianity before this "transcendental experience"(if thats what you want to call it), thats what i take it means when the scripture says "abnormally born" or "untimely born" or whatever. But even if that interpretation is wrong the fact still remains that Paul was said to have persecuted Christians before he was converted, and i think that flies in the face of your original "skepticism" of these kind of transcendental experiences. I mean look at you personal beliefs, or maybe some other atheists belief, what would change your mind about Christianity? I think if you are honest it would really have to be a life changing experience to go against your beliefs now, that Christianity isn't the Theology of a Holy God.

Paul had that life changing experience which went against his beliefs and he was converted by that single 'vision' of the resurrected Christ. I think that is worth noting, and thats what i think he meant about his conversion in 1 Corinthians 15. This went against Paul's beliefs, just like it would go against a strong atheists beliefs, or maybe even your beliefs. The conversion itself is absolutely an area of reverence, as far as I'm concerned... Why would Paul convert? I think that is an important question that needs answering if Christianity ISNT true.