Originally posted by @romans1009I have not claimed that what early Christians believed was "something they knew was a lie". You have introduced this notion, not me. You are trying to attribute this perspective to me. It is a rhetorical gimmick.
I’m not pushing a gimmick, and it’s a pity you can’t discuss this subject civilly and without cheap insults.
Originally posted by @romans1009I am offering my perspective. I am not going to go toe to toe with you posting links to material that is not in accordance with your beliefs.
So in other words, you have no evidence. Or at least none that you’re willing to share.
Originally posted by @fmfThe Shroud of Turin is not proof; it’s evidence. Some people believe it was the burial cloth of Christ; some don’t. But from what I read a few years ago, contemporary science cannot explain how the image appeared on the Shroud.
Another question that Fetchmyjunk asked me several times. Yes, I do. You have no proof that your god figure exists. But you do have enough of what you consider to be "evidence" to satisfy yourself. I get it. Do you believe that your god figure deliberately provided we humans with the Shroud of Turin [b]despite Hebrews 11:6?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009Well, whatever your reasons are for being a Christian are, and for having a god figure you believe in, I am OK with that.
Gee, thanks again. So glad you are Ok with my believing in God, though you are way off on the reasons.
Originally posted by @romans1009So do you believe that your god figure deliberately provided the Shroud of Turin as "evidence" of his existence?
The Shroud of Turin is not proof; it’s evidence. Some people believe it was the burial cloth of Christ; some don’t. But from what I read a few years ago, contemporary science cannot explain how the image appeared on the Shroud.
Originally posted by @fmfYou’re misrepresenting what I said. I said early Christians willingly endured persecution, torture and death for refusing to deny what they saw with their own eyes. If they really did not see Jesus Christ alive post-crucifixion, why would they allow themselves to be persecuted, tortured and killed for something they knew was a lie? The answer is they wouldn’t and they weren’t lying.
I have not claimed that what early Christians believed was "something they knew was a lie". You have introduced this notion, not me. You are trying to attribute this perspective to me. It is a rhetorical gimmick.
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009I answered this to the best of my ability. Take a look at the posts I made and address what I said.
You’re misrepresenting what I said. I said early Christians willingly endured persecution, torture and death for refusing to deny what they saw with their own eyes. If they really did not see Jesus Christ alive post-crucifixion, why would they allow themselves to be persecuted, tortured and killed for something they knew was a lie? The answer is they wouldn’t and they weren’t lying.
Originally posted by @fmfI honestly don’t know. I believed in God long before I heard of the Shroud of Turin and had only a passing familiarity with it before I believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It really has no impact on my faith, though I know it does for a few people. I wouldn’t presume to know if God provided it as further evidence of His existence or not.
So do you believe that your god figure deliberately provided the Shroud of Turin as "evidence" of his existence?
Originally posted by @romans1009So you mentioned The Shroud of Turin as being a "logical reason to believe in the resurrection" earlier on the thread but you now say you honestly don’t know whether you believe it or not. Seems a bit odd.
I honestly don’t know. I believed in God long before I heard of the Shroud of Turin and had only a passing familiarity with it before I believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It really has no impact on my faith, though I know it does for a few people. I wouldn’t presume to know if God provided it as further evidence of His existence or not.
Originally posted by @fmfFor some it is a logical reason. It really has no impact on me though I think it’s interesting that contemporary science apparently can’t explain how the image appeared.
So you mentioned The Shroud of Turin as being a "logical reason to believe in the resurrection" earlier on the thread but you now say you honestly don’t know whether you believe it or not. Seems a bit odd.
Originally posted by @fmfI can’t address what you said because you confused belief with something a person claimed to have seen with his own eyes and would therefore know to a certainty if he were telling the truth or lying.
I answered this to the best of my ability. Take a look at the posts I made and address what I said.
Originally posted by @romans1009Maybe they had some experience that triggered a change of faith and beliefs. Maybe they nutted it all out, put it all together in their heads, and ended up realizing that they believed it. I have known plenty of people who have gone from being Muslims and atheists to being Christians,
<The "evidence" you cite is particularly strong in the minds of those who already believe it, who were brought up with it, as well as those who simply want to believe it. That's human nature..>
Doesn’t explain how atheists and agnostics have come to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
As I said on Thread 175598, There are plenty of former non-believers (non-Christians) around the world who became Christians because - for example - they believe angels (or indeed Jesus or Mary) appeared to them. I have known several and one is a good friend to this day.
I have also known Christians who becamse Muslims, and Christians who became atheists, and I count several of these as close friends too.
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009If you can't address what I said then you and I are at an impasse. I believe I have addressed each element of what you have been saying clearly and succinctly. If it won't suffice, then so be it .
I can’t address what you said because you confused belief with something a person claimed to have seen with his own eyes and would therefore know to a certainty if he were telling the truth or lying.
Originally posted by @romans1009Yes, you said this before. And as I said, it seems a bit odd that you'd cite it as a logical reason when it doesn't even work on you.
For some it is a logical reason. It really has no impact on me though I think it’s interesting that contemporary science apparently can’t explain how the image appeared.