Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I want to be convinced - an experiment
Sarde
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 183 (90243)
03-04-2004 9:15 AM


I want to believe but my mind's in the way
To all Christians,
I would like to be convinced of Christianity. I have been studying it extensively and I am certainly attracted to Christianity. I was about to be converted when I came across the following two sites:
http://www.geocities.com/rightsman1/god_the_evidence.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/index.html
These sites, and especially the latter, convinced me that Christianity cannot be true (or at least not entirely true). Praying hasn't been very helpful until now.
I am a person who will only be convinced by facts and convincing argumentations. Is there a person out here who can refute the information on the above pages, especially the latter?
Please be aware that my eternal well-being is at stake here. I do not want to do the Pascal's Wager thing. I want to believe in God because He exists, not because He is the best bet.
PS: I am only half sarcastic. I truly would like to be a believer but have found it impossible.
[This message has been edited by Sarde, 03-04-2004]
[This message has been edited by Sarde, 03-04-2004]

"Keep the company of those who seek the truth, but run from those who have found it." (Vaclav Havel)

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:34 PM Sarde has replied
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:41 PM Sarde has replied
 Message 19 by Shahzad, posted 03-05-2004 2:14 PM Sarde has replied
 Message 34 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-06-2004 12:49 AM Sarde has replied
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 03-07-2004 10:58 AM Sarde has not replied
 Message 84 by J, posted 03-23-2004 10:33 PM Sarde has not replied
 Message 175 by kofh2u, posted 04-11-2004 2:44 AM Sarde has not replied
 Message 180 by iano, posted 08-11-2005 10:54 AM Sarde has not replied
 Message 182 by Andrew2Jacob, posted 08-29-2005 4:12 AM Sarde has not replied
 Message 183 by riVeRraT, posted 08-30-2005 5:03 PM Sarde has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 2 of 183 (90331)
03-04-2004 4:01 PM


good luck sarde
sarde writes:
I will be convinced only by facts...
It sounds like you have already made your decision to be agnostic/atheist.
If there were a single "Christian" that could come forward and fulfill your request then there probabably would be no one one these boards ,(save for Dan and Crash) I mean this as a joke guys..who would be foolish enough to risk eternal damnation in the light of such evidence. There is none to be had. If you had the power to create a creature and the power to create the universe would you want to program your creations to love you or would you want that love to come freely? God need not prove it's self , Hence there is no proof for God. Faith and Belief are all that is required and the hardest to truly give. Its a judgment call dude.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2004 4:22 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 5 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:06 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 10 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 5:32 AM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 11 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 5:35 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 183 (90334)
03-04-2004 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by 1.61803
03-04-2004 4:01 PM


Re: good luck sarde
I don't know whether one makes one's own decision about this sort of thing. I really resisted giving up Christianity and becoming an atheist. I mean, I really fought against it, and did everything I could think of to "convince" myself to continue believing. I certainly never made a willful decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 4:01 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 4:30 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 4 of 183 (90336)
03-04-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
03-04-2004 4:22 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Chioptera, I did too. I think decision is the wrong choice of words. But it does come down to a choice. Does it not to either believe or not to believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2004 4:22 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 1:27 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 5 of 183 (90347)
03-04-2004 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by 1.61803
03-04-2004 4:01 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Truthlover, it looks like I accidentally adited this message of you! How is it possible that I can edit a message by someone else??? Anyway, I have replied to the content that used to be in this message... Sorry!
[This message has been edited by Sarde, 03-05-2004]
{This glitch has been reported to Percy - Adminnemooseus, 3/6/04}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-06-2004]
{Test, test, test - minnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-06-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 4:01 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 5:27 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 12 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 5:46 AM truthlover has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 6 of 183 (90354)
03-04-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by truthlover
03-04-2004 5:06 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Hi Truth,
The desire to follow JC is a personal journey. I never said there was no good 'reason' to follow JC. Follow him where? Where is he that I may follow? And what reason would I or anyone else need to follow him? If religion comforts a person and gives a warm fuzzy then I am all for it. To each his own, but if one goes on a web site seeking FACTS as to whether or not one will BELIEVE in a certain religion then I was simply stating there are none. Faith is believing in something in the absence of facts is it not? How can anyone state they have factual evidence for the existance of God and that JC is God incarnate and that all the 2000 year old Christian dogma is scientifically verifiable? Show me the evidence as well please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:06 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by truthlover, posted 03-08-2004 12:16 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 7 of 183 (90355)
03-04-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sarde
03-04-2004 9:15 AM


Re: I want to believe but my mind's in the way
Is there a person out here who can refute the information on the above pages, especially the latter?
Just some initial thoughts. There's an awful lot on that web page, can we narrow the subject down a little?
Two, are you running on the assumption that if the Bible can be proven inerrant, then Christianity is disproven? I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. Heck, I'm certain that six million people didn't cross the Sinai desert any time during the 2nd millennium BC, and I would acknowledge the possibility (only the possibility) that there was no Exodus at all. There's something neat to me about the progression seen in the reports in Kings and Chronicles about the census David took, where one attributes the motivation for the census to God and the later one attributes the motivation to satan, showing signs of the later influence of Babylonian theology.
However, I'm a believer, and a pretty radical one at that.
Your 2nd web site gives a main premise, that the major claims of Christianity are demonstrably untrue and that it has brought more harm than good to the world.
My response to the main premise is that the major claim of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was an exceptional being, God's Son, who came to earth to raise up a people who would all receive a Spirit from God, and that this Spirit would cause them to live an extraordinary life of unity, joy, in daily awe of the power of God.
I do not believe that this is demonstrably untrue, but that it has happened repeatedly throughout the last 2,000 years, and that those who will abandon everything for the life that Jesus sends from heaven live with the daily attention and intervention of God.
In response to the second part of his premise, I agree completely that Christianity has done far more harm than good throughout history. In fact, it is significant that the reign of Christianity in Europe is called the Dark Ages and that deliverance from that reign is called either "The Enlightenment" or "The Rebirth (Renaissance)."
Christianity, in my opinion, is that ridiculous religion that formed when people were asked or encouraged by the government to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ, causing about 90% of the population to become "Christian."
Since the real faith of Jesus Christ is one in which a person abandons everything and everyone to become a disciple, and in return God gives his Spirit to that person, creating a whole new life of unity, joy, and love inside of the community of disciples, the Christianity described above, where everyone (almost) is Christian, has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of Christ. Of course it's terrible. All religion in power is terrible.
Almost all Christianity seen in the Western world is the offspring of the Christianity that produced the Dark Ages. Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the rest of the Protestants all required a Christian societ, governmentally enforced, every bit as much as the Catholics, which is why they got the same awful results the Roman Catholics got.
I have read the histories written by Eusebius (AD 323) and Socrates (AD, uh, 380 or so, I'm pretty sure). There is no comparison between the two. The former is an account of mostly spiritual men and the latter is an account of bloodshed, intrigue, deceit, and revolution that would make a great series of R-rated adventure movies. The difference between the two histories is in one, Christianity is men giving up everything to gain God's Spirit, and in the other, Christianity is the story of a Christian society.
I assert that where men have believed in Christ as the provider of a Spirit in return for giving up everything, and where they have done that together, an impressive society of people has risen up every time. This is not true where men have believed in Christ as the provider of a book or of mere teachings, nor where the Government has tried to enforce its ideas on Christ's teachings.
That's my response to his main points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sarde, posted 03-04-2004 9:15 AM Sarde has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 5:45 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 13 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 5:59 AM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 8 of 183 (90359)
03-04-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sarde
03-04-2004 9:15 AM


Re: I want to believe but my mind's in the way
Here's a further response. I'll try to keep it short.
The Jesus page on that 2nd site says there's no proof about Jesus' historicity. It suggests that the Gospels were too late to be certain proof. I agree that they're too late to be certain proof.
This doesn't make their history wrong!
My argument for the historicity of Jesus is that those who believe in him have effectively received the Spirit of God and created incredibly beautiful societies.
One addition, I started following the page rejecting the authorship of Mark. I have to read more, as I would be prone to defending Markan authorship, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that. I did have time already to look at Mark's supposed lack of knowledge of Palestinian geography, and I didn't know what to think. I only have an NKJV at work, and it's Mark 7:31 doesn't read anything like the reference on that web site. The site says Mark describes a trip from Tyre to Galilee through Sidon, but my Mark 7:31 says nothing remotely like that. It says Jesus went from the region of Tyre and Sidon through the region of Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee.
The other geographical problem is that Mark has the pigs drowning fifty miles (I think I heard 30 from Brian on this site) from the Sea of Galilee. Fine, but I don't think you can argue that Mark, a resident of the Jerusalem area who is said to have gone to Rome and Alexandria, had to know that the site was that far from the Sea of Galilee if that's how he heard the story. This was 2000 years ago, remember, and assuming that Mark had a good map and was familiar with the area east of the Jordan is not a trustworthy assumption, in my opinion.
More later, when I have time, and especially if you can clarify an area to focus on. That site covers everything!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sarde, posted 03-04-2004 9:15 AM Sarde has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 6:08 AM truthlover has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 9 of 183 (90362)
03-04-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
03-04-2004 5:34 PM


Re: I want to believe but my mind's in the way
Hi Truth Lover,
I applaud your geniune concern to refute those Atheist web pages. I do think it is nice of you as well. If all it took was to read the readers digest to get to heaven we'd all be saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:34 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Sarde
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 183 (90458)
03-05-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by 1.61803
03-04-2004 4:01 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Dear 1.61803 (why that name, if I may ask?),
First of all, I'd like to state that I am not a dude but a girl.
I have not made my decision. There would be no use for this thread whatsoever if I had.
I am well aware that no Christian can offer me absolute evidence. I do not ask for absolute evidence. My request is quite humble really: I am looking for evidence that the sources that tell us about Jesus are reliable. If that is too much to ask, then yes, my decision will be made easy. Is it unreasonable if I want to know whether the Gospels are a reliable source of information? I think this question is of the utmost importance to all Christians, or at least it should be. Because if the Gospels themselves are not reliable (as the website 'Rejection of Pascal's wager very convincingly states), then your faith and belief rests on quicksand...
I want to make an informed decision, that's all. If I am supposed to have faith in Jesus on the basis of possibly unreliable texts about him, I might as well have faith in the person who made the website on which she states that God is an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Sarde

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 4:01 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 03-05-2004 10:55 AM Sarde has replied
 Message 153 by neil88, posted 04-07-2004 1:51 PM Sarde has not replied

  
Sarde
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 183 (90459)
03-05-2004 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by 1.61803
03-04-2004 4:01 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Chiroptera,
I think I am in the same kind of boat as you were. I am not being sarcastic in my first post when I state that I was about to be converted when I came across the 'Rejection of Pascal's Wager' site. I wanted to be converted, I wanted to believe but I could not. I just don't want to give up so quickly. But you are right that it isn't really a choice. No matter how much I may want to believe; if I cannot be convinced that the Gospels are reliable and that all of those things really did happen to Jesus, then I won't be able to believe...
Sarde

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by 1.61803, posted 03-04-2004 4:01 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2004 1:33 PM Sarde has not replied

  
Sarde
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 183 (90460)
03-05-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by truthlover
03-04-2004 5:06 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Well, Sarde, here's a dissenting voice to that. Paul did say that he did not offer convincing words of wisdom as his proof, but he added that he provided a demonstration of power instead! Power certainly qualifies better as a fact than sophistry.
First of all, truthlover, I thank you for having a little more faith (be it in me or in Jesus) than 1.6something (I can't remember a number!).
In order to believe in this power of Paul (after all, he did not demonstrate whatever power he may have had in front of my face), I will first have to believe that what he tells me is reliable information. I must admit to you that I have my doubts about Paul. I always have had, he seems to me to say things that aren't in line with the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' brother James seems to have thought the same, see the website 'Rejection of Pascal's Wager', section 'Paul and Christian Origins'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:06 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Sarde
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 183 (90461)
03-05-2004 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by truthlover
03-04-2004 5:34 PM


Re: good luck sarde
Just some initial thoughts. There's an awful lot on that web page, can we narrow the subject down a little?
The most important question to me, as I have indicated above, is the question of the reliability of the Gospels and the rest of the NT.
Two, are you running on the assumption that if the Bible can be proven inerrant, then Christianity is disproven? I don't believe the Bible is inerrant.
Me neither. I sure hope God wasn't really telling Moses to kill off women and children... But anyway, no, I'd never be a Bible literalist and I don't think one needs to be in order to be a Christian. I am interested in the core message of the Bible. I also attach much more importance to the NT than I do to the OT, which I think contains a whole lot of myths.
Your 2nd web site gives a main premise, that the major claims of Christianity are demonstrably untrue and that it has brought more harm than good to the world.
'Rejection of Pascal's Wager'? No, that's not his main point. I would ask you to read specifically the sections 'Jesus' and 'Paul and Christian Origins'. They are the ones that cause me most trouble because they convincingly state that the NT is very unreliable at best.
My response to the main premise is that the major claim of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was an exceptional being, God's Son, who came to earth to raise up a people who would all receive a Spirit from God, and that this Spirit would cause them to live an extraordinary life of unity, joy, in daily awe of the power of God.
I do not believe that this is demonstrably untrue, but that it has happened repeatedly throughout the last 2,000 years, and that those who will abandon everything for the life that Jesus sends from heaven live with the daily attention and intervention of God.
But people of other religions have the same sort of experience (btw: I believe that all religions worship one and the same God and that all religions can lead one to God, provided that God exists), hence I would not accept this as convincing proof of the truth of Christianity. A big problem to me as well, is that Christianity claims that it's 'the only way'. I simply do not buy this and I do have a reasoning as to why I think it is not so. I will elaborate if you ask me to.
Christianity, in my opinion, is that ridiculous religion that formed when people were asked or encouraged by the government to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ, causing about 90% of the population to become "Christian."
A very refreshing opinion from a believer and one that I wholeheartedly agree with. I have had more than my share of bigotry, judgmentalism etc. from people who call themselves Christians...
I assert that where men have believed in Christ as the provider of a Spirit in return for giving up everything, and where they have done that together, an impressive society of people has risen up every time. This is not true where men have believed in Christ as the provider of a book or of mere teachings, nor where the Government has tried to enforce its ideas on Christ's teachings.
Well spoken and food for thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:34 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Sarde
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 183 (90463)
03-05-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by truthlover
03-04-2004 5:41 PM


Re: good luck sarde
The Jesus page on that 2nd site says there's no proof about Jesus' historicity. It suggests that the Gospels were too late to be certain proof. I agree that they're too late to be certain proof.
This doesn't make their history wrong!
And like I have said, I do not ask for certain proof. Look, here's what my thoughts are: I definitely believe Jesus walked this earth. I definitely believe amazing things happened. I believe he was crucified. But: it seems to me that the 'historical Christ' and the 'Christ fulfilling the OT prophecies' got mixed in together. In other words, it seems to me that the story about Christ was adapted to fit the prophecies of the OT and the beliefs of the early Christians...
My argument for the historicity of Jesus is that those who believe in him have effectively received the Spirit of God and created incredibly beautiful societies.
Is it unreasonable if I say that this is not proof to me? People of other religions have done the same. I cannot verify that someone has 'received the Spirit of God'.
One addition, I started following the page rejecting the authorship of Mark. I have to read more, as I would be prone to defending Markan authorship, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do that. I did have time already to look at Mark's supposed lack of knowledge of Palestinian geography, and I didn't know what to think. I only have an NKJV at work, and it's Mark 7:31 doesn't read anything like the reference on that web site. The site says Mark describes a trip from Tyre to Galilee through Sidon, but my Mark 7:31 says nothing remotely like that. It says Jesus went from the region of Tyre and Sidon through the region of Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee.
Perhaps there are other people on this site who know more about these sort of things...?
The other geographical problem is that Mark has the pigs drowning fifty miles (I think I heard 30 from Brian on this site) from the Sea of Galilee. Fine, but I don't think you can argue that Mark, a resident of the Jerusalem area who is said to have gone to Rome and Alexandria, had to know that the site was that far from the Sea of Galilee if that's how he heard the story. This was 2000 years ago, remember, and assuming that Mark had a good map and was familiar with the area east of the Jordan is not a trustworthy assumption, in my opinion.
I'm not too familiar with this passage, but does it say that the pigs drowned in the Sea of Galilee? Couldn't there have been a lake or something?
More later, when I have time, and especially if you can clarify an area to focus on. That site covers everything!
But not everything is of equal importance to me. I have indicated above which things are. Also, someone on a Dutch site where I have a similar topic going referred me to tektonics.org. Anyone any comments on that website? Have only taken a quick look at it as of yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by truthlover, posted 03-04-2004 5:41 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by truthlover, posted 03-05-2004 9:29 AM Sarde has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 15 of 183 (90485)
03-05-2004 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Sarde
03-05-2004 6:08 AM


Re: good luck sarde
Later today I'll get a chance to look at the specific things you mentioned. Thanks for narrowing it down. A couple comments now so that any post later can be shorter!
'Rejection of Pascal's Wager'? No, that's not his main point. I would ask you to read specifically the sections 'Jesus' and 'Paul and Christian Origins'.
I will read those specifically, and I will stick to those. I didn't make up that main point thing, though. He has a button top and center on the home page that says "Central Thesis." If you click on it, it says the central thesis is "The major claims of Christianity are demonstrably untrue and, on balance, it has brought more harm than good to the world."
Since I wasn't sure where to start, I figured it was safe to start there. My mistake.
Perhaps there are other people on this site who know more about these sort of things...?
This was in reference to my Mark 7:31 reading differently than the web site. I should have been clearer. Let me add this to help.
The King James Version was first put out in 1611. Not surprisingly, they only had a few manuscripts to work with back then. We have many more now. As a result, more modern translations read differently in a lot of places, most pretty minor, some major. The modern translations tend to agree with each other, because they'll base their translation on some well-researched composite text such as Nestle's 26th edition of the Greek NT (sorry if I got the name or edition wrong).
That's why I mentioned I only have an NKJV here. It's based on the KJV text, and maybe the person who did your Rejecting Pascal's Wager site is using updated texts and figures his are better. On the other hand, it is really, really sloppy to make that kind of charge and not mention that some texts don't agree with your reading. It doesn't make me think that site is very scholarly.
In fact, he mentions that the KJV is one of the versions used on his web site. You'd think he would mention that if the KJV reading is correct, then he has no argument. He should then present reasons why his reading MUST be the correct one, because rejecting Markan authorship on a POSSIBLE reading doesn't seem right to me.
I just checked a friend's Complete Jewish Bible, and its Mark 7:31 does indeed read as the web site reads.
I'm not too familiar with this passage, but does it say that the pigs drowned in the Sea of Galilee? Couldn't there have been a lake or something?
I wondered about that, too. It doesn't say they drowned in the Sea of Galilee, but your web site points out that "there is not even a hint of any lake nearby." I went over this with Brian on this site once, and Brian's generally pretty reliable in his research. I question his interpretations some time, but if there was a lake nearby or if someone even said there was, Brian would have found it.
In other words, it seems to me that the story about Christ was adapted to fit the prophecies of the OT and the beliefs of the early Christians...
LOL. I hope I can explain to you why this tickles my funny bone so much. What you're saying here I think is definitely true, and it's funny that Christians would even try to deny it.
I'm not impressed with American Christianity. Like I mentioned yesterday, almost all American Christianity is descended from that government-enforced Christianity that produced the Dark Ages.
American Christians, at least fundamentalists, act like there's these clear prophecies and that Jesus came along and fulfilled them in a clear way. That's crazy, and there's a time when no one even claimed that.
Yes, the early Christians claimed that Yeshua (I'm going to quit using Jesus here, as you know who I'm talking about, and I'm used to referring to him as Yeshua) fulfilled prophecies, but they were not the kind of people to be real literal in the way they read Scripture.
Take the prophecy of the virgin birth, for instance, from Isaiah 7. The early Christians were aware that the Hebrew of that passage said "young woman," not "virgin." They were also aware that there's a context to that passage that involved King Ahaz several hundred years earlier. They had no qualms, however, about yanking it out of context and then claiming that their Greek translation was divinely inspired--God changing it to virgin on purpose. (Actually, Justin Martyr claimed that the Jews changed their Hebrew version to young woman in order to refute the Christians--not a valid charge, of course.)
If you read through the prophecies in the writings of the early church, you'll see how non-literal they tended to be. Hebrews in the Bible is a great example (it's a lot like the writings of the later fathers, in the way it feels, in my opinion). He pulls out stuff about Melchizedek, and he takes God's statement to Solomon that Solomon would be a son to God and makes it a prophecy about Christ.
I don't object to this. We ourselves, at the village I'm a part of, apply a story about Jacob on his way to Laban as a prophecy, because of some incredible coincidences between the story and a major experience in our lives. It's completely out of context, but we believe the Scriptures are spiritual.
truthlover writes:
My argument for the historicity of Jesus is that those who believe in him have effectively received the Spirit of God and created incredibly beautiful societies.
Sarde writes:
Is it unreasonable if I say that this is not proof to me? People of other religions have done the same. I cannot verify that someone has 'received the Spirit of God'.
No, it's not unreasonable, but here's why I am a "Christian," if as a disciple of Christ I should be so designated. Jesus' claim to fame, according to the Gospels, is not that he fulfilled prophecy. He claimed that he could deliver people from selfishness and bind them into a unit held together by love (Jn 13:35, 17:20-23).
Therefore, what better thing should I offer as proof of the veracity of Christ's message than a people, growing out of selfishness into a family held together by love?
Justin Martyr once offered the same proof to the emperor of Rome. "We who used to hate and war with one another now share the same hearth." Tertullian, fifty years later, offered the same, "We share everything except our wives." Origen, another thirty years later, pointed to the same thing, "I would happily compare the worst ten people in our society with the best ten people in yours" (that last one's a paraphrase).
I think the societies formed when the Spirit of God comes are extraordinary enough to make supernatural intervention easily believable.
If other religions are doing this, more power to them! If Gandhi's ashrams were like the village I live in, then all hail the power of Gandhi's truth!
All I know is that Yeshua promised a Spirit that could knit people together into a family, and--with awe and amazement--I have watched it happen. It looks convincingly spiritual to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 6:08 AM Sarde has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by truthlover, posted 03-05-2004 2:14 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 24 by Sarde, posted 03-05-2004 3:34 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 91 by JOSIAH, posted 03-29-2004 12:13 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 99 by JOSIAH, posted 03-29-2004 3:21 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024