Does a mythical Jesus make a difference?

[marco]

Many claims are made for Christ, not all accepted by all Christians. He was born in Bethlehem in a stable and his birth led to the massacre of children. At his execution it is alleged Jews, as a whole, called down a curse on their descendants, and this has made Jews pariahs through history. Again, not a great legacy from Christ. So he attracts some censure.

But many think he offered good advice which, when followed, leads to a better society.


If Christ were no more than an enthusiastic preacher whom many follow in the belief he's full of wise words, does it matter that he's based on fiction? If he never rose from the dead and made no miracles, yet millions behave well because of him, does it matter he is a myth?

[dio9]

Many claims are made for Christ, not all accepted by all Christians. He was born in Bethlehem in a stable and his birth led to the massacre of children. At his execution it is alleged Jews, as a whole, called down a curse on their descendants, and this has made Jews pariahs through history. Again, not a great legacy from Christ. So he attracts some censure.

But many think he offered good advice which, when followed, leads to a better society.


If Christ were no more than an enthusiastic preacher whom many follow in the belief he's full of wise words, does it matter that he's based on fiction? If he never rose from the dead and made no miracles, yet millions behave well because of him, does it matter he is a myth?

I say it doesn't make a difference. What does it matter , if Homer Socrates Jesus Buddha and Shakespeare weren't historic people . Who ever wrote it doesn't matter The value is not in the messenger it's in the message.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by Realworldjack]

while all Christians may not accept the same ideas about Christ, neither do those who do not accept Christ at all, agree on what to reject, as opposed to accept about Christ.

Then they aren't really rejecting Christ at all. They're rejecting a false narrative which places them closer to the truth than those who accept it.

He was born in Bethlehem in a stable and his birth led to the massacre of children.

this writer is building up to a resurrection from the dead, of which, three other writers report of the same event.

No, this writer is doing something the other writers are not doing. He is building an argument to support his claims that Jesus is the messiah. He is also showing that Jesus is upholding the law just as Moses did. He presents him as a new Moses by injecting the same themes from Moses' birth narrative into Jesus'. For a church steeped in the Hebrew scriptures, this is obvious.

the Jews were outcasts, long before Christ, and the Jews, outcast most, if not all others than themselves, and this goes on still today, and it includes not only Jews, but rather, race against race, nation, against nation...The point is, it should be no shock, or surprise, that one race, or nation, is bias, or predigest, against another race, or nation, since this is a normal occurrence...In other words, if I set out to make my "legacy" the destruction of anyone who is not like me, and I am successful, then my "legacy" is exactly what I intended it to be, no matter what anyone else may think.

This is effectively no legacy at all. You are setting out to do what is already the case. This is your claim.

In the same way, if Christ intended his "legacy" to be, that the Jews would be outcasts because of their rejection of him, (which seems to be what you are suggesting) and he is successful, then his "legacy" would be exactly what he intended, no matter what you, and I may think.

He is successful in doing nothing effectively. His legacy is of no conseuquence whatsoever according to your logic due to the fact that this would have happened regardless of anything he did.

while Christians may not be able to demonstrate what they believe concerning the resurrection of Christ, there is certainly evidence to support such belief.

There are also those who are able to demonstrate what they believe concerning the resurrection based upon the evidence.

On the other hand, those who do not believe such things, cannot in any way demonstrate what it is they believe concerning Christ.

That may depend upon what you mean by "such things".

In other words, whether Christ be "fiction" or a real historical figure, he has made such an impact upon history, that you continue to talk about him some 2000 years after the events, and spend a great deal of time thinking about him. Now, I don't care who you are, that is an amazing impact.

Not really, especially when we consider that you're confining your remarks to history rather than something like the pursuit of the truth. Given that Christ's message relied upon a search for the truth rather than some pursuit of history, the real impacts are to be found there rather than in history.

you may firmly believe you are correct concerning what you believe about Christ, you can in no way whatsoever demonstrate that what you believe would be correct, as opposed to what Christians believe.

Okay, I'll bite. Christ says to "deny yourself". Paul says to "present your bodies as a living sacrifice to Christ". Obviously he's not suggesting to literally sacrifice one's body, but he does point out that he no longer lives, but Christ within him. Christ is resurrected within Paul. There's all the evidence from the texts one needs to ascertain what Paul's meaning is.

We can demonstrate this to be the case with modern science as well. Psychologist observe that infants will eventually develop a personality of their own. They will develop their own identity. What is an identity other than an idea? Do we need proof of ideas? We know that they are real ideas, but ideas are still nothing but ideas, and Paul explicitly points out that his identity has been lost in Christ. I don't have to believe any of this to see the empirical proof.

First, you would have to demonstrate that Christ, was indeed a "myth." If you can do this, then I will assure you that I will gladly reject what it is I believe concerning Christ, and I will owe you greatly.

No, I only need to point out that Christ's teaching itself is true. It matters not a bit if Christ is a literal historical figure or a work of fiction. The old joke with whether or not Moses actually wrote the Torah is that it may very well have been someone completely different, perhaps someone with the same name. In other words, it is the truth that is of paramount importance, not who presents it. Verify if the teachings are correct and true, and you will know the truth which is all that matters. It is the truth that will set you free, not history, or proofs, or personalities.

Next, Paul even said, "if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we above all men are to be pitied."

This life is one's personal life, no? Again, this is right in line with the teaching to let go of this life in favor of life eternal which is to say forget about silly ideas of identity.

Paul was speaking of himself, and the other Apostles, and this seems to demonstrate that Paul clearly understood the stakes involved.

Right, and therefore it is imperative to "deny yourself".

Paul also said, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

Which is why it is so important to look at what Paul means by resurrection. The gospel narratives confirm Paul's interpretation as well. When we see the women approach the tomb, the gospel accounts seem to conflict, but when seen in relation to the teachings, they make perfect sense. Who do they meet? Do they meet a gardener, or Christ himself? Christ taught that "what you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me". He pointed out that "apart from me you can do nothing". He prayed that just as he was in the father and the father in him, so too may he be in his followers and they in him. So Mary sees a gardener, but then she's talking with Christ who she can't touch. Why? Because he has yet to ascend to heaven, right? Who has to ascend to heaven? Has he ascended to heaven, and returned when he tells Thomas to place his hands into his wounds? If so, then he's already returned. The fact is that the whole message is that you are blessed if you believe without having to see with your literal eyes. Thomas doesn't place his hands into Jesus' wounds. He doesn't need to. He sees Christ standing before him.

Remember this account is being generated from a church community decades after the fact. It is a reflection of who they are as a church. The two on their way to Emmaus are walking with a stranger, but their hearts are burning in their chests because they are beginning to sense something extraordinary has happened. Then when they invite him to sit and eat with them, they learn the stranger's true identity. This is true companionship. "Pan" means "bread" and they are breaking bread with Christ whenever they sit down with strangers. This is their realization. The author has Christ vanish because he is pointing out that this realization doesn't come through the normal faculties of sight, ("not by observation"), but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are no longer objectively looking for Christ outside of themselves. He dwells within them, and therefore they see Christ in the stranger, the gardner, everyone they meet, and they're then able to love them as Christ loves them.

So it would seem clear that Paul was basing everything upon the real historical event of the resurrection, and if this did not occur then Christianity would be useless. He does not leave room for there to be any good in it whatsoever.

Again, I would only point out that what is useless is for a follower to hold their belief in a bodily escape from a literal tomb in higher regard than Christ manifesting in, with, and through the "new creature in Christ". Without the latter, the former is extremely idiotic.

Also, Peter has this to say, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty."

Yes, this is crucial to understand. One must actually see what one believes. We can beleive there was an accident, but unless you are a witness, your testimony will be useless in a court of law. The same holds true for Judgment Day.

So again, while I may not be able to demonstrate these things are true, there is evidence to support what it is I believe.

The truth is always and everywhere self evident. You must be able to demonstrate the truth, or it isn't the truth to begin with. However, the problem isn't in being able to demonstrate the truth, but in the fact that it must first be revealed. Without revelation, there is no way to demonstrate what you never witnessed.

[William]

Double Post

[marco]

So then, while all Christians may not accept the same ideas about Christ, neither do those who do not accept Christ at all, agree on what to reject, as opposed to accept about Christ.

You are wandering a little from the track. If there are many reason to reject Jesus, it doesn't say too much about his authenticity. Nor do I suppose it matters which of the several weak points is chosen for rejection.

At his execution it is alleged Jews, as a whole, called down a curse on their descendants, and this has made Jews pariahs through history. So he attracts some censure.

What you say here is sort of strange? In other words, if Jesus was indeed the Christ, and the Jews rejected him, along with calling curses down upon themselves, and these curses have indeed occurred, as you seem to be suggesting, then this would seem to be some sort of evidence, wouldn't you think?

My point was that it is unlikely that Jews would have called curses down on their children; it is absurd to suggest the entire nation did.

In the same way, if Christ intended his "legacy" to be, that the Jews would be outcasts because of their rejection of him, (which seems to be what you are suggesting) and he is successful, then his "legacy" would be exactly what he intended, no matter what you, and I may think.

I wasn't saying that the purpose of Christ's ministry was to curse Jews. If Jesus was some favoured missionary then we judge him by his results - that's what I mean by his legacy. Alexander founded the powerful Ptolemy dynasty in Egypt - his legacy.
Jesus left disorder, confusion, Inquisitions and by his vagueness was responsible for the introduction of the Trinity theory. This allowed Mohammad to have more credibility than he might have had. One God - not three.

First, you would have to demonstrate that Christ, was indeed a "myth." If you can do this, then I will assure you that I will gladly reject what it is I believe concerning Christ, and I will owe you greatly.

I'm not arguing that Christ wasn't an actual character. I am saying that later writers have built him into something he wasn't - to the extent he has been not just canonised but deified. That is the mythology I'm referring to.

Paul was speaking of himself, and the other Apostles, and this seems to demonstrate that Paul clearly understood the stakes involved. Paul also said, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

I think it's best to leave Paul at the side of the road, with his sore head, believing he had a divine experience. Paul was partly responsible for the myth that is Christ.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 44 by shnarkle]

Your articulation of the Shema is probably more accurate than what is presented in our translations. "Hear O Israel Jehovah our Elohim are one" is more in line with what you posted, i.e. "the Ancient of days and the Son of Man are one". Jesus says the same thing: "I and the father are one". In all cases the verb is plural. So we can see immediately that it would be incorrect for Jesus to have said, "I am one with the father".

Israel has always been considered and maintained that they are monotheistic. The doctrine of the trinity is not considered orthodox because of some sort of convenience but because of necessity. Scripture consistently refers to God in both the singular and the plural form. And the Shema declares that there is only one God.

Yet in Genesis 1 every reference to God is in the plural form. For example when God creates man it is described as followed. Let US make man in OUR own image.

If God is as you describe Him in singular form there could be no US to create man in the image of.

We are also commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.�

Difference in purpose does mean difference in essence.

This is why John's introduction begins with "in the beginning was the word" instead of "in the beginning was God". God is the origin while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence.(1 Cor.8:6)

This interpretation cannot be correct because Jesus says that He is the Alpha and the Omega.

Revelation 22:13
Verse Concepts
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

The when John was in heaven and started to worship an angel, the angel stopped him because the angel was not God.

And I am John, who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had shown me these things. But he said to me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets,

If Jesus was not God then He should have stopped men from worshipping Him as God. Because He allowed them to worship Him. He has to be God.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 54 by EarthScienceguy]

Israel has always been considered and maintained that they are monotheistic.

I suppose if we overlook the prophet's contempt at Israel whoring after other gods, but why ignore that fact? The problem is that Elohim is the plural form, and really ought to require a plural verb.

The doctrine of the trinity is not considered orthodox because of some sort of convenience but because of necessity.

I'm not following.

Scripture consistently refers to God in both the singular and the plural form.

I'm not sure that's what most would consider consistent.

And the Shema declares that there is only one God.

No, it declares that the Elohim (plural for "gods") are one.

If God is as you describe Him in singular form there could be no US to create man in the image of.

I'm not describing God, and I'm not suggesting a singular form. I'm expicitly pointing out that the plural verb agrees with the plural form. The "One" is probably not referring to numeration at all.

We are also commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Those are later additions to the manuscripts, and they're not found in all of them.

Difference in purpose does mean difference in essence.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote:
This is why John's introduction begins with "in the beginning was the word" instead of "in the beginning was God". God is the origin while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence.(1 Cor.8:6)

This interpretation cannot be correct because Jesus says that He is the Alpha and the Omega.

Yep. Christ is the Alpha and the Omega. The father is the origin of Christ. Again, this is right in line with John's introduction as well as 1 Corinthians 8:6. God isn't anything, especially the beginning and the end. The word exists eternally, and God is the origin of eternity as well as creation.

If Jesus was not God then He should have stopped men from worshipping Him as God. Because He allowed them to worship Him. He has to be God.

Non sequitur. For all practical intents and purposes, Christ is God, but not according to the scriptures. God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence or being. There is no other way to interpret 1 Cor.8:6. Paul quite clearly distinguishes between God and Christ, and the fact that he explicitly points out that God is "of whom" everything comes into being and "we in him", and Christ is "by" "and we by him" can't be interpeted logically any other way. Christ is eternal while God is the origin. There is no referent for God other than the Word so there is no other option for worship other than the Word. The problem is in not noticing that God isn't the word.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 51 by shnarkle]

Then they aren't really rejecting Christ at all. They're rejecting a false narrative which places them closer to the truth than those who accept it.

You logic is flawed here in that, if they do not have the right idea about Christ, and reject Christ on that basis, then they still reject Christ, and are no better off than those who claim to accept Christ, on a faulty basis. In other words, they would be in the same boat.

I said,

this writer is building up to a resurrection from the dead, of which, three other writers report of the same event.

To which you respond,

No, this writer is doing something the other writers are not doing. He is building an argument to support his claims that Jesus is the messiah. He is also showing that Jesus is upholding the law just as Moses did. He presents him as a new Moses by injecting the same themes from Moses' birth narrative into Jesus'. For a church steeped in the Hebrew scriptures, this is obvious.

Oh really? So are you suggesting this writer says nothing of the, "Resurrection?" No matter if the rest of what you say would be true or not, (which I do not care to debate here) this writer certainly reports the Resurrection, as does the other writers.

So then, you would be incorrect to say "no", to my claiming, "this writer is building up to a Resurrection from the dead which is reported by the others as well", since this is exactly what he does, and so do the others, no matter if the rest of what you say would be true, or not.

I said,

the Jews were outcasts, long before Christ, and the Jews, outcast most, if not all others than themselves, and this goes on still today, and it includes not only Jews, but rather, race against race, nation, against nation...The point is, it should be no shock, or surprise, that one race, or nation, is bias, or predigest, against another race, or nation, since this is a normal occurrence...In other words, if I set out to make my "legacy" the destruction of anyone who is not like me, and I am successful, then my "legacy" is exactly what I intended it to be, no matter what anyone else may think.

To which you respond,

This is effectively no legacy at all. You are setting out to do what is already the case. This is your claim.

Some folks need to read more carefully, because I am not the one who is claiming this would have been, "Christ's legacy." That would have been "Marco", and I am simply pointing out what you have just identified. In other words, how can this to be fault of, Christ? Unless "Marco" believes the accounts by the Biblical writer, which he claims not to.

So then, on the one hand, he seems to want to hold Christ responsible for the plight of the Jews, because of what is contained in the Bible, and then on the other hand, he seems to want to insist that what is contained in the Bible, is not trustworthy.

But again, your logic is faulty here in that, we all know that there is, "nation against nation, race against race" but this would not necessitate that what Christ did may have in fact caused the Jews to become outcasts, even though this is the norm.

In other words, if the Jews had not rejected Christ, they "may" have been accepted by all nations, no matter the conflict between other nations. However, since they rejected Christ, and called curses down upon themselves, this could be the reason for their plight at this point, as we are all well aware.

I want to be clear here in saying that, this is not my position. Rather, I am simply pointing out the fact that "Marco" is the one bringing these things forward, and I am simply pointing out the fact that, if you do not believe we can trust what is contained in the Bible, then how can you hold Christ responsible for something that we all know goes on, between nations? Next, if we are going to hold Christ responsible, then we would have to agree that what is contained in the Bible, would be trustworthy. You cannot have it both ways!

The point is, either the Bible is trustworthy, and Christ has the "legacy" of causing the Jews to be outcasts. Or, what is contained in the Bible is not trustworthy, and we should not hold Christ responsible for something we all know goes on between nations.

He is successful in doing nothing effectively. His legacy is of no conseuquence whatsoever according to your logic due to the fact that this would have happened regardless of anything he did.

As is clearly demonstrated above, this is not the case in the least. In other words, if the Bible is not trustworthy, then the plight of the Jews would have nothing to do with what is contained in the Bible. However, if it is trustworthy, then the plight of the Jews could very well indeed be because of what is reported.

Because you see, I never said, "that this would have happened regardless of anything he did." Rather, we know that this could indeed have happened, because we see it with, and among other nations. However, this would not negate the fact that the plight of the Jews, could very well be because of what is reported in the Bible. We cannot say either way.

What we can say for a fact is, this is what is reported in the Bible, and we all know what has happened to the Jews. What we do not know is, what the plight of the Jews would have been if they had not rejected Christ.

There are also those who are able to demonstrate what they believe concerning the resurrection based upon the evidence.

Please do share this information. If you are successful, we may be able to shut this site down.

I said,

On the other hand, those who do not believe such things, cannot in any way demonstrate what it is they believe concerning Christ.

To which you respond.

That may depend upon what you mean by "such things".

Well, lets just take the Resurrection. In other words, although I believe the Resurrection did indeed occur, I cannot in anyway demonstrate that it did. Rather, all I can do is to give the reasons, and the evidence to support why it is I believe that it did in fact occur.

On the other hand, unless I am mistaken, and you can correct me, no one who is convinced the Resurrection did not occur, can demonstrate that it did not. Rather, after some six years on this site, all anyone can do, is to give the reasons, along with the evidence to support why they do not believe that a resurrection did not occur.

Not really, especially when we consider that you're confining your remarks to history rather than something like the pursuit of the truth. Given that Christ's message relied upon a search for the truth rather than some pursuit of history, the real impacts are to be found there rather than in history.

Again, your logic is faulty, and it may be because you have some sort of sense that the rest of us do not posses. However, if you were to be able to come down to our level for just a moment, you may be able to realize just how impressive it is to those of us who are not on your level, to understand that one who lived over 2000 years ago, is more than likely the most talked about, and debated, person in the whole of history, and this would be the, truth.

Now of course, it may not be on the same level of truth, that someone like yourself, who seems to posses a higher level of truth than the rest of us are use to, but again, if you could possibly lower yourself just a bit, you might just understand that it is sort of amazing to us on this lower level, that a man who lived some 2000 years ago, is so talked about, discussed, and debated, that he has a site such as this one which is sort of dedicated to him, which sort of demonstrates, what sort of impact he had.

Again, I understand how this may be below your level, but please attempt to understand those of us who may not be on your level.

Okay, I'll bite. Christ says to "deny yourself". Paul says to "present your bodies as a living sacrifice to Christ". Obviously he's not suggesting to literally sacrifice one's body

Again, one may need to read this sentence a little more carefully? Notice, that Paul does not command that we simply offer our body as a "sacrifice" such as the offerings brought to God in the Old Testament which were dead. Rather, Paul specifically commands to, "offer your body as a LIVING sacrifice" as opposed to a dead sacrifice.

So then, it would seem that you would be incorrect to say that Paul is, "not suggesting to literally sacrifice one's body" because he actually is suggesting this. In other words, he is not only "suggesting" but rather is commanding that we "literally offer our body as a living sacrifice" as opposed to a dead sacrifice, to Christ.

but he does point out that he no longer lives, but Christ within him. Christ is resurrected within Paul. There's all the evidence from the texts one needs to ascertain what Paul's meaning is.

The only way I can imagine one could come up with such a meaning, is if they have some sort of sense that the rest of us do not posses that somehow allows them to understand a meaning that is not there? Because, I will assure you that Paul had no understanding of a Christ which was dead, and still in the tomb, and only resurrected within us.

We can demonstrate this to be the case with modern science as well. Psychologist observe that infants will eventually develop a personality of their own. They will develop their own identity. What is an identity other than an idea? Do we need proof of ideas? We know that they are real ideas, but ideas are still nothing but ideas, and Paul explicitly points out that his identity has been lost in Christ. I don't have to believe any of this to see the empirical proof.

All of what you say is fine, and great, and if this is what you would like to believe concerning Christ, then "you do you." However, I certainly fail to see how what you have just said, demonstrates in any way, what you believe concerning Christ would be correct as opposed to what anyone else may believe?

In other words, you are in the same boat with the rest of us in that you can only give the reasons, along with maybe the evidence to support what it is you claim to believe, (and it is not very good in my opinion) but you can in no way demonstrate what you claim to believe.

In fact, it seems to me as if, one would have to posses some sort of higher sense, to believe and understand as you do, and I do not have such a thing.

I said,

First, you would have to demonstrate that Christ, was indeed a "myth." If you can do this, then I will assure you that I will gladly reject what it is I believe concerning Christ, and I will owe you greatly.

To which you respond,

No, I only need to point out that Christ's teaching itself is true. It matters not a bit if Christ is a literal historical figure or a work of fiction. The old joke with whether or not Moses actually wrote the Torah is that it may very well have been someone completely different, perhaps someone with the same name. In other words, it is the truth that is of paramount importance, not who presents it. Verify if the teachings are correct and true, and you will know the truth which is all that matters. It is the truth that will set you free, not history, or proofs, or personalities.

You seem to be failing to see the point here? I have certain beliefs concerning Christ, one of which would be that Christ rose from the dead. The point is, if you could demonstrate that this would not be the case, then I could correct my understanding of Christ, and come to a better understanding. However, thus far you have not demonstrated anything at all.

Which is why it is so important to look at what Paul means by resurrection. The gospel narratives confirm Paul's interpretation as well. When we see the women approach the tomb, the gospel accounts seem to conflict, but when seen in relation to the teachings, they make perfect sense. Who do they meet? Do they meet a gardener, or Christ himself? Christ taught that "what you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me". He pointed out that "apart from me you can do nothing". He prayed that just as he was in the father and the father in him, so too may he be in his followers and they in him. So Mary sees a gardener, but then she's talking with Christ who she can't touch. Why? Because he has yet to ascend to heaven, right? Who has to ascend to heaven? Has he ascended to heaven, and returned when he tells Thomas to place his hands into his wounds? If so, then he's already returned. The fact is that the whole message is that you are blessed if you believe without having to see with your literal eyes. Thomas doesn't place his hands into Jesus' wounds. He doesn't need to. He sees Christ standing before him.

Remember this account is being generated from a church community decades after the fact. It is a reflection of who they are as a church. The two on their way to Emmaus are walking with a stranger, but their hearts are burning in their chests because they are beginning to sense something extraordinary has happened. Then when they invite him to sit and eat with them, they learn the stranger's true identity. This is true companionship. "Pan" means "bread" and they are breaking bread with Christ whenever they sit down with strangers. This is their realization. The author has Christ vanish because he is pointing out that this realization doesn't come through the normal faculties of sight, ("not by observation"), but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are no longer objectively looking for Christ outside of themselves. He dwells within them, and therefore they see Christ in the stranger, the gardner, everyone they meet, and they're then able to love them as Christ loves them.

Again, this may be your understanding of Christ, but your problem is the fact that you can in no way demonstrate that your understanding would be the correct understanding, as opposed to the way in which anyone else understands Christ.

You seem to be suggesting that Christ never really rose from the dead, but this is not the way in which the Apostles understood things, because they continued to point to an empty tomb as evidence that Christ indeed rose from the dead.

In fact, the Apostles used words such as, witness, eye witness, defense, evidence, proofs, convince, convicted, judge, judgment, testimony, testify, etc. concerning the Resurrection, which would all be words you would commonly hear in a courtroom. With this being the case, it certainly does not seem as if they had any other understanding other than Christ physically rose from the dead.

Again, I would only point out that what is useless is for a follower to hold their belief in a bodily escape from a literal tomb in higher regard than Christ manifesting in, with, and through the "new creature in Christ". Without the latter, the former is extremely idiotic.

Whoa? Wait a minute? What you say here may be true. However, no one is suggesting which should be held in "higher regard." On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that there was never any physical Resurrection of Christ, and then here you seem to be suggesting that there was, but it should not be held in the same regard as the Resurrection of Christ within the individual?

Yes, this is crucial to understand. One must actually see what one believes. We can beleive there was an accident, but unless you are a witness, your testimony will be useless in a court of law. The same holds true for Judgment Day.

Well, I did not witness the Resurrection of Christ, but I do believe that it occurred. Other than that, I have nothing? If you posses something higher than I, then this is something I can do nothing about.

So then, when it come to "judgment day" and I do not posses what it is you posses, then I guess I will be counted out. All I can do is to cling to Christ.

The truth is always and everywhere self evident.

Maybe only for those who seem to posses something others of us do not posses.

You must be able to demonstrate the truth, or it isn't the truth to begin with.

Is this to say that, when there were those who were insisting the Sun was stationary, but could not demonstrate it, that it was "not the truth to begin with?"

Also, since it is a fact that you can in no way demonstrate your understanding of Christ to be true, "that it is not the truth to begin with?"

However, the problem isn't in being able to demonstrate the truth, but in the fact that it must first be revealed. Without revelation, there is no way to demonstrate what you never witnessed.

And again, it seems as if there are those who have some sort of "revelation" that the rest of us do not posses, and so I guess that leaves us out.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 55 by shnarkle]

For all practical intents and purposes, Christ is God, but not according to the scriptures. God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence or being.

Are you saying Christ is God or not. There is no such thing as "for all practical intents and purposes."

The decalog indicates that God is a jealous God.

The twenty four elders worship Jesus.
The angels in heaven worship Jesus.
Men here on Earth Worship Jesus.

Either Jesus is God or He is not.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 56 by Realworldjack]

Then they aren't really rejecting Christ at all. They're rejecting a false narrative which places them closer to the truth than those who accept it.

You logic is flawed here in that, if they do not have the right idea about Christ, and reject Christ on that basis, then they still reject Christ,

False. Strawman argument. You're not responding to what I posted. You're making up your own scenario which is clearly false. First of all, Christ is not an idea to be accepted or rejected. Ideas are ideas. Those who preach a false gosepl are considered "anathema" by Paul. They are cursed, and the gospel they proclaim is false. Those who reject it are not rejecting Christ at all. They are rejecting a false gospel, and as I said before, they are in way better shape than those who accept it. You are explicitly making the claim that to reject a false Christ is to reject the true Christ. This is pure nonsense, and completely unbiblical.

...and are no better off than those who claim to accept Christ, on a faulty basis.

You don't seem to comprehend your own claim. A faulty basis is faulty. It isn't the truth. If the faulty basis is that Christ was a failed preacher of a gospel that requires you to work to establish your own righteousness, and you accept that, have you accepted the true gospel? How about a gospel where you can sin with impunity for the rest of your life, one where you can fornicate to your hearts content and blasphme the father, son and holy ghost with impunity? Is that the true gospel? If you accept that have you really accepted Christ? If you reject that have you really rejected Christ?

this writer is building up to a resurrection from the dead, of which, three other writers report of the same event...So are you suggesting this writer says nothing of the, "Resurrection?" No matter if the rest of what you say would be true or not, (which I do not care to debate here) this writer certainly reports the Resurrection, as does the other writers.

Mark doesn't report on any of the events surrounding the resurrection. His gospel ends with an empty tomb. Everything after that verse is added later by scribes. Mark ends with an empty tomb to emphasise Christ's message which isn't about the body at all. It's about living life according to God's will. That's living a resurrected life, and that falls right in line with the parallels Matt draws between Moses and Christ. The only major exception being that Moses made a few mistakes. Even so, nobody knows where either body is buried, and it really doesn't matter because it's not about the death of the body. It's about the new life free from sin.

So then, you would be incorrect to say "no", to my claiming, "this writer is building up to a Resurrection from the dead which is reported by the others as well", since this is exactly what he does, and so do the others,

Again, there is no report of a resurrection in Mark's gospel. There is only an empty tomb. The interpretation as to what "resurrection" actually means is left to the reader to decide for themselves. You've opted for a physical bodily resurrection which really doesn't fit with the narrative provided by Christ or Paul. They both point out that the body of sin must be sacrificed in order to walk after the Spirit, and keep God's commandments. Life isn't about the physical body with all of its desires to eat, drink, etc. It's about seeing Christ in others, and this is what the other authors present in their resurrection narratives. Seen together, it fits perfectly. In one account Mary sees a gardner, while in another she sees Christ, but she can't touch him, at least not like she could before because it isn't his physical body. It's not about a physical body. It's about seeing Christ in everyone you meet whether it be a gardner or a stranger on the way to Emauss. These are Christ's brothers.

This is effectively no legacy at all. You are setting out to do what is already the case. This is your claim.[/qoute]


Some folks need to read more carefully, because I am not the one who is claiming this would have been, "Christ's legacy."

You posted this:

if I set out to make my "legacy" the destruction of anyone who is not like me, and I am successful, then my "legacy" is exactly what I intended it to be, no matter what anyone else may think.

and this:

In other words, how can this to be fault of, Christ?

Because this is the purpose of the gospel. The gospel conforms those who have been foreordained to glory to the image of Christ while destroying those who have been "fitted for destruction". My point is to spotlight the fact that you claimed these things would have happened regardless which to a certain degree is true. Those who are foreordained to destruction would be destroyed if Christ never proclaimed his gospel. The only difference would have been that everyone else would be joining them.

Unless "Marco" believes the accounts by the Biblical writer, which he claims not to.

That's neither here nor there. It doesn't matter if he believes it or not. As Paul points out their unbelief can't negate God's promises.

So then, on the one hand, he seems to want to hold Christ responsible for the plight of the Jews, because of what is contained in the Bible, and then on the other hand, he seems to want to insist that what is contained in the Bible, is not trustworthy.

Christ is responsible. He takes full responsibility for the salvation of all mankind. He knows full well that his gospel message will be rejected by his own people. He doesn't then cast off that responsibility and skip is appointment with the cross. The gospel message cannot be trusted by the damned. They can't even hear it to begin with. It is only possible to trust the gospel after God gives someone the ears to hear it. God is completely responsible for who hears and who doesn't.

But again, your logic is faulty here in that, we all know that there is, "nation against nation, race against race" but this would not necessitate that what Christ did may have in fact caused the Jews to become outcasts, even though this is the norm.

Again, you're making my points for me. Thanks for spotlighting that your conclusion is that regardless of whether Christ has shown up or not, the norm remains the same. This is your claim, not mine. The claim is that there is no effective difference which then leads you to conclude that Christ can't be blamed or held responsible for what happens to Jews.

In other words, if the Jews had not rejected Christ, they "may" have been accepted by all nations, no matter the conflict between other nations.

Now you're contradicting your previous claims that it doesn't matter due to the fact that it didn't cause any deviation from the norm.

However, since they rejected Christ, and called curses down upon themselves, this could be the reason for their plight at this point, as we are all well aware.

No, this is something you have concluded because of what you've read in John's gospel account which was written by the Johanine community. They are simply pointing out that to reject Christ is tantamount to calling down curses on themselves. It's a literary device.

I am simply pointing out the fact that, if you do not believe we can trust what is contained in the Bible, then how can you hold Christ responsible for something that we all know goes on, between nations?

Because God intends for the gospel to be rejected. He has foreordained it to be rejected. My point is that your claim that what happens between nations will happen regardless of whether the gospel is trusted or not makes the gospel irrelevent.

Next, if we are going to hold Christ responsible, then we would have to agree that what is contained in the Bible, would be trustworthy. You cannot have it both ways!

Sure I can. I can trust it, and someone else can't.

The point is, either the Bible is trustworthy, and Christ has the "legacy" of causing the Jews to be outcasts. Or, what is contained in the Bible is not trustworthy, and we should not hold Christ responsible for something we all know goes on between nations.

This isn't a clear point. If what goes on between nations regardless of whether Christ is responsible, then Christ has no legacy even if the bible is trustworthy. If there is no effective difference, then there is no effective difference.

if the Bible is not trustworthy, then the plight of the Jews would have nothing to do with what is contained in the Bible.

You're just repeating yourself, and what you're repeating is nonsense. Here's an example to help you understand. Do you believe the Koran to be trustworthy? Do you beleive it to be the inspired word of God? Is it that trustworthy? Most would say it can't be trusted at all, and yet look at how it has affected people of all faiths. Look how many people have been either converted at the edge of a sword, or sliced to ribbons because of what is contained within its scrupulously studied pages.

How about social Darwinism? Do you believe that is trustworthy? Do you see the effects it has had on countless lives?

Because you see, I never said, "that this would have happened regardless of anything he did." Rather, we know that this could indeed have happened, because we see it with, and among other nations.

Non sequitur. It does not follow that just because other nations are against jews, that the story must be trustworthy as I have just provided a potent example to the contrary.

However, this would not negate the fact that the plight of the Jews, could very well be because of what is reported in the Bible. We cannot say either way.

But the fact is that you are doing exactly that. You are saying it either way, and i have just pointed out that you're doing so only by using logical fallacies. The fact is that quite a lot of Christians throughout history have used that passage in John's gospel to persecute Jews. It continues to this very day. Yet another reason why I would never refer to myself as a Christian. I just simply have no animosity whatsoever towards Jews. They are God's chosen people. They are the only people God chose to make a covenant with. They are the only people God chose to make a new covenant with. If you don't believe me, read it yourself in your own bible (see Jeremiah 31:33:Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10)

What we do not know is, what the plight of the Jews would have been if they had not rejected Christ.

Perhaps you ought to not only read your bible again, but take a look at the history of Jews who accepted Christ. The fact is that the entire bible is written by Jews, and the new testament scriptures are no exception. They are all Jews who accepted Christ. The whole concept of Christ is Jewish. All Jews are waiting for Christ to appear and set up his kingdom. There are plenty of Jews who accepted Christ. The text points out that 500 accepted him all at once. The early church was almost exclusively Jewish. When gentiles began to convert, they were persecuted because they were still identified with this sect of Judaism.

There are also those who are able to demonstrate what they believe concerning the resurrection based upon the evidence.

Please do share this information. If you are successful, we may be able to shut this site down.

Why would you want to shut this site down? I've already alluded to it by pointing out that the gospel writers are illustrating the gospel message with the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Christ begins his ministry with a call for repentance and self sacrifice. He says, "deny yourself". He also points out that when one discovers the kingdom, they sell everything, donate the proceeds to the poor and follow in Christ's footsteps. They forge headlong into the kingdom. The evidence is still abundant today with people who are doing the exact same thing. They completely opt out of the world's satanic system. They no longer live for themselves. They can't due to the fact that for them there is no other identity other than Christ. Christ doesn't live in a world of scarcity, but a world of abundance. The satanic monetary system most professing Christians wholeheartedly embrace is a testament to their profound ignorance of Christ's message. It's quite easy to see the evidence of those who are still paying to live here and those who are now free.

I believe the Resurrection did indeed occur, I cannot in anyway demonstrate that it did. Rather, all I can do is to give the reasons, and the evidence to support why it is I believe that it did in fact occur.

This then depends upon what you mean by "resurrection".

no one who is convinced the Resurrection did not occur, can demonstrate that it did not.

Right, it is a logical fallacy to prove a negative.

Rather, after some six years on this site, all anyone can do, is to give the reasons, along with the evidence to support why they do not believe that a resurrection did not occur.

That's not "all anyone can do". I can give reasons, along with evidence to support why a resurrection did occur, and that this resurrection is not a physical bodily resurrection at all. The gospel writers portray the risen Christ spontaneously appearing and disappearing, but only to believers. He can't be physically touched, and the message is that it is better to believe than to probe physical wounds. Paul points out that he no longer exists, but Christ is alive within him. This is explicitly what Paul means by resurrection. It means to live a sinless life by the power of Christ's spirit indwelling within the "new creation". Christ in you, your only hope of salvation. This is the gospel message.

Given that Christ's message relied upon a search for the truth rather than some pursuit of history, the real impacts are to be found there rather than in history.

you may be able to realize just how impressive it is to those of us who are not on your level, to understand that one who lived over 2000 years ago, is more than likely the most talked about, and debated, person in the whole of history, and this would be the, truth.

While it may true that the persona of Jesus is talked about more than anyone else in history, this is not the gospel message. The gospel isn't a popularity contest. The gospel isn't about who gets the most likes on their facebook page, or what's been trending over the last 2000 years. As impressive as that all may be to some, it will not gain you entrance into the kingdom. Only the truth will set you free. When Christ's message is proclaimed, history isn't revealed. The truth is revealed, and the truth is not yet revealed to everyone.

please attempt to understand those of us who may not be on your level.

I have no problem understanding your position. I am only asking you to extend the same courtesy to me. I am not presenting a superior level of understanding. I am simply pointing out a simple fact, i.e. a faith based upon history is of no value whatsoever in comparison to one based upon the truth. This is especially evident when history reveals that what you once believed about history turns out to be false.

For example, where did the gospel narratives originate, and develop? The historical fact is that they originated and developed within the synagogues, and are still to this very day, a carbon copy of the Jewish liturgical calendar. The gospel narratives fit like a hand into a glove in perfect chronological order to the Feasts of Jehovah. This alone should be enough to spotlight that they aren't historical narratives, but liturgical narratives. They are narratives that explicitly point out the value of "the truth". There is no emphasis anywhere within any of these narratives proclaiming a search for historical evidence as a basis for one's faith. If so, where?

The fact that history proves these narratives originated and developed within these Jewish synagogues is a threat to most so-called believers because their faith is based upon a historical narrative. Those who base their faith upon the truth of Christ's gospel don't have any problem with this historical fact.

Christ says to "deny yourself". Paul says to "present your bodies as a living sacrifice to Christ". Obviously he's not suggesting to literally sacrifice one's body

Paul specifically commands to, "offer your body as a LIVING sacrifice" as opposed to a dead sacrifice.

Right, which is why I pointed out that he isn't suggesting one literally sacrifice their physical bodies. However, Paul isn't denying that in doing so, one may easily find themselves losing their physical life, and he counts it as nothing but gain to lose one's life for Christ. Christ says the exact same thing: "Those who would save their lives will lose it, and those who would lose their lives for my sake will find it".

but he does point out that he no longer lives, but Christ within him. Christ is resurrected within Paul. There's all the evidence from the texts one needs to ascertain what Paul's meaning is.

The only way I can imagine one could come up with such a meaning, is if they have some sort of sense that the rest of us do not posses that somehow allows them to understand a meaning that is not there?

I can only suggest that you try learning logic. You begin with your premise that "one could come up with such a meaning", followed by the sense that allows one "to understand a meaning". So far so good, except that you finish with the fact that what is understood doesn't exist as it "is not there". Pure gibberish.

Because, I will assure you that Paul had no understanding of a Christ which was dead, and still in the tomb, and only resurrected within us.

I can assure you that I never claimed that Paul had an understanding of a Christ which was dead, and still in a tomb. Strawman argument. However, he explicitly states that "it is not I, but Christ in me". If he's not resurrected within Paul, then Paul is most to be pitied. Fortunately, Paul is explicitly talking about the resurrected Christ.

We can demonstrate this to be the case with modern science as well. Psychologist observe that infants will eventually develop a personality of their own. They will develop their own identity. What is an identity other than an idea? Do we need proof of ideas? We know that they are real ideas, but ideas are still nothing but ideas, and Paul explicitly points out that his identity has been lost in Christ. I don't have to believe any of this to see the empirical proof.

I certainly fail to see how what you have just said, demonstrates in any way, what you believe concerning Christ would be correct as opposed to what anyone else may believe?

While I can't help but wholeheartedly agree that you fail in not only comprehending what I've posted as well as what Paul and Christ clearly proclaim, but in comprehending an empirically verifiable and irrefutable truth, i.e. your identity is nothing more than an abstract construction of the mind. Prove me wrong. If it isn't just a silly idea, then what is it?

you can only give the reasons, along with maybe the evidence to support what it is

Yep! You got it.

... you claim to believe,

I'm not presenting beliefs. I'm presenting easily verified facts.

(and it is not very good in my opinion)

Fortunately, my arguments are not dependant upon your baseless opinions.

but you can in no way demonstrate what you claim to believe.

Again, I'm not presenting you with my beliefs. I'm presenting the easily verifiable truth. Identities are abstract constructions. They aren't real as anything other than real ideas which die along with the body they're identified with. Again, prove me wrong.

First, you would have to demonstrate that Christ, was indeed a "myth." If you can do this, then I will assure you that I will gladly reject what it is I believe concerning Christ, and I will owe you greatly.

The problem is that I'm not claiming Christ is a myth. I'm pointing out that a myth about Christ points to the truth of Christ. Not all myths about Christ do this, but then I'm only making the claims that are consistent and agree with scientific reality. Myths are not what they point to. They are a framework pointing to the truth. They are really not all that different from theories, parables, or even histories.

You seem to be failing to see the point here?

You seem to be asking questions with no apparent purpose.

if you could demonstrate that this would not be the case, then I could correct my understanding of Christ, and come to a better understanding. However, thus far you have not demonstrated anything at all.

I've demonstrated that the teachings of Christ require one to "deny yourself". Self denial or self sacrifice is the gospel message, and it is illustrated with the crucifixion itself. Mark's gospel account originally ended with the author asking his readers to peer into an empty tomb. What do we see? Nothing. It's empty. There is no body because that's not who Christ is. Life isn't about living for the body, but the body living for life, and not your life, but Christ. The gospel message is about living now, not some time in the future. It's about loving your neighbor as yourself because your neighbor is Christ. This is what Christ means when he says to love others as he loves you. It abrogates "love others as yourself" because you treat yourself horribly, and others just as bad. When one loves others as they are loved by Christ, they are seeing Christ in their neighbors. Christ says it this way, "You are the light of the world". Those who follow Christ become "the way". This is what the early church adopted as their identity. They lost their identity in the risen Christ dwelling within them.

Which is why it is so important to look at what Paul means by resurrection. The gospel narratives confirm Paul's interpretation as well. When we see the women approach the tomb, the gospel accounts seem to conflict, but when seen in relation to the teachings, they make perfect sense. Who do they meet? Do they meet a gardener, or Christ himself? Christ taught that "what you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me". He pointed out that "apart from me you can do nothing". He prayed that just as he was in the father and the father in him, so too may he be in his followers and they in him. So Mary sees a gardener, but then she's talking with Christ who she can't touch. Why? Because he has yet to ascend to heaven, right? Who has to ascend to heaven? Has he ascended to heaven, and returned when he tells Thomas to place his hands into his wounds? If so, then he's already returned. The fact is that the whole message is that you are blessed if you believe without having to see with your literal eyes. Thomas doesn't place his hands into Jesus' wounds. He doesn't need to. He sees Christ standing before him.

Remember this account is being generated from a church community decades after the fact. It is a reflection of who they are as a church. The two on their way to Emmaus are walking with a stranger, but their hearts are burning in their chests because they are beginning to sense something extraordinary has happened. Then when they invite him to sit and eat with them, they learn the stranger's true identity. This is true companionship. "Pan" means "bread" and they are breaking bread with Christ whenever they sit down with strangers. This is their realization. The author has Christ vanish because he is pointing out that this realization doesn't come through the normal faculties of sight, ("not by observation"), but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are no longer objectively looking for Christ outside of themselves. He dwells within them, and therefore they see Christ in the stranger, the gardner, everyone they meet, and they're then able to love them as Christ loves them.

Again, this may be your understanding of Christ, but your problem is the fact that you can in no way demonstrate that your understanding would be the correct understanding, as opposed to the way in which anyone else understands Christ.

Says you. Evidently, you believe it is impossible to love other people. I don't know where you live or what your circumstances are, but if you've never felt loved, then you're hanging around with the wrong people. The message is about loving others. It's about manifesting God's love abroad in his kingdom, but for some reason you don't believe this is even possible to demonstrate. Again, perhaps you might want to search for people who can demonstrate love to others instead of remaining in a loveless world.

What I'm presenting isn't really an understanding of Christ, but an explicit presentation of Christ manifesting in, with, and through the born again believers by the power of the holy Spirit according to God's purpose. Pray tell us all what is incorrect about being conformed to the image of Christ? Where did Paul go astray in presenting that in his letter?

You seem to be suggesting that Christ never really rose from the dead, but this is not the way in which the Apostles understood things,

No, I'm pointing out that the body is not Christ. He taught the same thing. The body is nothing but dirt. Christ is the image of God, and reflects God from within the temple which is his body. The body is not Christ, but Christ's temple, and that is exactly the case with everyone who is begotten of God.

because they continued to point to an empty tomb as evidence that Christ indeed rose from the dead.

Paul never pointed to an empty tomb. He pointed out that it was not he who lived, but Christ within him. "Not I, but Christ in me".

In fact, the Apostles used words such as, witness, eye witness, defense, evidence, proofs, convince, convicted, judge, judgment, testimony, testify, etc. concerning the Resurrection, which would all be words you would commonly hear in a courtroom. With this being the case, it certainly does not seem as if they had any other understanding other than Christ physically rose from the dead.

I'm not denying the resurrection. I'm simply pointing out what the authors are stating. They are portraying Christ walking through walls, locked rooms, appearing and disappearing. He points out that you can't touch him, and then when instructed to probe his wounds, no one has to anymore because they are witnessing to Christ's presence in their lives. This is what the church is seeing. They see that they can sell all their possessions and donate the proceeds to the communal pot. They are witnessing the kingdom manifesting right in front of their eyes, but it isn't their eyes that tell them it is the kingdom, but the burning in their hearts for each other. Christ is resurrected and in their midst, and they are carrying out his message under his authority. Look around. Do you see everyone in your community working for God rather than for money? Do you rely upon the providence of God, or do you still place your trust in money? Do you trust that God will provide for all your needs, or do you pull out some folding money from your wallet?

I'm not suggesting you try to believe it. I'm pointing out that people not only lived this way during the Acts of the Apostles, but they continue to live this way today. I've met people who have sold all their belongings and live only by the grace of God. They place all their trust in God's providence. What more evidence do you need? These people are a potent demonstration of the resurrected Christ manifesting through them. This confirms what the texts explicitly state. The fact that this isn't happening in your life doesn't negate that it happens. It isn't something one needs to understand; just believe the fact that it does happen. This will not allow you to live this way because you don't believe you can. Even though there are countless people who live with no money whatsoever, who have placed their complete trust in God alone, this will not be enough for you to live according to Christ's prerequisites for being a follower. It can only happend by revelation from God, and as we both agree that hasn't happened to you yet. This doesn't negate the fact that this is explicitly what Christ states in the gospel narratives.

Quote:
Again, I would only point out that what is useless is for a follower to hold their belief in a bodily escape from a literal tomb in higher regard than Christ manifesting in, with, and through the "new creature in Christ". Without the latter, the former is extremely idiotic.

On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that there was never any physical Resurrection of Christ,

What is flesh is flesh, and what is spirit is spiritual". "Flesh and bone cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven". There is no suggesting about it. It's the gospel truth.

and then here you seem to be suggesting that there was, but it should not be held in the same regard as the Resurrection of Christ within the individual?

No. I'm pointing out that Christ and Paul explicitly point out what it means to live a resurrected life. It is a life manifesting God's will. Placing one's faith in a physical bodily resurrection is of no use when you already have a physical body you are wasting in sin. Walking after the spirit means the flesh has been crucified, not by anything we have done or will ever do, but in, with, and through the faith of Christ's spirit indwelling according to God's promise. Do you believe God's promise, or not? If it isn't happening in your life, then it isn't something you actually believe. It may be something you hope for, but from what you've posted so far it doesn't seem likely that it's even appealing to you to begin with.

Well, I did not witness the Resurrection of Christ, but I do believe that it occurred.

Here's where we differ. I see Christ resurrected in people around me. I am a witness to that existential fact. I can't believe Christ is not risen because I see the risen Christ manifested in, with, and through the new creation.

Other than that, I have nothing?

You have a belief in something you can't bear witness to. It is a belief that has no root in you.

If you posses something higher than I, then this is something I can do nothing about.

I don't possess anything. No one can possess anything. Only demons can possess anything, or at least that's what they believe. However, you're right in saying there is nothing you can do about it. You can't make God reveal the truth.

when there were those who were insisting the Sun was stationary, but could not demonstrate it, that it was "not the truth to begin with?"

Correct. The sun is not stationary. It rotates on an axis, and travels in an orbit around the Milky Way galaxy right along with this entire solar system. What my statement was pointing out is that if you can't demonstrate the truth, you don't really know that it's the truth to begin with. You're just placing your reliance upon others who have taught you what they believe. You believe these ideas which have no correlation with your own reality.

Also, since it is a fact that you can in no way demonstrate your understanding of Christ to be true, "that it is not the truth to begin with?"

I have demonstrated it. I have seen it with my own eyes. Others have witnessed it as well. It is not only easily demonstrated, but easily accepted due to the fact that when one witnesses someone do something completely out of character, everyone can't help but admit that the spirit is moving within them. When you see people walk away from a life of addiction, crime, and wanton dissipation, it is hard to chalk it all up to chance, or their determined will or effort, especially when they themselves admit that they have no clue how it happened. When you see someone sitting in front of you in their right mind completely sane, there is no doubt that Christ is dwelling within them, and the demons that were destroying them are gone.

it seems as if there are those who have some sort of "revelation" that the rest of us do not posses, and so I guess that leaves us out.

Revelation is not something one possesses, but yes. No one can come to an accurate knowledge of the truth without revelation from God. That revelation is what faith is built upon. It is unshakable, and eternal. The best one can do is to believe the truth until it be revealed. The fact is that one needn't even believe; just live as if it is the truth. Keep all of God's laws and watch how your life changes. It's the scientific method. This is how you can demonstrate it for yourself. Refusing to carry out the experiments is not a defense, and doesn't negate the fact that God's ways work to carry out his purposes. The only difference is that even though you have demonstrated the truth of God's ways, you haven't done it through Christ's faith, but through your own will and effort. It isn't systemic, therefore it is useless for salvation. This doesn't negate the fact that is is still very useful in learning God's ways, not to mention common sense.

Carry out the experiment for yourself, and document the results. If you don't want to do that, then you can rely upon the historical evidence that points out the benefits of carrying out God's commandments. Science is all about demonstration, but if you don't want to engage in science, then you will never be able to demonstrate your faith. For that, there is no defense.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 57 by EarthScienceguy]

Are you saying Christ is God or not. There is no such thing as "for all practical intents and purposes."

When you look at the image of God, and there is only the image, then for all practical intents and purposes, there is nothing else you can worship. You cannot worship the father because the father has no image other than the son. God's image is not God; it's God's image.

Again, look at what Paul says:

But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF WHOM are all things,...

Of whom denotes the source from which all things originate.

...and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY WHOM are all things, and we by him.

By whom indicates the means, the mediator, the copula, the metaphor, the symbol, the sign, the first person singular verb to be, i.e. "I AM". Christ is the only mediator between the world and God, but there is no referent for God in the created world. God transcends everything. God is "incomparable" which is what it means to be transcendent. However, there is no effective difference between transcendence and non-existence. If transcendence doesn't transcend existence then it isn't transcendence.

God is not transcendent because transcendence doesn't exist. The word exists. It is the very ground of existence or being. The word is eternal, and exists eternally. God is the origin of the word, therefore God can only exist in, with, and through the word. Apart from the word, God doesn't exist. There is no way anyone can worship God apart from Christ. This is why I say that for all practical intents and purposes, Christ is God. God exists in, with, and through Christ and Christ alone. There can be no referent for God other than the Word "God".