The resurrection

Originally posted by amannion
Only true relationship?
What a crock.
In my mind, the relationship I have with my wife and kids beats anything - [b]anything - hands down.
But then of course, that's in my mind - which is subjective and biased.

But tell me, why is your relationship any less subjective and biased? Because a couple of billion people share it?
Weight of numbers isn't going to win you any prizes here. You'll have to do better.
Can you?[/b]

The relationship people have with Jesus Christ supercedes everything else. We are to live for him. I too have a wonderful relationship with my wife and kids and that honors God, so what's the problem?

............... because your wife and kids didn't die for everyone's sins.

Originally posted by chappy1
If you wrote this story it would have no validity. The reason it would have no validity is because you were in no position to see it for yourself. The people who wrote the Bible did and they died horrible deaths because of it (except John). No one will die for their faith if they know it to be false. Plenty will die if they know it to be true and the dis ...[text shortened]... fact that their faith is true like the disciples did. That's why I treat Jesus differently.

Nonsense, history is littered with the carcasses of those who have died for causes they believed to be true and have turned out not to be.

Originally posted by Starrman
Nonsense, history is littered with the carcasses of those who have died for causes they believed to be true and have turned out not to be.

No you didn't read what I wrote. Or maybe you didn't understand what I wrote. I should have made it more clear. Of course people have died for what they thought was true and later found out it wasn't. I understand that. All you have to do is look at every suicide bomber. They truly believe in their religion. What I said was that no would die for something they know to be false. The disciples were in the unique position of knowing for a fact that what they believed in was true because they had seen it for themselves. Suicide bombers die for their faith but they don't know for an absolute fact that their religion is true because they weren't around to verify it with their own eyes. Jesus's disciples were.

Originally posted by chappy1
The relationship people have with Jesus Christ supercedes everything else. We are to live for him. I too have a wonderful relationship with my wife and kids and that honors God, so what's the problem?

............... because your wife and kids didn't die for everyone's sins.

Well it supercedes everything else for you, but obviously not for me. Why must it be an all or nothing proposition?

As for dying for someone's sins: that presupposes the notion of sin (what defines a sin?), it assumes that everyone sins (that's questionable), it assumes that jesus lived and died as written (no verifiable records of this), and then it assumes motivation on his part (ie. doing it for someone else - the only record of which is a second hand account from someone after the event).
All of which leads me to suggest you're on tenuous grounds.

Originally posted by amannion
Well it supercedes everything else for you, but obviously not for me. Why must it be an all or nothing proposition?

As for dying for someone's sins: that presupposes the notion of sin (what defines a sin?), it assumes that everyone sins (that's questionable), it assumes that jesus lived and died as written (no verifiable records of this), and then it ass ...[text shortened]... t from someone after the event).
All of which leads me to suggest you're on tenuous grounds.

Well that's obviously for a believer and that certainly isn't you, so I wasn't speaking about you. It must be all or nothing because to not love God first in your life is labled idolatry. It's as simple as that. It says so in the Bible several times, not sure where, I'd have to look it up. But then again you don't believe in the Bible so maybe I won't look it up.
Of course everyone sins. Is anyone perfect? No. No one is perfect (the exception of course being Jesus) everyone makes mistakes and therefore everyone sins. God defines sin. It always benifits the liberal to say there is no sin and then they are justified in living in any way they please.
No living record of Jesus? Wow, now you're even debating whether or not he even lived? Even the most arrogant atheists agree that he lived- that he did exist. It is in Roman records that he lived. Josephus (Jewish, but chronicled for the Romans) the famous historian wrote down things about Jesus! Look it up. I know that he wrote that a man named Jesus, some call him a prophet, was crucified by the Romans. So he did exist you shouldn't doubt that he even lived, that's ludicrous.
I find it hilarious that you call the Bible a second hand account from someone after the event. Hilarious! Most of the people that wrote the New Testament were eye witnesses. They wrote down what they saw with their own eyes. The few that weren't eye witnesses (Saul/Paul) had a tremendous change of character. From persecutor and killer of Christians to one of the most revered of Christians. How do you explain such a change in attitude? And no he wasn't brainwashed.

Originally posted by chappy1
Well that's obviously for a believer and that certainly isn't you, so I wasn't speaking about you. It must be all or nothing because to not love God first in your life is labled idolatry. It's as simple as that. It says so in the Bible several times, not sure where, I'd have to look it up. But then again you don't believe in the Bible so maybe I won't lo ...[text shortened]... tians. How do you explain such a change in attitude? And no he wasn't brainwashed.

Again, all you've got to explain a 'tremendous change of character' is the writing of the person who had this. Does that not seem circular to you?

If I tell you this, 'yesterday I was sad, but today I'm really happy' what more do you know about me that you didn't already? Well, I told you I was sad, and now I'm happy.
So what?

No, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those who think Jesus didn't exist. I'm pretty sure he did. My point is that all I've got to go by on that score is the writing of someone else.

God defines sin. So, since I don't believe in god I'm free of sin is that it? The trouble I have is the connotation of the word sin - it suggests some sort of deliberate act on the part of the sinner. You used the word mistake - do you really see sin as the same thing as mistake? That would be surprising to me.
If, as I read it, sin is a deliberate thing, then how can someone who is unable to make reasonable deliberations be a sinner? I'm thinking of a baby or a severely handicapped person. (Not me by the way. I'm full of sin. Although I do try to be better ...)

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by josephw
[b]I'm talking about the resurrection of an individual that claimed to be God.

Jesus never claimed to be God. There are things that He said that would lead the reader to
conclude that He didn't believe this, and St Paul clearly didn't think Jesus was God.


Nemesio[/b]

Jesus most certainly claimed to be God in the flesh, in many passages of John for starters. He said "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He said "I and the Father are One." Not to mention His assertion that "I am the Way--no one gets to the Father but by Me."

Originally posted by chappy1
The other people who were raised from the dead were raised by Jesus! Are speaking of Lazarus and the other little girl that had died? They were both raised by Jesus! Peter and Paul also raised some people from the dead in the Bible but it if you notice they always declared Jesus's name as they were doing it! This means it wasn't them, it was the power of ...[text shortened]... wasn't Jesus or wasn't raised by the power of Jesus. Give the name of the Book and Verse.

How about the many that came out of their graves at the moment of Christ's resurrection and walked around town and were seen by many? Who raised them?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
How about the many that came out of their graves at the moment of Christ's resurrection and walked around town and were seen by many? Who raised them?

Give me a Book and a Verse and then I'll try and tell you because as of right now I don't know to what you are referring.

Originally posted by amannion
Again, all you've got to explain a 'tremendous change of character' is the writing of the person who had this. Does that not seem circular to you?

If I tell you this, 'yesterday I was sad, but today I'm really happy' what more do you know about me that you didn't already? Well, I [b]told you I was sad, and now I'm happy.
So what?

No, don't get me ...[text shortened]... erson. (Not me by the way. I'm full of sin. Although I do try to be better ...)[/b]

Do you deny that Saul was a very powerful Pharasee before he became a Christian? If so then I can't help you because this is well documented. If you do agree then don't you think it's kinda strange that he then became Christianity's most prominant advocate? That my friend is a change of character. This conversion was written in the Book of Acts which was written by Luke. So it wasn't written by the person it happened to. It was written by another man.

I don't understand your logic about having to trust the writings of someone else. Of course you do because you weren't there. How else would we hear about it? Through the writings of someone who was there, right?

If you don't believe in God that doesn't free that person from sin it actually makes them a slave to it. Just because you don't believe doesn't mean that sin doesn't exist for you, it just means you are sinning and aren't taking any accountability for it. It means you are taking some amount of pleasure in it even though it's only temporary pleasure. I don't mean sin is a mistake as in 2+2=5 oops I've made a mistake and now I've sinned. I mean sin as a mistake in your life that you have to correct (ie; lying, cheating, adultery, stealing, murder, lust etc.)
Everyone sins, but only those who have a knowledge of right and wrong will be accountable for it. So those that are too young or those who are mentally ill or severely handicapped will not be accountable. At least that's how I read it.
Have a good day my friend.:😀

Originally posted by chappy1
Do you deny that Saul was a very powerful Pharasee before he became a Christian? If so then I can't help you because this is well documented. If you do agree then don't you think it's kinda strange that he then became Christianity's most prominant advocate? That my friend is a change of character. This conversion was written in the Book of Acts which was ...[text shortened]... be accountable. At least that's how I read it.
Have a good day my friend.:😀

Okay, here's a story I want to tell you.

There once was this man. He was pretty cool. He said things and did things that made others want to be around him. They all thought he was pretty cool too.
Then he died.
Bummer.
Now, the people who followed him wanted to remember him. Actually, they wanted to celebrate him and his life, so they began to tell stories about his life - the life of this cool guy, this nice guy.
You know how stories go, like fishing stories they grow with the telling. They get embellished and they build up to become amazing. Each new telling has to top the last.
He walked on water; he fed lots of people with small amounts of food; he healed the sick; he turned water into wine. These got bigger and bigger.
Soon he was waking from the dead and walking around before ascending into heaven.
Then he wasn't even human - sort of. His mother was a virgin. His father was god. Every telling got more and more embellished.
By the time, 40, 50, 60 years after his death, that anybody bothered to write it all down all they had were the tall stories to go by. How could anyone sift through this and get to the reality?
They couldn't - and anyway, why bother, since the stories only served to show what a cool guy this man was.

But then, a couple of thousand years later, the literalists come along. Every story written about this man, must, by definition be true.

Now we have a problem.

Originally posted by amannion
Okay, here's a story I want to tell you.

There once was this man. He was pretty cool. He said things and did things that made others want to be around him. They all thought he was pretty cool too.
Then he died.
Bummer.
Now, the people who followed him wanted to remember him. Actually, they wanted to celebrate him and his life, so they began to tell st ...[text shortened]... g. Every story written about this man, must, by definition be true.

Now we have a problem.

Why would Jesus's disciples embellish false stories about Jesus just to die a horrible death for proclaiming it. I'm sorry but if I embellish a story, I know that I've embellished it and I'm sure not going to die a horrible death and continue to declare it to be the truth even as I'm dying, which is what these men did. These men had the distinct honor to see these things with their own eyes. They know what they saw and they would also know what was a lie if they in fact decided to write a lie (which they didn't). No one, NO ONE would die in any way shape or form for something that they know they lied about. They went to their deaths proclaiming the Gospels as the truth because they knew that it wasn't an embellishment because they had seen it happen. And once you see that kind of thing (resurrection) you're not able to deny it because you now understand the power behind it.

Originally posted by chappy1
Why would Jesus's disciples embellish false stories about Jesus just to die a horrible death for proclaiming it. I'm sorry but if I embellish a story, I know that I've embellished it and I'm sure not going to die a horrible death and continue to declare it to be the truth even as I'm dying, which is what these men did. These men had the distinct honor to s ...[text shortened]... resurrection) you're not able to deny it because you now understand the power behind it.

I'm guessing there's a few Al-qaeda big wigs that would prove you wrong on not being able to willingly die a horrible death.

The truth is history if littered with prophets who managed to convince seemingly rational and right thinking followers that they should do things that to us, seem strange or heroic or stupid or all of these.
The only difference between Jesus or Osama bin Laden or David Koresh or John Smith is that Jesus's became the established story.

Run history again and watch someone else get in there.

Originally posted by amannion
I'm guessing there's a few Al-qaeda big wigs that would prove you wrong on not being able to willingly die a horrible death.

The truth is history if littered with prophets who managed to convince seemingly rational and right thinking followers that they should do things that to us, seem strange or heroic or stupid or all of these.
The only difference be ...[text shortened]... sus's became the established story.

Run history again and watch someone else get in there.

Well, that and the fact that the ideology preached by Jesus was morally superior to that preached by David Koresh by orders of magnitude.

It's not just a fluke deal, in order to last, the teachings have to stand the test of time.

Originally posted by Merk
Well, that and the fact that the ideology preached by Jesus was morally superior to that preached by David Koresh by orders of magnitude.

It's not just a fluke deal, in order to last, the teachings have to stand the test of time.

No, you're right of course. I was being a little flippant. But only a little ...