27 Oct 15
Originally posted by checkbaiterIn other words, all this religion stuff is strictly in your head. You can point to absolutely nothing that can define a deity interacting directly here on Earth.
[b]There is this central arrogance that says humans are somehow worthy of the attention of a deity.
No, they are not. I am forever amazed that God's love is so big, that he chooses to love humans.
Do you SEE a deity? Do you feel one? Has it ever talked to you,
Not visually...... sometimes...... and finally, yes.[/b]
That in spite of the 'fact' a deity interacted directly with ancient ones. I guess we don't deserve intervention now, eh.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
27 Oct 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYes I can.
In other words, all this religion stuff is strictly in your head. You can point to absolutely nothing that can define a deity interacting directly here on Earth.
That in spite of the 'fact' a deity interacted directly with ancient ones. I guess we don't deserve intervention now, eh.
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ witnessed by over 500 people.
Christians who have been healed of various diseases, blindness, etc.
You want their names and addresses too?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFOK it wasn't Acts, it was 1Corinth....
There are not 500 witness testimonies there as you well know. What you have is your personal belief that 500 people witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You do not have 500 witnesses.
1 Cor 15:3-8
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo, as I pointed out, you do not have 500 witness testimonies.
OK it wasn't Acts, it was 1Corinth....
1 Cor 15:3-8
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by o ...[text shortened]... the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf truth is important to you, you'll acknowledge that in actuality what you have is a claim made by ONE namely Paul. Of course that doesn't sound nearly as impressive, so you went with the claim that you did.
OK it wasn't Acts, it was 1Corinth....
1 Cor 15:3-8
3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by o ...[text shortened]... the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV
28 Oct 15
I went on a demonstration in London called the ‘March for Mandela’ on 14 March 1987. The police estimated the crowd to have peaked at 5,000 people as they marched across the city. If I now claim that the police underestimated the attendance, and that the actual number was nearer to 25,000, does the fact that I have made this claim ~ and I also insist it is supported by 25,000 eye witnesses testimonies ~ does my assertion make the police estimation untrue? No. What I would, in fact, have, would be a single eye witness account ~ mine.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf the bible is not real to you, then neither is Paul, not to mention the 500 witnesses.
If truth is important to you, you'll acknowledge that in actuality what you have is a claim made by ONE namely Paul. Of course that doesn't sound nearly as impressive, so you went with the claim that you did.
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by checkbaiterI think your claim that the resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by 500 people because you believe the claim of the writer of Corinthians is fine, but for you to assert that your own claim that what the writer of Corinthians claims is true because you have 500 eye witness testimonies is sheer nonsense.
If the bible is not real to you, then neither is Paul, not to mention the 500 witnesses.
You should stick to your belief, faith and superstition ~ whatever you want to call it ~ and stop pretending you are some kind of historian weighing evidence in an academically or intellectually valid way. You say the resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by 500 people? Fine. I understand why you believe that.
But enough with this nonsense that you have 500 eye witness testimonies that prove it. What you have is one secondary source written many years after the events it describes.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by FMFI think you know what I meant, but as usual you over react to elevate yourself. If it makes you feel better, fine.
I think your claim that the resurrection of Jesus was witnessed by 500 people because you believe the claim of the writer of Corinthians is fine, but for you to assert that your own claim that what the writer of Corinthians claims is true because you have 500 eye witness testimonies is sheer nonsense.
You should stick to your belief, faith and superstition ~ ...[text shortened]... rove it. What you have is one secondary source written many years after the events it describes.
It is obvious to anyone that an event 2000 years ago, witnessed or not would all be deceased.
28 Oct 15
Originally posted by checkbaiterThe following still stands:
If the bible is not real to you, then neither is Paul, not to mention the 500 witnesses.
If truth is important to you, you'll acknowledge that in actuality what you have is a claim made by ONE namely Paul. Of course that doesn't sound nearly as impressive, so you went with the claim that you did.
If truth is important to you, you'd acknowledge that your beliefs are built upon faith rather than tangible evidence which is what sonhouse asked for. I've known any number of Christians that I've spoken with face-to-face who have readily acknowledged this. For whatever reason, many Christians who post on this forum seem to be unwilling to do so.
Truth was important to Jesus as evidenced by His saying "the truth will make you free" and speaking of "the spirit of truth" when referring to the holy spirit. Why isn't it important to you?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
29 Oct 15
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you want to put it that way, then yes it is by faith. By faith in historical documents, I believe Aristotle was real, along with Herodotus, Thucydides, Caeser, Tacitus, Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of same, and many others.
The following still stands:If truth is important to you, you'll acknowledge that in actuality what you have is a claim made by ONE namely Paul. Of course that doesn't sound nearly as impressive, so you went with the claim that you did.
If truth is important to you, you'd acknowledge that your beliefs are built upon faith rather than ta ...[text shortened]... aking of "the spirit of truth" when referring to the holy spirit. Why isn't it important to you?
Originally posted by checkbaiterThere you go. Perhaps you should have simply told sonhouse that it's based on faith and that there isn't any tangible evidence.
If you want to put it that way, then yes it is by faith. By faith in historical documents, I believe Aristotle was real, along with Herodotus, Thucydides, Caeser, Tacitus, Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of same, and many others.