"What think ye of Christ?" Jesus asked His disciples in Matthew 22:42

Soul Winner

I highly recommend this 1 hour video presentation to anybody, (believer or non believer) by the late Dr Gene Scott PhD. Starts tonight in the Irish Faith Centre in Doyle's Corner in Phibsboro at 8.30pm and every night this week at the same time and also on Easter Sunday morning at 11:30am.



http://www.irishfaithcentre.com/ressurrection.html

Robert ninja

I've noticed these posters around. I find it doesn't make sense, though. it asks, "If so, what is your belief based on?"

It doesn't have to be based on anything, it's faith. No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, faith sidesteps it because... well, that's what it is. It says, "if christ be not risen our faith is in vain."

It's not in vain... well, maybe it is but it doesn't matter because you have faith. I think William L. Craig even said something like... even if he was put in a time machine and sent back to the date when jesus apparently lived and he saw jesus crucified and not be ressurected even months after his death... he would STILL have faith that he rose from the dead. If one believes in any of the stories because of evidence... then they do not have faith and have no faith to be in vain for anything... if that makes sense.

Derp.

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

I've noticed these posters around. I find it doesn't make sense, though. it asks, "If so, what is your belief based on?"

It doesn't have to be based on anything, it's faith. No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, faith sidesteps it because... well, that's what it is. It says, "if christ be not risen our faith is in vain."

It's not in vain... well, maybe it is but it doesn't matter because you have faith. I think William L. Craig even said something like... even if he was put in a time machine and sent back to the date when jesus apparently lived and he saw jesus crucified and not be ressurected even months after his death... he would STILL have faith that he rose from the dead. If one believes in any of the stories because of evidence... then they do not have faith and have no faith to be in vain for anything... if that makes sense.

Derp.

Well it depends on what type of faith you're talking about. Blind faith without scrutinizing any of the facts in evidence or faith because you have done so and came to conclude that the evidence is strong enough to warrant faith. There is a difference. You'll never prove it happened but like the way evidence is weighed up in a courtroom room a conclusion can be drawn. Once exposed to the evidence in any case your judgment is shaped. You will either side with a guilty verdict or a not guilty verdict or remain unsure. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant faith in the resurrection of Christ if one would simply expose themselves to that evidence. In this presentation Dr Gene Scott presents this evidence. My recommendation is for people to watch it and make up their own minds. If you're convinced by the case he makes then great, if not then you're not. Simple really. The point is that you don't have to have blind faith on these matters. You can make an informed and well thought out decision as apposed to just taking someone's word for it.

Robert ninja

I see what you mean now. There's levels of faith... from ridiculous to not so ridiculous. I understand now, I may check it out if I get access to a better browser (this one can't play anything except text) but I think people will always need the blindest of faith to believe dead men walk (and then incidentally fly bodily to paradise)

Slav

Does it answer the fundamental question of what that Peter's confession was based on? Surely it was not Resurrection, was it?

Soul Winner

Robert ninja wrote: »

I see what you mean now. There's levels of faith... from ridiculous to not so ridiculous. I understand now, I may check it out if I get access to a better browser (this one can't play anything except text) but I think people will always need the blindest of faith to believe dead men walk (and then incidentally fly bodily to paradise)

Well that's it isn't it? Would you say that if God did exist then these things are equally as impossible to happen? I agree that these things are impossible to happen and don't generally happen, but that is what this is all about. If you can be convinced that it did actually happen then your whole world view changes in an instant. Now there are two positions to take:

1). These things never happened because they can't happen, therefore anyone who says they did happen are crazy or crooks because these things can't happen therefore they didn't happen...and so on. That's arguing in a circle.

Or

2). The Christian says; Yes these things can't happen by any means we know of but they did happen to this man Jesus Christ.

Now they were either lying about this or they were telling the truth. And I think there is simply much better reasons for believing that they were telling the truth than there are reasons for thinking they were lying, which means that it is more rational to believe their report than to disbelieve it, despite what any materialist will tell you to the contrary.

I agree, to believe in things like this is craziness if they are false. But all that is required for these supernatural events to be possible is for a supernatural God to exist. And I have no good reason to think that such a being doesn't exist and as such have no good reasons for thinking that such a Being cannot perform these marvellous works.

Soul Winner

Slav wrote: »

Does it answer the fundamental question of what that Peter's confession was based on? Surely it was not Resurrection, was it?

Good question. Obviously not as the resurrection had not yet taken place and sure just after Peter made his profession that Jesus was the Christ he actually rebuked Jesus because Jesus spoke about his looming death. Jesus then rebuked him and called Peter 'Satan'. So that will tell you where Peter's head was, he was not expecting Jesus to die let alone rise from the dead afterwards and wouldn't even believe that He rose from the dead until he seen Him with his own eyes. But Jesus did say that Peter's profession of faith did not come from flesh and blood but by the Spirit of His Father in Heaven. It is actually this statement that caused Jesus to change Peter's name from Simon to Peter. Peter meaning Rock. That statement became the foundation upon which Jesus would build His Church that even the gates of hell would not prevail against. So no that staement was not based upon the resurrection event but it was what Peter thought of Jesus when Jesus asked him. And the IFC poster is simply asking you would you like Peter boldly proclaim such a thing about Jesus and if so what would it be based on? Is it based on anything?

Slav

Exactly my point. What seemed strange to me is that they started with the Peter's confession but continued with Resurrection. By reading it it looks to me like they are suggesting that Resurrection could be a good basis of faith in Christ being the Son of God. If it's the case I see it questionable and not very biblical.

Peter confessed Christ as the Son before the Resurrection. We can say that the whole New Testament Church was formed before Resurrection. Interesting thing here that after Resurrection Christ only visited those who had already believed in Him. Christ himself did not use Resurrection to evangelise people; He did not come to Sanhedrin, He did not come to those who cried "crucify him". He did not even visit Pilate - surely that one would make a good Christian; he had already asked Him what is Truth but just did not recognise it that time.

Soul Winner

Slav wrote: »

Exactly my point. What seemed strange to me is that they started with the Peter's confession but continued with Resurrection. By reading it it looks to me like they are suggesting that Resurrection could be a good basis of faith in Christ being the Son of God. If it's the case I see it questionable and not very biblical.

The record says that Peter's profession came from the Spirit of God not from Peter himself. God's Spirit inhabits those who have faith in Him and in Christ' resurrection. The Gospel that tells us about Peter's confession assumes that the resurrection of Jesus was fact and was probably with the intent of recording a record of that fact more so than Peter's profession of faith, which means that had the resurrection not happened as reported then we would never have know about Peter's confession in the first place. In any case, this thread was not started in order to discuss these issues, if you don't want to go to see the presentation then just don't. Debating the details in the semantics on the poster is not going to achieve anything for either of us.

Slav wrote: »

Peter confessed Christ as the Son before the Resurrection. We can say that the whole New Testament Church was formed before Resurrection. Interesting thing here that after Resurrection Christ only visited those who had already believed in Him. Christ himself did not use Resurrection to evangelise people; He did not come to Sanhedrin, He did not come to those who cried "crucify him". He did not even visit Pilate - surely that one would make a good Christian; he had already asked Him what is Truth but just did not recognise it that time.

He appeared to James his brother who didn't believe in Him until then and then He appeared to Paul who also didn't believe in Him before then, so your point is mute. From God's point of view, the testimony of His disciples was sufficient if the Sanhedrin, Pilate or anyone else who had a genuine desire to hear these things. Plus Paul says that "If Christ be not risen then our faith is in vain." What do you say to that?

booksale

thanks for posting. i did go with a friend who does not believe in Jesus Christ.

the movie indeed was kinda old and that the images in the movie was not very clear.

instead of a movie, i would prefer to call it a video taped speech by the professor.

the professor was a real scholar and presented very well. although before i went, i thought i would meet the real person... haahha, my friend thought that as well and she was excited to meet a scholar and would want an intelligent talk with him as she is doing a phd herself.

although we were disappointed (a bit, but it's because we were expecting too much... hahha), i found it very refreshing for my Christian belief. and i discussed a bit with my friend afterwards, it's a good chance to let those who dont know the facts about Jesus Christ to learn that Jesus was once lived and died on the cross.

i did a little bit research on the internet about the existence of Jesus Christ in history record, but would definitely like to read more (some more accurate in the history books other than on the internet).

i heard all those before (not as systematic as the professor presented in the movie, pieces of information here and there) but then forgot after a period of time and when came across difficulties in life, i doubt the existence of Jesus Christ.

so, this is good. worth to go.

thanks.

blogga

Jesus had and has something to say to humanity. Christ has nothing to say because that he is institutionalized crap.

Soul Winner

booksale wrote: »

thanks for posting. i did go with a friend who does not believe in Jesus Christ.

the movie indeed was kinda old and that the images in the movie was not very clear.

instead of a movie, i would prefer to call it a video taped speech by the professor.

Yes it was recorded in 1988. Every year at Easter he would preach this resurrection message but most years he would need two Sunday services to get through all the evidence, but this particular year he was able to get through it in an hour. That's why the IFC show this particular recording. There are others that are more clear but you'd be sat there for two hours and its hard enough to get people to sit for an hour let alone two hours or more, which is understandable if your not used to it.

booksale wrote: »

the professor was a real scholar and presented very well. although before i went, i thought i would meet the real person... haahha, my friend thought that as well and she was excited to meet a scholar and would want an intelligent talk with him as she is doing a phd herself.

Dr Scott went to his reward in February 2005 after almost 50 years in a Bible Teaching Ministry. He left behind a wealth of teaching. He was succeeded by his wife Pastor Melissa Scott who is doing a pretty good job at filling his shoes when it comes to rightly dividing the Word.

booksale wrote: »

although we were disappointed (a bit, but it's because we were expecting too much... hahha), i found it very refreshing for my Christian belief. and i discussed a bit with my friend afterwards, it's a good chance to let those who dont know the facts about Jesus Christ to learn that Jesus was once lived and died on the cross.

Its a universal message. Anyone, believer (no matter the denomination) or non believer, will take something from it. But the IFC play all his teachings on a regular basis, this one is sort of like an entry level sermon, there is much much more where that came from.

booksale wrote: »

i heard all those before (not as systematic as the professor presented in the movie, pieces of information here and there) but then forgot after a period of time and when came across difficulties in life, i doubt the existence of Jesus Christ.

As we all do, but thats the battle we have, we must not let our earthly circumstances which defy God's promises get the better of us. Just have even more faith than before and grow.

booksale wrote: »

so, this is good. worth to go.

thanks.

Yip, sure is...

Slav

Christ is Risen!

Soul Winner wrote: »

The record says that Peter's profession came from the Spirit of God not from Peter himself.

It's getting too complicated for me as it raises a whole bunch of new questions. So it was not Peter's confession after all but the one of Holy Spirit? The Church is built then on the rock of faith of Spirit in Son?

God's Spirit inhabits those who have faith in Him and in Christ' resurrection.

Could He inhabit the Old Testament authors, for example, or they all foreknew about the Resurrection of Messiah?

In any case, this thread was not started in order to discuss these issues, if you don't want to go to see the presentation then just don't. Debating the details in the semantics on the poster is not going to achieve anything for either of us.

I'm too far from Dublin to attend it. Also I don't think its about semantics of the poster. I don't know what Dr. Gene Scott had to say about it but as far as I remember listening to his widow she based her proof of resurrection essentially on faith in Christ the Son of God. It was some time ago so I could be wrong here but it did not sound strange to me, unlike the above poster. As far as I remember her logic was "if we believe in Christ then surely we should believe in His resurrection" while the way I read the poster suggested that it's the other way round: "if Christ resurrected then we should believe He is the Son of God". In other words is it "Incarnation makes sense therefore there must be Resurrection" or the opposite: "Resurrection makes sense therefore the Word must have been Incarnated".

I'm not interesting in debating it but I'm interested in Evangelical theology and its reasoning.

He appeared to James his brother who didn't believe in Him until then and then He appeared to Paul who also didn't believe in Him before then, so your point is mute.

I don't think it's mute. First of all, Paul did not see resurrected Christ; it was after the Ascension and he only saw the light and heard His voice. The appearance to James is only mentioned briefly once in canonical NT books in a way that would suggest that it's more likely to be James the Just rather then some other James, though again not 100% positive. It does not say anything about his conversion after meeting the resurrected Christ; actually in that particular verse he's listed among the apostles which would suggest that he had already belonged to the Church. Where the appearance of resurrected Christ to James is described in details is the non-canonical Gospel of Hebrews but it undoubtedly states that he was already a believer by that time and even participated in the Last Supper together with the apostles.

Plus Paul says that "If Christ be not risen then our faith is in vain." What do you say to that?

Exactly what Paul says: faith is in vain if resurrection did not happen, i.e. Resurrection is the fulfilment. It is the fulfilment of faith as well as fulfilment of covenants, of Law, of works, of everything. Great summary of it by John Chrysostom in his Easter homily:


If anyone is devout and a lover of God, let them enjoy this beautiful and radiant festival.
If anyone is a grateful servant, let them, rejoicing, enter into the joy of his Lord.
If anyone has wearied themselves in fasting, let them now receive recompense.

If anyone has laboured from the first hour, let them today receive the just reward.
If anyone has come at the third hour, with thanksgiving let them feast.
If anyone has arrived at the sixth hour, let them have no misgivings; for they shall suffer no loss.
If anyone has delayed until the ninth hour, let them draw near without hesitation.
If anyone has arrived even at the eleventh hour, let them not fear on account of tardiness.

For the Master is gracious and receives the last even as the first; He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, just as to him who has laboured from the first.
He has mercy upon the last and cares for the first; to the one He gives, and to the other He is gracious.
He both honours the work and praises the intention.

Enter all of you, therefore, into the joy of our Lord, and, whether first or last, receive your reward.
O rich and poor, one with another, dance for joy!
O you ascetics and you negligent, celebrate the day!

You that have fasted and you that have disregarded the fast, rejoice today!
The table is rich-laden: feast royally, all of you!
The calf is fatted: let no one go forth hungry!

Let all partake of the feast of faith. Let all receive the riches of goodness.
Let no one lament their poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn their transgressions, for pardon has dawned from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Saviour's death has set us free.

He that was taken by death has annihilated it!
He descended into Hades and took Hades captive!
He embittered it when it tasted His flesh! And anticipating this, Isaiah exclaimed: "Hades was embittered when it encountered Thee in the lower regions".

It was embittered, for it was abolished!
It was embittered, for it was mocked!
It was embittered, for it was purged!
It was embittered, for it was despoiled!
It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!

It took a body and came upon God!
It took earth and encountered Heaven!
It took what it saw, but crumbled before what can not seen!

O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!

For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the first-fruits of them that have slept.
To Him be glory and might unto the ages of ages.
Amen.