The Credibility of the Apostles and Workers

Printable View

12-21-2006, 11:45 PM
Churchwork

The Credibility of the Apostles and Workers

Rambo123UK,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo123UK

Just because someone is willing to die for a belief doesn't make it true.

That's right. But people don't go to their death for something they know is a lie, but they really do believe in the reason why they are doing it. Similarly, the apostles really believed they talked with Jesus, touched him and ate with him. And since hallucination is not possible in multiple settings of different groups, and no plausible other explanation has been given by non-believers, what is the reasonable conclusion then?

Quote:

The gospels disagree with each other on many points

The gospels never disagreed with each other once. The burden of the proof is on you to show it.

Quote:

The post crucifixion accounts do not agree

The post crucifixion accounts all agree. The burden of the proof is on you.

Quote:

The gospel of Mark originally had no resurrection. That part was written later

That is not a certainty. Plus, Mark was written about AD 59. Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians (1 Cor. 15 speaks on early creeds and resurrection testimonies Paul receiving from James and Peter, also mentioned in Acts, within a couple years after the death of Christ) and Romans all precede Mark's completion of his book. So if there was evolution in the gospel for a resurrection you would expect these earlier documents to make no mention of resurrection. Jesus said "Everyone will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds with great power and glory" (Mark 13.27) which is compared to "I saw someone who looked like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven" (Dan. 7.13). How can the Son of Man return if He is not resurrected? Jesus teaches about resurrection in Mark: Jesus said, "Your problem is you don't know the Scriptures, and you don't know the power of God. For when the dead rise, they won't be married...You made a serious error" (Mark 12.24-25,27). And Jesus said, "the Son of Man...they will mock him, spit on him, beat him with their whips, and kill him, but after three days he will rise again" (Mark 10.33,34). There is nothing wrong with Mark not mentioning the resurrection accounts. The 4 Gospels are not designed to repeat everything, but the fact that they show such a wide difference, even leaving the resurrection out in Mark, shows the independent accounts. Yet they agree completely. Mark incidentally is not one of the apostles and may not have seen Christ personally, so maybe that is why there is no mention of a resurrection eyewitness account in his writing.

Quote:

none of the traditional attributions of the canonical gospels stand up to scrutiny. They are NOT eyewitness accounts

John is an eyewitness account. He is one of the sons of thunder named by Jesus. John's brother James was the first of the 12 apostle to be murdered. Matthew is one of the original 12 apostles. Mark worked closely with Peter, so his writing closely matches what he gathered from Peter. Luke traveled with Paul, and Luke said: "Many people have written accounts about the events that took place among us. They used as source material the reports circulating among us from the early disciples and other eyewitnesses of what God has done in fulfillment of his promises. Having carefully investigated all of these accounts from the beginning, I have decided to write a careful summary for you, to reassure you of the truth of all you have taught" (Luke 1.1-4). So though Mark and Luke are not eyewitnesses, they are the closest thing possible to an eyewitness, having received this information from those eyewitnesses, including Paul.
It is also important to distinguish between the cannons of the 2nd and 3rd century compared to the cannons written and oral as in 1 Cor. 15 which Paul received from Peter and James when they met together. The traditional attributions canonical gospels stand up to scrutiny which is why these past 2000 years none can find any problems. We have three things. Oral Tradition, Written Tradition an Paul's eyewitness testimony. There is Peter's testimony, James, brother of Jesus' testimony, John's, Matthew's, and in eleven different accounts of different group settings is the resurrection of Jesus documented between Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul. One time 500 people gathered together saw Jesus resurrected Paul said. Paul even said at the time when he wrote these words that many are still alive who could write and find fault with him if what he said was not true of the various eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:

Most of the Pauline epistles are forged, or, more politely, psuedepigraphic- along with most of the early christian texts

The most trusted Pauline writings most scholars consider to be Paul's very writings such as the earliest letters mentioned above. There is a spiritual reason also to believe all the books of the Bible are authentic and original. The total number of books is 66. If God's Word is true, He would give a specific number to the books of the Bible as a clue to its authenticity. Why 66? Because 6 is the number of Satan and man loves Satan's ways, so his number is 6 also. The Bible describes in full the redemptive design to break apart that union of 6 and 6, Satan and man. So these 66 books would not be pseudepigraphic as are the other books added to the 66 books commonly thought. Since there is no evidence for your claim, it is disregarded, and the Word is in complete harmony in the 66 books.

Quote:

Paul does not supply any biographical details of Jesus, nor did he know him personally

Paul knew Jesus personally in the sense that he had a personal encounter seeing His appearance in Person and has a personal relationship with Jesus for Christ lived in Paul by the Holy Spirit. Paul did not spend his time in Jerusalem very much to recount the events, so that was left up to the Gospel writers. Paul was traveling most of the time so that is what his writings mostly comprise. He said, "I pass on to you what was most important and what has also been passed onto me-that Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried and was raised from the dead on the third day, as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the twelve apostles. After that he was seen by more than five hundred of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive today, though some have died by now. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, I saw him, too, long after the others, as though I had been born at the wrong time" (1 Cor. 15.3-8). The purpose of the Gospels is to recount the life of Jesus. The purpose of Paul's writings is to show growth and experience in resurrection life.

Quote:

Jesus is not mentioned in any secular sources

There are a total of 42 sources mentioned in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004) by Gary R. Habermas within the first 150 years of the death of Christ, 28 refer to his death as noted in The Historical Jesus by (Habermas). 17 are non-Christian sources. 12 of these non-Christian sources refer to his death, which exhibits an incredible amount of interest in this event. 129 facts of Jesus are documented. 30 record His teaching, which surprisingly includes 17 from secular sources.
Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist, writes, "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day-the distinguishing personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account." Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to his son from prison comments, "Or [what advantage came to] the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?" This document is the British Museum. The Talmud reports that "one on the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged." Jewish writings never deny the existence of Jesus, his miracles and execution. Yeshu is Joshua in Hebrew. The equivalent in Greek is Iesous or Jesus. Josephus said, "When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified." Tacitus writes, "Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name has its origin, suffered extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of the our procurators, Pontius Pilate."
Even the highly critical scholar of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, writes, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be."

Quote:

There is no evidence except tradition to place 1 Clement in the first century. It is much more likely to have been written between 130 and 140

We do have a letter we know Clement, bishop of Rome (c.30-100), wrote to the church in Corinth around the year 95. Clement died AD 100 so, he could not have written it at your arbitrary date. Around 185, Irenaeus writes about that letter in Against Heresies. Around 200, Tertullian confirms this information too in Prescription Against Heretics. So they both write in agreement that Clement, and Polycarp, were appointed by the original apostles. In Clement's letter, he writes that the apostles were fully assured of Jesus' resurrection. If Clement knew the apostles, and considering Clement in Phill. 4.3, he could very well be the same Clement. They certainly would be in a better position than you or I to know these things being much closer to the information at the time.

Quote:

Polycarp flourished a century after the crucifixion. It is exceeding unlikely he knew any actual disciples who were grown men 100 years earlier!

Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna (modern Izmir, Turkey) around the year 160 at the age of eighty-six as noted in The Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3. Also known as the Encyclical Letter of the Church of Smyrna. Around 110, he wrote a letter to the Philippian church, speaking of the righteousness and endurance witnessed in the lives of several including "Paul himself and the other apostles." If Irenaeus and Tertullian are correct about Clement and Polycarp when they say they were appointed by the original apostles, specifically Peter and John, then the things that Polycarp says about the resurrection can be linked to what he personally received from the apostles.
At AD 100 Polycarp would be 26 years old, a prime age for giving the gospel. John was still alive at this time for he wrote Revelation around AD 95. Tertullian wrote that the apostle John appointed Polycarp, Prescription Against Heresies (p.32). The oldest of men will impart there final thoughts to be sure to the younger generation. This is a tradition.
I have seen no evidence to cause to give doubt these claims.

Quote:

Though Iraneus might well have known Polycarp (after all, he wrote only 2 decades after the man is thought to have died) for his writings we are reliant on quotes from other sources, ie, Eusebius - from the 4th century!

Yes, this is the letter by Irenaeus, To Florinus, cited by the fourth-century church historian, Eusebius who regarded Irenaeus as a reliable source (Ecclesiastical History 5.20).

Quote:

Mass hallucination is a known phenomenon.

There is no known records of mass hallucination. A hallucination is a false perception of something that is not there: that is, there is no properties outside the mind having a direct correlation to reality in a hallucination. A technical definition is: "sensory experience such as seeing persons or objects, hearing voices, and smelling odors in the absence of environmental stimuli" (Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology).
A delusion can be experienced by the masses, for it is a false belief, but not a hallucination. Jesus would have to not be there when the apostles and the women said they were eating with and touching him. Therefore, there would be no environmental stimuli. Masses of people do not say someone is seen who was not actually there. What they might do is see someone who looks like someone they know, but doesn't mean he is that person. Elvis sitings happen all the time. Lots of people in Elvis costumes. No alternative explanation is put forth by skeptics for the apostles seeing Jesus resurrected.
If you spent three and a half years traveling with Jesus, and then you eat and drink, talk with and touch Him after His resurrection, you certainly can't have a hallucination experienced by several different combination and group sizes of people (I think eleven different scenarios noted). Maybe one person individually, but note 12 people sitting at a table seeing the same thing at the same time and then again and again in different settings by all the apostles (more than 12). That has never happened before in the history of the world. So Jesus must have been really resurrected as He said He would be to give resurrection life to the saved. No mind games!

Quote:

Group prayer can produce brain activity simillar to taking hallucinogenic drugs

Of course, but it can't cause everyone at the same time to see the same exact thing in the same way and over multiple occasions. That's the difference. Hallucinations are private occurrences.
On the other hand an illusion is something that is there but mis-perceiving it. Jesus was not actually there if it was a hallucination, but the hallucination can't be experienced by groups, since a hallucination takes place in the brain of one person only to see only what he sees, and he can't have the same scene as the other person all the time of something that is not there.
Also, hallucinations don't account for the empty tomb. Plus, Paul was not in the frame of mind to have a hallucination. He was doing his godly work of persecuting the Christians according to Jewish law. Hallucinations don't account for the conversion of the skeptic James either. Since he did not believe his brother was God, he was not stricken over his death to the point of a hallucination.
With UFOs there is too many incident variances. It is the same with those who saw Jesus resurrected. We can't say all those people viewing the UFO were hallucinating, because there were so many different types of people and places from which they viewed the UFO. With Jesus, His witnesses also were men an women, inside and outside, a hard headed Peter and a soft hearted Mary. Not all these people are in the same state of mind. While UFOs can be illusions of something already there, seeing Jesus resurrected could not have been an illusion.:rolleyes:
12-22-2006, 02:19 AM
Churchwork

tracyanne,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracyanne

There is no secular evidence, with the exception of Paul, who never actually met a real live Jesus (but instead claims to have met a dream Jesus), that the apostles actually existed, so to argue that the Apostles believed this or believed that is spurious. Paul makes no mention of James or Peter, the claim that Paul met with James and Peter is made in acts by an unknown author, who was later (late 2nd, early 3rd century) claimed by the church fathers, to be Luke. There is no secular evidence that Luke actually existed.

Secular sources don't care about the body of Christ so it is not expected they would even take notice of us. If you don't count the writings of secular accounts of Jesus of which there are 17 noted in the first 150 years of Jesus death, then you are not counting that which you ought to. They mention not only Jesus but Christians or disciples of His. They likely don't know the disciples personally so they likely wouldn't say much about each of the 12 apostles or anything at all since it is so distant to them. But that would be a good study to find out how many secular sources name the apostles if any. If only 17 secular sources mention Jesus you would expect less to none mentioning any one apostle. Since James and Stephen were killed right quick, you would expect the apostles to be as low key as possible before they were martyred. Even so, it is of little consideration since it is the apostles who experienced what they experienced in seeing Jesus and not dependent on whether the secular world takes notice of them.
Paul said he met a real live Jesus, and not just a vision, though it may have been different than what the disciples experienced because remember they saw Jesus between the resurrection itself and being raised up to heaven after 40 days. So therefore, Jesus would have made an appearance in Person since then so it may have looked somewhat different possibly.
Paul seeing Jesus bodily preaches a bodily resurrection. "He was buried..he was raised" (1 Cor. 15.4). What goes down comes up.
Paul said, "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1). "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15.8). Remember, Paul met with James and Peter early on who themselves saw Jesus resurrected physically. When Paul lists all those who were included in seeing Jesus resurrected physically in 1 Cor. 15, he included himself.
Is Luke credible? Is Mark credible? Paul writes, "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you" (Co. 4.14). "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (1 Tim. 4.11). "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus" (Acts 15.39). Mark got better: "Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark with you when you come, for he will be helpful to me." (2 Tim. 4.11). Paul treats Luke as credible, and there is no evidence that later on the name Luke was added.
Both Luke (Acts) and Paul says Paul met with Peter and James. Paul said he met with Peter and James: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1.19,20). Remember, Paul met the apostles before then with Barnabas: "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought [him] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus" (Acts 9.26,27).

Quote:

There is no secular evidence that the John you mention ever existed, in fact the only person we can be reasonably certain existed is Paul, the claims that Paul and Luke met, were made in the Book "the Acts of the Apostles, written by a person or persons unknown, see earlier comment. Paul made no claims to having been an eyewitness to anything other than his meeting with a dream Jesus.

Since Jesus was only mentioned in 17 secular sources in the first 150 years of his death, you would be hard pressed for the secular world to mention the disciples even once other than generally as the disciples or followers of Christ. You can be reasonably confident the apostles existed because Paul said he met with them on many occasions in Jerusalem. No less than 5 times does the Bible record this happening on his trips. If the meetings Paul had in Jerusalem with the apostles taught something other than 12 apostles that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15, it certainly would have been dealt with and mentioned at some point. Paul clearly says: "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve" (1 Cor. 15.5). We know the 12 apostles by name even though the world could care less.
We established above Paul spoke of Luke on several occasions. We established Paul saw Jesus physically like the other Apostles did. Additionally, we know Paul saw Jesus literally, not a dream, because those with Paul also saw the light and heard the voice and fell down, but they could not understand what Paul saw when that happened. Paul said he saw Jesus resurrected, so he teaches a resurrected body. Would a mere dream convince him walking in mid-daylight? This incident affecting all the people around him was an objective event, and not a dream experienced by just one person.

Quote:

Once again there is no secular evidence that any of the people mentioned, except Paul actually existed. Also Paul's only claim to being an eyewitness to anything, is his claim that he met Jesus in a dream (or if you prefer a vision)...But no reason based on evidence or Logic, that I am aware of.

You don't need secular evidence do you? If the world doesn't care about these people, then why would they write about them. Heck, the only cared enough about Jesus to mention Him in 17 sources within a 150 years of His death. Nobody is going to write a book about me even though I have the 5 teachings that make me quite unique in understanding deeper spiritual truths: http://biblocality.com/forums/rules.php#five
Paul never once mentioned it was a dream or a vision. It was not even an objective vision, for he said he saw Jesus and included this seeing as the disciples saw the resurrected Jesus. The reason I am speaking to you from the perspective of Paul outward to everything else is because the only thing you seem to really accept is there was this person Paul, but even then, you hardly even accept anything he ever says, so you make him virtually non-existent. Apparently everyone is lying to you. Why be so paranoid?
You have received all the plain evidence which is quite reasonable. For Jesus to exist, you would expect that He would have disciples, 12 to start, and it would grow from there. If we have the names of those individuals and their doings, then it would seem reasonable to accept the testimonies about them of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, writer of Hebrews and Paul. Logically this is how a historical following would go. Instead of rejecting all the evidence and calling into foul play everywhere, where is your evidence?

Quote:

There are many references to Christians or people who could be Christians, and what they believed, but that is not evidence that the Jesus of the NT actually existed.

You are misunderstanding. The 42 sources in the first 150 years of Jesus death specifically mention Jesus or the Christ or that one person the Christians are following and so forth. It is always the same key figure of great prominence in Christianity. His death played a key role for 28 mention it. 17 are secular. 12 of those talk about his death and 7 of His deity.
Amen.
12-22-2006, 02:42 AM
Churchwork

Rambo123UK,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo123UK

1) personal conviction does not equate to truth
2) where and when were the 12 original apostles of Jesus tortured to death?
3) The most obvious explanation is, of course, that the gospels are fiction.

Where did I say personal conviction equals truth? The apostles had personal conviction, but what else did they have? They did not have a hallucination in seeing Jesus resurrected when they said they ate with him, talked with him, walked with him, and touched him. There is only two possibilities then. They are flat out liars or they told the truth and really saw the physically resurrected Jesus as Paul claimed he saw too. Paul says to if there was not resurrection or did not see Jesus bodily then he is the vainest man in the world.
The account of each apostles martyrdom is recorded. I don't think I should have to recount the martyrdom of James in the Bible should I?
Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus and was a leader of the church in the late second century. The work attributed to him is the fates of the apostles. His accounts of Peter and Paul are consistent with others such as Tertullian, Origen, and Dionysius of Corinth. The remaining accounts are interesting and may contain some historical kernels, but they are anecdotal and not accorded too much weight. Suffice it to say in the Bible, Paul almost went to his death several times and Peter was put in jail. Stephen was martyred by the Sanhedrin. I don't have the time to type out how they all died, but check out The Ante Nicene Fathers, Fathers of the Third Century. Or you can read the description of their deaths by Gary R. Habermas in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
We have already shown that it is impossible for the Gospels to be fiction because Jesus really lived, Paul really met with Peter and James and they agreed upon these these things early on. In other words, if you accept Paul as a human beings, then you have to accept his most trusted documents, and if you trust them, then you have to accept the Gospels are right because Paul met with Peter and James to make sure they were right so there would be no disagreement.
You don't need to call people stupid since you are just projecting yourself onto others.

Quote:

But since you are going to be stupid about it and deny the undeniable - that the gospels are contradictory, especially in the most important part of the story - what happened after the crucifixion - then there is no point in continuing further. Like I said, you're an ostrich. Confronted with an uncomfortable truth, you stick your head in the sand.

Since you don't provide any example of a contradiction, then you are just mindlessly self-declaring your assumption with no evidence. I think you are like an ostrich, shutting your mind down. It is uncomfortable and you deny the undeniable without any just cause for doing so. Don't you see why Hell exists? How important this place is for those who have no reason, but just that old self-exalted independency to separate themselves from God so they can go to hell with Satan.
12-22-2006, 04:40 AM
Churchwork

Rambo123UK,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo123UK

Sin is a word for a crime against god. If god does not exist, neither does sin. Crime is not sin. Levels of crime are due to things like poverty, lack of education, whether there is the rule of law or not, the level of civillisation and development of a country, and nothing to do with the advancement or otherwise of the human race.
ANY PROOF USING 'SIN' MUST PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Sin is certainly a crime against God, but for the purposes of the 4 Step Proof we only concern ourselves with the fact that yes, people do get thrown into jail for doing something wrong which is a sin. If it does no exist that you get thrown into jail for stealing, then prove me wrong. Crime thus is a sin.
Personal choice is the reason for crime, not poverty. Lack of education is not the reason for crime, choice is. Whether there is a rule of law or not, the cause of crime is choice, a choice to sin. Same goes for civilization and development. What you are not seeing is that crime takes place in all ways, not just due to poverty or these other ways. You only see the obvious statistics. Just because someone has the complete opposite conditions they may commit crimes also, a crime against humanity, in not helping them after being blessed with such wonderful conditions. Some are wealthy and want more wealth so they do unspeakable things. The reason why low status situations see lots of crime is because the flesh is weak, yet it is still a choice. If they were Christians they would not commit crimes even if they were poor and in unspeakable conditions like some Christians heroes of past.
So you see talking about sin need not mention God at all. And so we still sin, so we are certainly not yet perfected in the saved which proves that we have not had an eternity of the past of causes and effects in the body of dust, whether animate or pre-animate inanimate development of the dust. Therefore, God created the universe and you. Who is God? Jesus, since none can compare to Him, He stands so far above everyone else, He said He is God, performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies impossible for a man to achieve, and was witnessed by many groups and seen raised up. It also took place during an appropriate religio-historical context of no man able to fulfill the law except Christ.

Quote:

Quantum mechanics and naked singularities -
The basic understanding of Quantum mechanics depends upon the idea that quantum events are acausal. This can be shown in several ways: For a first example, we have a sample of radioactive material. The decay of this material is due to quantum mechanical processes. Although if we know the half-life of the isotope we can know how many atoms will decay in a given space of time, we can never, ever, know which atoms because this is random and acausal. For a second example, you have to imagine an area of space that is of a dimater smaller than the planck length. In such a volume, cause and effect will not follow each other. Cause and effect will then, no longer exist. Thirdly, the very fact that particles are popping in and out of existence due to quantum mechanics should prove to you that a) something can come from nothing and b) that we have no way to predict these acausal quantum fluctuations. You might note that the universe has a total mass-energy of zero, just like a quantum fluctuation.
As far as naked singularities and the breakdown of physics goes, you might try J-P Luminet's book on black holes. It is available through Cambridge university press, IIRC.

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with any supposition things are acausal, nor can such a claim be shown as vital to quantum mechanics.
Radioactive decay is not acausal, but only seems random because you are not smart enough to figure it out, or maybe God never made capable of understanding this cause of which atoms decay and which ones don't. Since we see a trillion things in nature that have their causes, to assume something doesn't have a cause is very ad hoc and disingenuous to rationalize being an atheist.
In a volume of a planck or smaller than that you can't see the interactions going on, should be no cause to be arrogant by assuming that there is no cause. Would we assume there is no such thing as bacteria because we don't have a microscope many centuries ago? Know that you have no evidence for your beliefs, but merely a self-declaration from that selfish center of your being.
Understand your bad logic. You said "the very fact that particles are popping in and out of existence due to quantum mechanics should prove to you that a) something can come from nothing and b) that we have no way to predict these acausal quantum fluctuations."
If a person several thousand years ago saw the sun pop in and out in the horizon or an eclipse, and they thought the world was flat, they would assume it happened all by itself if they were as mindless as you, since they would be so arrogant to use such a silly idea to reject God. They had no way to predict these events back then for they didn't have the knowledge. So based on your idea, there would be no cause for the sun popping in and out as it happened all by itself. You can see why Christians see you as a dullard. Don't you see how your decision to come up with your idea is centered on you as the center of the universe, and so you assume in that selfishness since you can't be humble to admit the reason is because you are not smart enough to understand the causes of these particles going in and out of observation? This bespeaks of how selfish a person you really are. You don't look at the vast complexity of things to see how amazing God is in all His Designing capability and infinitely foreseeing all causes and effects.
Same finding remains: there is no such thing as naked singularities. A singularity is either God Himself or He causes the singularity. And physics does not break down just because you can't see the incredibly small quantum causes. What breaks down is you because then you get arrogant and assume mindlessly there is no cause. Do we still assume the world is flat just because it was assumed the world was flat before? Every time we find out a new scientific cause we continue to look for its cause, so on and so forth. Since there cannot be an infinite of causes in the past, there would need be a first cause caused by the uncaused creator. The immaterial, space-less, supernatural, eternal, timeless, infinite, immortal caused the material, space, mortal, finite, time-filled, and natural.
And yes it is true, God created out of nothing. That nothing so happens to be Himself which we can never get into His mind past what He reveals to us who love Him.
Your proof starts with sin, which must presuppose the existence of god. It is not valid, and thus any conclusions drawn through the proof from this starting point are not valid.

Quote:

Nor indeed is the approach of 'proving' the god of the bible via what is written in the bible!
You also seem to be labouring under the false impression that man's 'consciousness' started 6,000 years ago. You'll find that the bible is in error here - but then, that's what you should expect when you try to take mythology as science of history!

Since God of the Bible Himself does not prove Himself first from the Bible but first through observing the nature and the stars, so we do it the same way in the 4 Step Proof.
Man's consciousness easily is known to have started 6000 years ago: world-consciousness (body made in God's image), self-consciousness (soul made in God's image), and God-consciousness (spirit made in God's image).
Since you could find no error that man was made in God's image 6000 years, it stands. Since you could find no mythology, there is none. And since your science has been shown to be faulty, then you don't respect science like a Christian does as given by God. We have already talked about the man before the first God-conscious man Adam was the pre-Adamic race who would cease to exist and did not have a spirit of God-consciousness, soul of self-consciousness developed like Adam's and body of sense of world-consciousness to the degree of Adam's made in God's image.
We come to the number 6000 by adding up the ages of the souls made in God's image. Can you see how you are laboring through self-declarations this and that but have no evidence?
Since the Bible was real people in real experiences, there was no myth.

Quote:

Consider a few things - firstly, time starts with the big bang, or shortly after, as that dimension expands with space. "Before" the big bang, there was no time. Talking about a cause in a situation without time is ridiculous. Causality is dependent on time. Without time, there is no causality.

I don't know of anything in nature that is not operating in time so time could not have begun anytime after the big-bang. That would be just plain silly. Since there was nothing before the Big Bang you said, not even a singularity, then the cause would be timelessly uncaused and uncreated to begin time. This is easily seen why it is so. It stands to reason that since nothing in nature can be the ultimate cause of nature then the cause of nature HAS TO BE the uncaused cause and only Jesus fulfills that requirement comparing all known information in the universe. There is no alternative. Step 1 & 4 are always helpful, keeping Step 3 in mind, that since we still sin there could not have been an eternity of the past of causes and effects, just as you said, since you think the Big Bang happened all by itself, and of course we would not still be sinning if we had an eternity of the past of cause and effects, given the exponential progression in our conscience these past 6000 years, it won't take much longer to reach sinlessness in the saved. Ergo, God did it!
Bottom line: there is no demand for no ability to cause in timelessness. If the timelessness of God can start something up, that is His choice. Since this is the only possibility since nothing in nature happens all by itself (Step 2), and we still sin (Step 1), then you know God did it!

Quote:

Also, I am perfectly happy with the inflationary multiverse hypothesis at the moment. As a modification of the tried & tested inflationary model, it explains the universe we live in very nicely, thank you. Positing 'god' as the cause for the universe only leaves me with the question, "where did god come from?" Saying that god is eternal and uncaused is nothing but a cop-out. Why should this be a valid argument for god, but not the universe? And as I have once pointed out to Metacrock - just because what we see inside the universe is a chain of cause and effect, the fabric of the universe itself does not need to be tied down to the same set of rules. The universe makes the rules - outside the universe there are no rules, or a different set of them. Just because we see cause and effect here doesn't prove it is the case. Quantum mechanics would hint otherwise. We don't understand time well enough to be sure.

I am not against a multi-verse for it fits with Christianity quite nicely in fact. However it doesn't help your view at all since there are still causes and effects that can not be the ultimate case of the multi-verse.
Asking where God comes from is violating Step 3 of the proof, because you are not asking about the uncreated God of the Bible, but some god who is created. So jump to Step 4 which says if a god exists, where does he come from, the same question you are asking? The answer is if this god of sorts was created by a god and so on, then this is not actually possible because you would have an eternity of the past to be without sin, yet you still sin. So your question's answer is: There is only possibility: the uncreated Creator God of the Bible did it, given Christ. This is the logical conclusion. So stand strong on the pure reasoning and clear conscience.
It is a cop-out to say something happened all by itself or not to be humble enough to accept the fine truth that the uncreated Designer did it. You got to have courage to accept the only possibility. As Spock said in Star Trek, When all known possibilities are found to be impossible, then it is that impossible thing that was considered which is the only possibility: God of the Bible did it!
The reason the universe can not be uncreated is because nothing in nature is ever seen to happen all by itself, plus the evidence of more than a trillion things with causes and no definite one thing without a cause, it is a pretty sure bet that the universe was caused by the uncaused. Though we can never know anything with 100% certainty, this is like 99.999999% certain.
If there is the uncreated, then he has no problem at all, none whatsoever, in trumping his creation.
This is a cop-out of doublespeak (1 Tim. 3.8), for you said, "just because what we see inside the universe is a chain of cause and effect [you admit it], the fabric of the universe itself does not need to be tied down to the same set of rules." Yes, the fabric of the universe itself does need to exist within the same rules because its very fabric of existence was caused by the big bang, so it would not follow a silly rule of puff the magic dragon it happens all by itself which is outside of its created rule from the big bang. That's for fairy tales and myths. Let it go. Stop being a dullard!
The universe does not make the rules, but merely reacts to the rules given it. You can't say there are no rules outside the universe or a different set of rules or rule at all. All you can say is it is God uncreated. It's like a character in a game trying fathom the computer operator playing the game. It is impossible beyond the understanding the operator gives the character in the game the ability to perceive and do.
If you try to lift up your finger and do so, then there are causes. If you remove the muscle from your finger, you will find you can't lift it up so that you know the muscle was part of the cause, so it is illogical to say that muscle might not be the cause, for it certainly played some causal role, otherwise your finger could never move up. This proves this is at least a part cause. Quantum mechanics would not disagree with this. The atheist is funny because they always go to quantum mechanics, but they can't ever show how quantum mechanics agrees with them. It's like someone coming back from a trip and claiming they saw an alien spaceship, then say they can't take anyone to see it. Lately I have come to the realization the person is willingly lying because he likes being a liar, and a bad person, to see what evil idea he can get away with in this world who Satan is the god of. They don't actually believe such nonsense.
We understand time well enough in our observations that there is no such thing as acausalness in nature. For 13.7 billion years, time has been moving along as right as rain. If you personally don't know time well enough to be sure about these things then you ought to at least stop defending the puff the magic dragon approach, bu this requires repentance. Can you do this? Yes, you can, but will you? Free-choice.

Quote:

If it is ok for theists to postulate an eternal and acausal deity as the explanation of everything, why should the same rules not apply to non believers? It is much simpler because we know the universe exists. We do not have to invoke another, supernatural entity as an additional piece of the puzzle. Thereby through occam's razor, god is discarded as an unnecessary complication.

Nature is not a deity. Christians don't postulate a deity but believe because he is proven. I don't recommend you live by your postulations, but see the proof nothing in creation happens all by itself, therefore could not have cause itself. However, you are free to worship the ground you walk on, but I wouldn't advice it for it is a sure way to get to hell to be eternally separated with Satan in hell from God. Your choice. Grace is resistible.
Is it really simpler to assume nature happens all by itself when nothing in nature ever is shown to happen all by itself? That's like going to the casino and and trying to win at a game that has a trillion to 1 odds against you. To me that seems hard.
So don't invoke the supernatural Being God, but realize easily He proves Himself easily in the 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible. God is not a puzzle. He is our Creator, we can't go past Him. We are defined by Him forever. The best you can ever attain is the new city in the new earth to be with God forever. This is the ultimate joy. Because you are unhappy, you don't know the joy that you could have, so you are on you way to hell. I am only here to tell you that you don't have to live that way. Money is the root of all evil, not just some kinds of evil. ALL! You can't live by bread alone. But by every word of God is their eternal joy. Nothing could be better!
Does Occam's razor require God or discard Him? Let's think about this a little.
Occam's razor: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
We see God has not decided to multiply unnecessarily. Based on scientific studies I have been pointed to, the probability of life on another planet is less than 1 in a million. After over 150 constants are accounted for and all the planets, the division works out to be less than 1 in a million. Plus, due to the exponential progression in our conscience, something easily observable, we know it won't take a million years to reach sinlessness in the save let alone 6000 years more.
The simplest explanation is nothing in nature is without a cause in terms of known phenomena. How confusing and convoluted things would get if a bunch things happen all by themselves without a cause. Totally random and chaotic and retarded!
Since the easiest thing to know is God, for we all have a spirit of God-consciousness what does this mean? It means it is the easiest thing in the world for you to give up you for Him, come to the cross as a helpless sinner and accept Him through His Son as your Lord and Savior.
What someone thousands of years ago has a right to, is the same thing you have a right to now. You are not any more privileged than someone who had no idea about quantum mechanics, so get off your high horse and stop making thinking quantum mechanics has anything to do with your silliness, especially considering you can't show it. :nah:
12-22-2006, 06:33 AM
Churchwork

tracyanne,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tracyanne

That is not evidence that Jesus od the NT actually existed, and of course he lists himself, by doing so he gives himself credibility with the believers.

If Paul was looking for more power, being a Roman citizen, he could have pursued a position of power with the Roman government. The difficult life Paul cheerfully lived as as Christian did not reflect a person whose goal was self-gratification. If Paul was looking for power through a prominent position in of authority in the church, his behavior provide us no indication of such. During the first seventeen years of his Christian life He had little contact with those who could have empowered him.
Yes this is evidence of Paul seeing Jesus bodily, and not a vision. He plainly says he has seen Jesus. I haven't seen Jesus. I have had dreams about Him, but I did not see Jesus. Nobody now will see Him until He returns.
Paul said, "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1). "And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15. . Remember, Paul met with James and Peter early on who themselves saw Jesus resurrected physically. When Paul lists all those who were included in seeing Jesus resurrected physically in 1 Cor. 15, he included himself.

Quote:

They are still not evidence that the Jesus of the NT actually existed., as they are merely comentary on Christian belief, or regurgitation of Christian belief.

Unless of course person A knew person B who knew person C who was an apostles of Jesus and saw His resurrection. Paul and Peter are C. Clement and Polycarp are B. Irenaeus and Tertullian are A.
Such commentaries do not arise acausal, but have their causes, so we have lots in play here: the 42 sources in the first 150 years of Jesus death specifically mention Jesus or the Christ or that one person the Christians are following and so forth. It is always the same key figure of great prominence in Christianity. His death played a key role for 28 mention it. 17 are secular. 12 of those talk about his death and 7 of His deity.

Quote:

Of course he did, but the only place he met that "real live Jesus" was in a dream, a vision, not in real life, and not in the flesh.

You say a dream or vision, but he never does, so you put words in his mouth. It is better just to see what he says. A subjective vision has nothing there. An objective vision still has an actual thing there being referenced. Paul experienced neither of these on the road to Damascus, for he said he actually saw Jesus, just like the apostles did: "Whether, then, it was I or they, this [i.e., Jesus' resurrection appearances] is what we preach, and this is what you believed" (1 Cor. 15.11). Thus, Paul knew the apostles personally and reports that they claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. This is very basic minimal facts stuff.
Jesus comes in the likeness of flesh. The resurrected body no longer bleeds. Yet you can touch it as Thomas and the women touched Jesus. It feels better to be humble and not read into the text what you want. Try it.

Quote:

There is in fact no evidence that the books attributed to them were in fact written by people of those names. The names of the books were assigned in the late 2nd early 3rd century by Christian leaders, as was the attribution.

We can be confident Luke wrote Luke. He was a physician and he gives the same detail and carefulness to his approach in the opening verses which is quite distinct from other books of the Bible. Since nobody said they introduced the name Luke to Luke over a century later, this is assumed by you. Let's try to deal with the facts. The facts are Luke working with Paul indicates that Luke would be the perfect candidate to write Luke. Mark also exhibits a similar trait to the characteristics of Mark in the Bible. Mark was sloppy originally but got better. He was on the first trip with Paul and Paul did not like his lack of commitment. Mark is written in a very basic style that is more primitive, so Mark suits this writing well. There is one verse where Mark writes mentioning a person undisclosed as though it is himself. I found this interesting.

Quote:

And since those secular sources actually only refer to the existance of Christians and what Christians believe, they are hardly evidence that Jesus actually existed. They have the same validity in providing evidence of the reality of Jesus as references to worshipers of Mythras and what they believe has in providing evidence of the reality of Mythras.

The point of these secular sources is for those who demand secular writers didn't write about Jesus, but obviously they did. It is merely a correction of their mistaken assumption. It is not giving high value to their words, but only to show that there is a causal effect going about Jesus' teachings, death and resurrection getting around. The Gospel's and Paul's writings are still the best. These 17 secular sources specifically mention Jesus and His attributes: the one crucified, the Messiah of the Jews that the Jews rejected, so on and so forth, talking about his teachings, death, and so on.
Since Jesus was only mentioned in 17 secular sources in the first 150 years of his death, you would be hard pressed for the secular world to mention the disciples even once other than generally as the disciples or followers of Christ. And since secular sources have not much value anyway as you admit, it is not much interest to hear what secular writers say if anything about the apostles.

Quote:

No we haven't, and we certainly haven't established the existence of the apostles, and we have not established the existence of the Jesus of the NT. You have asserted it often, but you have provided no supporting evidence.

Regarding your insistence that the existence of the apostles is not proven nor the existence of Jesus, what evidence would you like if secular sources mentioning his death are not good enough? That Paul's verses meeting with the apostles does not qualify, that the Gospels don't count? That His seeing Jesus is not helpful evidence? That nothing in antiquity is as well documented as the books of the NT about Christ? Since these recorded writings of which I quoted specifically do not qualify, then what does? If a lawyer in the Guiness Book of Records won 245 cases in row and says the best case he has ever reviewed is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, then what will satisfy you? If scholars are agreed that Jesus and the apostles existed, why is this not good enough for you? Why do you think there is this conspiracy? What is your evidence for rejecting all these writings in explaining the situation? You can't ask for more documentation than this when papyrus was hard to come by to begin with. I am not sure what more you need. Jesus Himself said that even if He appeared to you in Person like you would not believe. Remember the scene of the rich man and Lazarus?
My advice is don't tempt the Lord your God. I believe you are going too far demanding unascertained evidence. Nothing is good enough for you.

Quote:

Paul never actually refers to meeting any material Jesus, the claim is made, in the book of Acts, that he did, by the author of the book of Acts, who we know cannot be the Luke that it is claimed, as the authorship was assigned in the late 2nd early 3rd century by church fathers. What Paul did write was Galations Chapter 1 15 and 16
15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
I conferred not with flesh and blood:
He conferred not with Flesh and blood. He speaks not of meeting with a real live person, but a spirit being a dream creature, a vision of Jesus. In other words Paul never met a real live Jesus.

Since you have no evidence Luke was assigned to 2nd century church fathers, why assume this? Since Luke, a physician, would be meticulous, that is exactly the writing style found in Luke. Scholars are agreed on this. I can't think of a better candidate to be the author for Luke, since Luke was close to the action, and he did write two incredibly detailed books in Luke and Acts. Unless shown otherwise, it stands.
Not conferring with flesh and blood does not mean no seeing Jesus, but not going to people to talk about this matter. NLT says "not rush out to consult with anyone else" (Gal. 1.16). All people are born of the flesh: all that is born of the flesh is flesh. Jesus came in the likeness of flesh. Verse 16 doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. Do you see how you misread?
"To reveal his Son in me"-God revealed Jesus to Paul. How? All Paul is saying here is that he knows he as chosen by God. Once a person is saved they know they have been called and chosen before the foundations of the world. This is for you too if you want it. On the road to Damascus when a voice spoke the people with Paul could hear it too, but they didn't understand it. And there was a flash of light as well which caused everyone to drop to their knees. These events took place though only presented Jesus to Paul in a form others could not see. He went blind as a result. It makes one thing the power of that event was rare. It feels like God had to rip into creation to find just the right person to write major sections of the New Testament. That person was Paul.
If you accept Gal. 1 as you said, then you accept it all. Paul clearly believes Jesus was raised from the dead: "There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Let God's curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about [i.e. eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection]. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed" (Gal. 1.7-8). If the apostles and Paul did not see Jesus' resurrected then the resurrection is false. Paul says so in 1 Cor. 15.
Paul never indicated His seeing Jesus was different than the apostles, but just the same in 1 Cor. 15. Even if it was, it does not make a difference does it? However he saw Jesus, it was enough to convince him to convert to the faith. That's powerful stuff!

Quote:

I have no evidence that any of these people existed, save possibly Paul. And you have given me no evidence, only assertion.

For you the documentation of these writers of these events and these people is not evidence. So historical evidence is not good enough for you. I don't know what other kinds of evidence there for events that took place 2000 years ago. Therein lies your problem. You reject it outright, yet you given no reason why you call everything fraudulent. Very few if any scholars would hold your view, especially given that we are just using the minimal facts approach.
12-22-2006, 07:39 AM
Churchwork

Rambo123UK,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo123UK

No, you are ignoring the third choice, as I say, that the gospels are pure fabrication. Consider that there were numerous other gospels and christian works written in the early christian era, and most of these are dismissed as 'pious frauds' and rejected from the canon. The 4 canonical gospels are accepted because they fitted the theological picture accepted by the dominant forces in the church at the time. Texts which rejected the divinity of Jesus, or played little on it, were rejected and purged.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the case that the traditional authors of the gospels are correct, and much evidence to refute it. I should not have to state the case for each again and again, it's tedious. Lack of local geographical knowledge, anachronisms, use of later texts (such as Josephus) etc, etc.

Since Paul said he met with Peter and James, and I quoted the Pauline verses, and Peter and James taught the same as in the gospels, there was this agreement among them as Paul states very clearly Galatians 1. So there is no possibility of fabrication. Yet again Paul goes to Jerusalem after the first two times: "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also" (Gal. 2.1). "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (v.9).
Since there is agreement and consistency, what evidence do you have that there is a fabrication? The other books you speak of came later and are not in the time frame of the gospels and Paul's writings. Yes, the gospels written around 60-70 AD do fit nicely with the rest of the books of the Bible. And the others don't, because we can find contradictions and errors and other teachings in them that just don't follow from the earlier writings.
We can find no evidence that Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, Luke did not write Luke and Acts, and John did not write John. John wrote 1,2,3 John and Revelation also. Remember, his brother was murdered, so he was highly motivated in the Holy Spirit to do this right. All the right people wrote all the right books.
You have mentioned no inconsistencies to me. No such problems exist such as lack of local geographical knowledge, anachronisms, use of later texts (such as Josephus). Using the minimal facts approach we only need to focus on the stuff we are certain that Josephus did write. Looks like you have nothing again. Usually when a person gets desperate like you are now, they rant off more and more tedious self-declarations, but never provide evidence for their claims. Gets very boring when you do that.

Quote:

Nor indeed should I have to point out all the contradictions in the gospels, as again, these are well known and have had apologists trying to explain them away since they were written! Just off the top of my head then - who visited the tomb?

Women.

Quote:

Was the stone already rolled away, or did it happen when they arrived. Who greeted them in the tomb? Did the women tell the disciples, or keep quiet through fear? Who was the first person to see Jesus? Were they allowed to touch him, or told not to? Did they recognise him, or not? How long was it before he went back to heaven? Where did he meet the apostles after the resurrection, Jerusalem or Galilee? How many did he appear to? What was the genealogy of Jesus? Why is there such a large discrepancy in the number of generations, even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the ludicrous notion that one genealogy is Mary, and one Jospehus? Why are the two birth stories irreconcilible? When did the transfiguration occur? How did Judas die?

Cite your verses you say are contradictions. I am not a mind reader. I can't guess at what verses you are looking at right now.

Quote:

You say they touched the risen Jesus, but John, one of your supposed eyewitnesses, disagrees. Why then should I believe any of it?
According to Acts, Paul never saw Jesus, just heard him. But make what you want from a sunstroke-induced vision in the desert! Paul never refers to James as the brother of Jesus, just a pillar of the early church. As for Paul himself, as I say - he never met Jesus, just had a vision - which proves nothing.

John doesn't disagree, why assume that? In Acts, Paul does see Jesus.
"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.4-7).
He heard a voice. When it says "the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" implies that Paul saw a man, the man Jesus God. I love that. Language is very powerful.
You should believe it all because you have not found any problems with it. Self-declarations about something does not constitute a worthy consideration.
Paul does call James, the brother of Jesus, for James the brother of John is martyred, so there is not a third James, but he is the brother of Jesus and an apostle and elder of Jerusalem, "After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7). "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve" (v.5). James the brother of John and Cephas are in the twelve, but the group in verse 7 is talking about other apostles and James is included in that bunch also. There is no other known James but the brother of Jesus, who was a family skeptic. James, brother of Jesus, wrote James. You know the verses Paul mentions in seeing James and agreeing with him such as, "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1.19).
Paul says he saw Jesus, nothing about a vision. Humility is in low supply these days.
"But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee" (Acts 26.16).
Usual considerations to Paul seeing Jesus bodily.
1) If you want to say Paul had a vision in Acts, then consider Paul's words in these verses that speak of a bodily resurrection:
"For God had promised to raise him from the dead, never again to die. This is stated in the Scripture that says, `I will give you the sacred blessings I promised to David.' Another psalm explains more fully, saying, `You will not allow your Holy One to rot in the grave.' Now this is not a reference to David, for after David had served his generation according to the will of God, he died and was buried, and his body decayed. No, it was a reference to someone else-someone whom God raised and whose body did not decay" (Acts 13.34-37).
2) Other details in the accounts indicate that the experience occurred not only in the mind of Paul (others saw and heard the voice, but unlike Paul, they could not see the man Jesus).
3) Paul's experience was post-ascension and may explain how Jesus' appearance after death was different than in the Gospels.
4) Luke was not troubled by the difference between Paul's appearance and those made to he disciples (Luke 24; Acts 1.1-11); he records both.
5) Acts was written after Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are clearly regarding the bodily resurrection. Thus, if an evolution is taking place, it has devolved from a bodily resurrection to something lesser, rather than evolved.:GEEK:
12-22-2006, 07:47 PM
Churchwork

Conclusion:

1) In chapters of the Bible you do accept, these awesome verses Paul said he saw Jesus, His "appearance," "the man" the others with him did not see, and he includes himself with those who he said saw Jesus resurrected. He clearly teaches a bodily resurrection in agreement when he said he met with the apostles early on, including James, John and Peter who taught the same. This harmonizes the Word using just the minimal facts approach of those things in Scripture that most scholars agree upon.

2) Since nothing in nature happens all by itself and we still sin showing the universe has not been eternally existing for our body of dust (Gen. 2.7), then the universe cannot cause itself, but was caused by something outside of nature. Ergo, the ultimate cause must be uncaused or uncreated as hard as it is to fathom for the mind's limitedness. Who in all that we know fulfills this condition?
- who said He is God,
- who said He would be resurrected in religio-historical context in the greatest truth ever known,
- who is the prophesied Messiah of the OT,
- who was seen by multiple attestation in various group settings of His resurrection against all expectations and we have no reason for why the disciples would not tell the truth,
- and we are told the reason for God doing this: because we are fallen from grace, headed for the second death (an eternal separtion from God), thus in need of the sinless sacrifice for forgiveness so as to be made presentable to come before God. One who is unclean can never approach God for fellowship.

What does this mean for those who reject Christ? They must go to hell. Deep down inside that is what they want for themselves. They like the sin nature. :swoon:
12-22-2006, 11:51 PM
Churchwork

Hawker Hurricane,

I do just love giving the truth of peoples' mistaken assumptions so they can see where they go wrong and perhaps change to receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawker Hurricane

Jim Jones, Koresh, Krishna, lots of people.

Think. Jim Jones never said he was God. There are lots of people, but case by case you can find either they never called themselves God or if they did, they could be shown false. Only Jesus wins. Krishna fails why? Krishna teaches reincarnation, which means you could come back as a goat. This shows Krishna is a false god.

Quote:

That would be the Reverend Moon.

Jesus said when He returns, all shall know it. We don't all know Moon is the is the "Messiah, returning Lord" he calls himself, so this proves he is a false Christ.
"For there shall arise false Christs" (Matt. 24.24). "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (v.30). "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Rev. 1.7).
So you see how Jesus wins each and every time. Sure you can argue something else again and again, but again and again, Jesus wins against your efforts. I love that about God's Word.

Quote:

Nobody. The Jews (You know, the people who actually wrote the Old Testament) says no one has qualified yet.

They reject their own Savior who is the suffering servant (Isaiah 53):
1 Who has believed our message? To whom will the Lord reveal his saving power? 2 My servant grew up in the Lord's presence like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. 3 He was despised and rejected-a man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way when he went by. He was despised, and we did not care.
4 Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows* that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God for his own sins! 5 But he was wounded and crushed for our sins. He was beaten that we might have peace. He was whipped, and we were healed! 6 All of us have strayed away like sheep. We have left God's paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the guilt and sins of us all.
7 He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led as a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. 8 From prison and trial they led him away to his death. But who among the people realized that he was dying for their sins-that he was suffering their punishment? 9 He had done no wrong, and he never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man's grave.
10 But it was the Lord's good plan to crush him and fill him with grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have a multitude of children, many heirs. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord's plan will prosper in his hands. 11 When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of what he has experienced, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. 12 I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among those who were sinners. He bore the sins of many and interceded for sinners.
Messiah was to be rejected by his own people, the Jews (Is. 53.1,3, Ps. 118.22; Matt. 21.1-9, John 1.11, 12.12-16, Luke 23.18)
Messiah was to be hated without reason (Ps. 35.19; John 15.24,25)
Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5.2; Matt. 2.1-6, Luke 2.1-20, specifically vv.4,5,7)
Messiah was to be born of a virgin (Is. 7.14; Mtt. 1.18-25, Luke 1.26-38, specifically vv.26,27,30,31)
Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18.15,18,19; John 7.40, Acts 3.20,22)
Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph (Zech. 9.9; Matt. 21.1-9, John 12.12-16)
Messiah was to be tried and condemned (Is. 53.8, Matt. 27.1,2; Luke 2.1-25)
Messiah was to be accused by false witnesses (Ps. 35.11; Mark 14.57,58)
Messiah was to be silent before his accusers (Is. 53.7; Matt. 27.1,2, Luke 2.1-25, Mark 15.4,5)
Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies (Is. 50.6; Matt. 26.67, 27.30, Mark 16.65)
Messiah was to mocked and insulted (Psalm 22.7,8; Matt. 26.67, 27.30, Mark 14.65, Luke 23.35)
Messiah was to die by crucifixion (Ps. 22.14,16,17; Matt. 27.31, Mark 15.20,25)
Messiah was to suffer with criminals (malefactors) and pray for his enemies (Is. 53.12, Ps. 109.4; Matt. 27.38, Mark 15.27,28, Luke 23.32-34)
Messiah was to be given vinegar and gall (Ps. 69.21; Matt. 27.34, John 19.28-30)
Others (soldiers) were to cast lots (gambled) for Messiah's garments (coat) (Ps. 22.17,18; Matt. 27.35,36, John 19.23,24)
Messiah's bones were not to be broken (Ex. 12.46, Ps. 34.20; John 19.31-36, specifically vv.32,33,36)
Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin, vicarious sacrifice (Is. 53.5,6,8,10,11,12; John 1.29, 11.49-52, Acts 10.43, 13.38,39, Rom. 5.6,8)
Messiah was to be pierced through his hands and feet (Zech. 12.10; John 20.27)
Messiah was to have his side pierced (Zech. 12.10; John 19.34)
Messiah was to be buried with the rich (Is. 53.9; Matt. 27.57-60)
Messiah was to be raised from the dead (resurrected) (Ps. 16.10, 49.15; Mark 16.6,7, Matt. 28.1-10, Acts 2.22-32)
Messiah is now at God's right hand (Ps. 68.18, 110.1; Mark 16.19, Luke 24.50-51, 1 Cor. 15.4, Eph. 4.8)
Slaughter of the innocents (Jer. 31.15; Matt. 2.16-18)
Flight to Egypt (Hos. 11.1; Matt. 2.14,15)
Messiah was to be preceded by a forerunner (Mal. 3.1; Luke 7.24,27)
Messiah was to be declared the Son of God (Ps. 2.7; Matt. 3.17)
Messiah was to have a Galilean ministry (Is. 9.1,2; Matt. 4.13-16)
Messiah was to heal the brokenhearted (Is. 61.1,2; Luke 4.18,19)
Messiah was to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 110.4; Heb. 5.5,6)
Messiah was to be betrayed by a friend (Ps. 41.9; Luke 22.47)
Messiah was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11.12; Luke 22.47,48)
Messiah was to be the seed of a woman (Gen. 3.15; Gal. 4.4)
Messiah was to be the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12.3; Matt. 1.1)
Messiah was to be the seed of Isaac (Gen. 17.19; Luke 3.34)
Messiah was to be the seed of Jacob (Num. 24.17; Matt. 1.2)
Messiah was to be from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49.10; Luke 3.33)
Messiah was to be a heir to the throne of David (Is. 9.7; Luke 1.32,33)
The time for the birth of the Messiah was to be 483 years from the proclamation of the building of the temple (Dan. 9.25; Luke 2.1,2)

Quote:

And there is no reason for them to tell the truth either, since they're fictional(ized) creations.

Most scholars agree Paul existed and especially 1 Cor. 15 being early creedal that he received by oral tradition and Galatians 1. And Paul wrote about his experiences with the apostles. "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:...After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.5,7). "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1.18,19). "In fact, James, Peter,* and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews. The only thing they suggested was that we remember to help the poor, and I have certainly been eager to do that. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision"(Gal. 2.9-12)
If the brightest minds on the planet agree at least in these things, and you don't, what does that say of you? Some words come to mind such as: obstinacy, mindlessness, belligerency, independency, self-centered, shutting your mind down, bad person, wanting to go to hell, etc.
Since they are not fictional people, the reason for them not to tell the truth can not be that they are fiction, since they are not fictional. You will have to come up with another reason for why you think the apostles were not telling the truth.

Quote:

Ah, yes... The Omnipotent God was required(!) to send himself to die as a blood sacrifice to himself to forgive us of rules he created himself so that he could change those rules.

The first rule set is sin leads to death and the second death, but it is man who chose to fall; God did not cause this. Look at your bad reasoning more closely now. He did not create the rule set of sin leads to death so that He could then change those rules, for that rule is still in place and not at all changed. God foreknowing man would sin, He planned in His infinite wisdom to enter into creation to be the perfect sacrifice for sins so that through His mercy anyone who wants to be saved may receive God's grace and gift of eternal life. Do you see how the rules remain unchanged? Do you see how God will have what He wants, to walk with those who love Him, and that the fall of Adam will not stop that!

Quote:

"Here's your handbasket, have a nice trip." Christ hated hypocrits more than he hated unbelievers. If there's a Hell, you'll be there, in a nice hot spot.
We know that the scripture is holy because it is inspired by God. We know it is inspired by God because it says it is. We know this is true because Holy Scripture wouldn't lie.

Here is abundant mercy and grace, brimming to the top according to all God's righteous glory and holiness. Satan is a false accuser and enjoys those who accuse falsely like him, just as you did: "hypocrite". But do notice you never show how I am being a hypocrite, so such accusations are empty and vain, reviling and hateful, without the love of the Lord. How sad for you!
A hypocrite can be saved or unsaved, so God hates an unsaved hypocrite more than a saved hypocrite, because at least the saved hypocrite did truly come to the cross with Christ, but has since turned fleshly. An unsaved hypocrite such as yourself, still calls Jesus a liar. Discern these words.
Sorry, but I will not be joining you in hell you admit you are going to. That's the most honest thing I think you have said, that you are going to hell. God has told me by the Holy Spirit and His Word, I was chosen before the foundations of the world that God foreknew He would give me His uncreated eternal life. Since it is eternal, it can never be lost. There is no possibility of me going where you admit you want to go.
We know the Word of God is true because and there is no lie, because (1) nothing in nature happens all by itself, so the universe didn't cause itself but was created; (2) the creator is Jesus Christ, because none can compare to him, by comparison; (3) very reasonably then you would expect God would fulfill His Word and given us a point of reference which is the 66 books of the Bible; and (4) since still today, none can find a mistake with the 66 books of God's Word, embodiment in writing of Jesus Christ, then it stands, and you have failed in your hostility to disprove the Bible.
Wow!:spinny: