A Simple Way to Experience Christ

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Please, tell me, why do you feel the need to invent yourself an imaginary friend?

What is it that you are opening my eyes to see?

Have you figured that out yet?

Originally posted by jaywill
History knows of Jesus Christ. Why don't you if you're so smart?

The words of Jesus are difficult to ignore. He is not so easily dismissed.

"Behold I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (Matt. 28:20).

As far as Matthew's gospel and John's gospel are concerned they never say that He went anywhere after His resurrection. Th ...[text shortened]... is Him.

Christ is believable. Christ is the most believable Person I have ever met.

He may be believable, but his actual existance isn't historically verifiable. And even if it were, all it would prove is that an individual named "jesus" existed. Nothing more.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
He may be believable, but his actual existance isn't historically verifiable. And even if it were, all it would prove is that an individual named "jesus" existed. Nothing more.

So you think some Jewish fishermen concocted a character and put words in his mouth and then went and died for this fictitious person?


This is very interesting. The earliest apologetics to the Christian faith was not against people who said that Jesus never lived. Rather it was against the Gnostics who taught that He was too good to be a real material person.

The Gnostics wrote that Jesus could not be real flesh and blood because He was too good. They taught that Jesus was a phantasm. John wrote his gospel to counter their kind of teaching. In it John testifies that he saw blood come out of His body on the cross. He sets his personal seal to this witness. In essense he says -

"He was not a phantasm. I saw blood come out of His body. He was a genuine man dying there with genuine flesh and blood."

You would think that the earliest Christian defense of the faith would be that Jesus did in fact live. But to our surprise the anti Gnostic apologetic is that Jesus was not a phantasm contrary to Gnostic belief. He was a genuine man.

This is telling. It proves that the contraversy was whether such a Person could be a real man and not whether such a Peson ever existed.

Originally posted by jaywill
It proves that the contraversy was whether such a Person could be a real man not whether such a Peson existed.

Six of one, half dozen of another.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
He may be believable, but his actual existance isn't historically verifiable. And even if it were, all it would prove is that an individual named "jesus" existed. Nothing more.

Time out.

While his existence may not be 'historically verifiable' in an absolute
sense, very few historical persons are. A colleague of mine was
relating to me the published musings of a historian who was
contending that Charlemagne didn't exist. I've heard of the same
thing for Alexander the Great.

Before you can assert that someone isn't 'historically verifiable,' I'd
kindly ask that you submit the criteria by which you would judge the
validity of a historical person's existence. If your criteria would exclude
Jesus, I bet it would exclude the majority of antiquity's major players.

Generally speaking, there isn't a tremendous amount of serious
debate over Jesus's existence. The debate is largely over 'who' He
was: prophet? revolutionary? charismatic rabbi? eccentric ascetic? God's
Son? But -- given that you would accept that He existed -- there is a
certain amount of biographical overlap amongst the various camps
in question. It is in the interpretation of the biographical information
that has come down to us (as imperfect as it may be) that scholars
come to different conclusions.

Nemesio

Originally posted by David C
Six of one, half dozen of another.

The obstacles to a person substantiating the reality of Jesus are not in matters like the history books. The barriers to experiencing Christ do not lie in anything that interesting.

The barriers to one substantiating Christ is alive is on your sins. It is in the real record of real guilt of actual wrong doings against God. These stains of transgression are the obstacles between a person and the real experience of God in Christ.

This barrier is something that He can remove if you ask Him to. The actual guilt of actual transgressions form an insulation over the conscience and over the human spirit. This insulation renders your spiritual perception comatose and deadened.

When the record of actual sins is cleansed away through coming to Christ in faith, His finished work on the cross justifies you and there is no problem then to substantiating that Jesus is alive and can be known.

Originally posted by jaywill
The Gnostics wrote that Jesus could not be real flesh and blood because He was too good. They taught that Jesus was a phantasm. John wrote his gospel to counter their kind of teaching. In it John testifies that he saw blood come out of His body on the cross. He sets his personal seal to this witness. In essense he says -

"He was not a phantasm. I saw blood come out of His body. He was a genuine man dying there with genuine flesh and blood."

It was not so much the Gnostics generally, but to the Docetists
specifically that this apologia was included (St John 19:34-35).

Regardless: so what if St John reports that an eyewitness testified that
it was true? Who is to say that this eyewitness wasn't lying under
oath, as many people do? What about when Gnostic accounts report
something and that an 'eyewitness testified?' Why is that less
trustworthy to you than this account?

What is the objective standard that has you believe this account to
be true?

And, I'd ask as an aside: St John is said to have written this Gospel
which we have both cited. Similarly, St John is considered to have
been the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved.' Given that St John was present
at the crucifixion (St John 19:26-27), why would St John need to
appeal to a witness at all? He himself would have been a witness.

What explanation can you offer for this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
Scottishshinnz,

I call on the Lord Jesus Christ and I know why I breath, why my heart beats and why I exist.

Why don't you wake up from your sleep and tell us all why you are alive. What is the purpose of your life here in the universe?

Do you know?

Why must life have any purpose?
We exist. Other life exists.
Why must there be more than that?

Now we might like there to be more than that - we might hope there is. But hoping doesn't make it so.

And thinking about another post on this thread - I create my own purpose for my life.
I need purpose to prevent my life from becoming of no meaning at all - to me. So I create purpose. I determine the important things in my life - which in my case are my wife, my kids, my family and friends, my work and my general contribution to society - probably in that order.
These important things then generate a purpose - to do the best that I can for these people; to love them and support them and be there for them.
This requires no external entity - God or Jesus or anything else.

Now you mentioned in response to something along these lines that Jesus is not external. I take your point - Jesus for many Christians seems to be an internal feeling.
I can understand that - I get internal feelings of strength and support and love. I just don't attribute them to some historical/external figure.

It is not six of one and half a dozen of the other. The Gnostics said He lived but could not have been material. For them the material universe was evil. Therefore Jesus could not have been material.

That is different from saying no such person ever lived.

As I said it is not that you don't know enough about Roman society or Jewish history. It is not anything that interesting that keeps you from knowing Christ experiencially.

It is, sad to say, just your sins. Your boring old sins. That is what keeps you from knowing Christ. The real record of actual guilt before God of your sins must be dealt with. And that Christ has done on His cross.

In a real sense one only needs to acknowledge that and thank God for it. We do not have to beg for forgiveness. We have to trust that on the cross of Jesus justice on our behalf was imputed.

Accepting that justice on our behalf was imputed against God's Son on the cross removes the real obstacle to the experience of the resurrected Savior and Lord Jesus.

It is not politics. It is not Roman history. You don't need more knowledge of Greek language. You don't need more understanding of evolution. You need the record of actual guilt from your sins atoned for by the propitiatory death of Christ on your behalf.

We can just thank Him and receive the salvation calling on His name.

"Lord Jesus. O Lord Jesus I thank you for dying for my sins. I simply receive your salvation and simply accept you as my Savior"

This is a very effective small prayer to touch Christ deep within your heart and spirit. This man Jesus is Really good for men and women.

Originally posted by amannion
Why must life have any purpose?
We exist. Other life exists.
Why must there be more than that?

Now we might like there to be more than that - we might hope there is. But hoping doesn't make it so.

And thinking about another post on this thread - I create my own purpose for my life.
I need purpose to prevent my life from becoming of no meaning at al ...[text shortened]... strength and support and love. I just don't attribute them to some historical/external figure.

God says He has an eternal purpose. If God is a reality then God's eternal purpsose must be the purpose.

You may not be certain about God. But you should percieve that the universe seems to be created in a purposeful way. From the tiniest microcosm to the largest macrocosm we see order. At every level we see order.

What will saying that there is no purpose lead to ? What is the moral byproduct of maintaining that there is no purpose to live? What is the price tag associated with such a idea?

About Jesus not being external. Do not misunderstand me. In Romans Paul locates Christ two places. On one hand He is at the right hand of God interceding for His believers in 8:34. But on the other hand He is the Christ Who lives in the believers in verses 9 through 11.

God's eternal purpose involves His desire to dispense His Spirit into man. God desires to impart His life into man's life so that man and God become a mingling and organic union of lives.

Ours is a created life. His is an uncreated and eternal life. And His life was embodied in this Person Jesus the Son of God.

God created man in order to dispene His life and His divine nature into man. This is the intimate intertwining that God desires with man.

"Abide in Me and I in you."

Originally posted by jaywill
God says He has an eternal purpose. If God is a reality then God's eternal purpsose must be the purpose.

You may not be certain about God. But you should percieve that the universe seems to be created in a purposeful way. From the tiniest microcosm to the largest macrocosm we see order. At every level we see order.

What will saying that there is no ...[text shortened]... his is the intimate intertwining that God desires with man.

"Abide in Me and I in you."

The idea that morality flows from some divine purpose to the universe is ridiculous - especially given the dubious historical record of religious morality.
My morality flows from my own sense of purpose.
And of course, from society's morality as a whole.

Whether the universe looks like it has a purpose or has been created is irrelevant. Something can look purposeful but have no purpose. Something can look to have no purpose but have loads of purpose.

I am certain about God though.
There is none.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]The Gnostics wrote that Jesus could not be real flesh and blood because He was too good. They taught that Jesus was a phantasm. John wrote his gospel to counter their kind of teaching. In it John testifies that he saw blood come out of His body on the cross. He sets his personal seal to this witness. In essense he says lf[/i] would have been a witness.

What explanation can you offer for this?

Nemesio

Since all believers in Christ are "called saints" ( 1 Cor. 1:2) , I will just refer to "St. John" as John our brothers.

The Gospel of John is of course propoganda. There is true propoganda as well as untrue propoganda. I believe that John's Gospel os propoganda of the true type.

It quite candidly tells us that it was written so that we would believe. Most people telling a tall tale do not say "I am telling this to you so that you would believe". But John tells us candidly that the purpose of his writing is so that we would believe and have life in the name of Jesus Christ:

"Moreover indeed many oher signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are not written in this book.

But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name" (John 20:30,31).

So we know that John set out to write something so that we would believe in Christ as Son of God and also to have divine life through believing.

Believing in Christ seems eventually to be a decision. We must will "to believe." This is the point, I think, of the incident with Thomas. Thomas of course told the other disciples that he would not believe in a resurrected Jesus unless he placed his hands in the wounds in His flesh. It is interesting to me that when Jesus finally appeared and offered to Thomas such hard, shall we say, scientific evidence, He accompanied this solid proof with this "And be believing".

"Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing" (John 20:27). It was still up to a decision on the part of Thomas. Christ told him in essence "Here is your scientific evidence. But it is still up to a decision of your will to be believing and not unbelieving."

So believing in Christ as Son of God and resurrected to be alive is eventually a decision that our will must choose or not choose.

Now concerning your last question, I was not quite sure I understood you. But there are many many things that John could have emphasized that he personally saw them in his gospel. Many signs are performed and John records them in just a matter of fact way. So I question the few and sparse times when he seems to add his personal witness. And one of those time concerns the pouring out of blood and water from the body of Jesus.

He reserves this time to emphasize that he saw it. Why this emphasis? And why at this juncture? The entire gospel is important to believe. But he adds a special emphasis at this point because he wants to counter the popular mistaken idea that Jesus was too good to be material.

John says in effect "I know that He was a man of flesh and blood" The Logos became flesh and taberacled among us.

I am not sure what your last question is getting at. But the gospel of John as the other gospels is propoganda in its purest form. He intends to convince you. He tells you that he intends to convince you. And it is to your benefit that you believe that you might have eternal life in the name of the Son of God Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by jaywill
Since all believers in Christ are "called saints" ( 1 Cor. 1:2) , I will just refer to "St. John" as John our brothers.

The Gospel of John is of course propoganda. There is true propoganda as well as untrue propoganda. I believe that John's Gospel os propoganda of the true type.

It quite candidly tells us that it was written so that we would believ that you might have eternal life in the name of the Son of God Jesus Christ.

Which do you think is more credible:

1) I saw it with my own eyes and I swear it is true!

or,

2) An unknown witness saw it with his own eyes and swore to me that
it is true!

Don't you think #1 is more compelling?

Don't you think that, after St John's lengthy report as an eyewitness
to events of varying importance gives him a certain credibility than an
appeal to some unnamed mystery witness?

Doesn't this raise at least an eyebrow for you? St John (who by his
own account, was standing right there) suddenly doesn't emphasize
his account with his own witness, but with someone else's??

You write that St John's Gospel is propoganda of the true type. By
what standards do you evaluate true from false propoganda?

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
And it is to your benefit that you believe that you might have eternal life in the name of the Son of God Jesus Christ.

Hang in there and keep preaching the Gospel. I like the way you refuse to get drawn into debates using human wisdom...keep giving 'em the Word!

Originally posted by masscat
Hang in there and keep preaching the Gospel. I like the way you refuse to get drawn into debates using human wisdom...keep giving 'em the Word!

Your comment reminds me of a 13th c. Roman Catholic hymn.

Verbum caro panem verum
Verbo carnem efficit;
Fitque sanguis Christi merum;
Et si sensus deficit,
Ad firmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides sufficit.

...And if the [human] senses fail [to believe], faith alone suffices
to assure the firm of heart.

St Thomas Aquinas, having composed this poem for use in the newly
recognized feast of Corpus Christi, indicates that, in the face of all that
concords with human experience, one ought to reject that experience
in lieu of the teachings of the Church (as it pertained to transubstantiation).

Whereas I don't particularly mind if people do this with Bread/Body
or Wine/Blood (since the impact of Eucharist is a spiritual and personal
one), to do this on a level of rejecting anything that opposes any
content of the Bible is frighteningly dangerous.

Nemesio