Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How does 'God's will' affect 'free will'?
Options
Comments
-
The early Christian documents were written and distributed when eyewitnesses could be called upon to either confirm or deny the miraculous records. First Corinthians, for example, written within 25 years of the events in question, speaks of 500 eye witnesses to Christ's Resurrection, many of whom were still alive. Anyone wanting to check it out had a specific geographical location (Jerusalem - a popular point of travel for any Jew in Corinth) and could easily expose Paul as a liar by travelling to Jerusalem and finding that the supposed witnesses did not exist.
In 1 Corinithians Paul makes the claim of 500 (anonymous) witnesses to the Resurrection. In 2 Corinthians we find some of the residents of Corinth have begun to turn away from Paul. He is preparing to meet accusations put to him my residents of the city (Paul doesn't say what these accusations are unfortunately), he acknowledges that so far the Corinthians have not been convinced by him, he is fearful that he will be humiliated when he next visits the city. If these 500 witnesses really existed, and if Jerusalem was as accessable to Corinth was you say, then one has to wonder why the Corinthians did not enthusiastically fall united behind Paul's leadership after he gave them this gem of information in 1 Corinthians.
What we find instead is a church in turmoil, he has to warn the residents against turning to other apostles and also away from pagan influences. It looks like the claim Paul made of the witnesses has not worked, the Corinthians were not convinced. I wonder why?0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »In 1 Corinithians Paul makes the claim of 500 (anonymous) witnesses to the Resurrection. In 2 Corinthians we find some of the residents of Corinth have begun to turn away from Paul. He is preparing to meet accusations put to him my residents of the city (Paul doesn't say what these accusations are unfortunately), he acknowledges that so far the Corinthians have not been convinced by him, he is fearful that he will be humiliated when he next visits the city. If these 500 witnesses really existed, and if Jerusalem was as accessable to Corinth was you say, then one has to wonder why the Corinthians did not enthusiastically fall united behind Paul's leadership after he gave them this gem of information in 1 Corinthians.
What we find instead is a church in turmoil, he has to warn the residents against turning to other apostles and also away from pagan influences. It looks like the claim Paul made of the witnesses has not worked, the Corinthians were not convinced. I wonder why?
Why should they enthusiastically fall behind Paul's leadership when all he has done is reiterated the facts of the resurrection? The resurrection was not a pet doctrine of Paul's - it was the foundational truth on which all churches were established. 2 Corinthians demonstrates that there were divisions and turmoil in a church - as happens over time in many churches since they are composed of people.
To try to read something from 2 Corinthians and somehow create a whisper of doubt over the facts of the Resurrection is really quite inventive, even though totally without logic or merit.0 -
But did anyone do that?
All anyone has for that 500 witnesses claim is the word of Paul who was an ex pharisee (so he was well used to preaching nonsense as though it was the truth)
Maybe you would like to support your claim that Pharisees were used to preaching nonsense as it were truth. Do you actually have examples of Pharisees inventing false historical events and witnesses? Or are you just making this up as you are going along?
The fact that 1 Corinthians was not dismissed as a cranky hoax but rapidly became one of the most distributed documents in history would indicate that it was considered credible and trustworthy by huge amounts of people. It would have been easy to expose it as a lie if the 500 witnesses didn't exist - but such an exposure apparently never happened.0 -
It would have been easy to expose it as a lie if the 500 witnesses didn't exist - but such an exposure apparently never happened.
Not this again. That assertion, to put it mildly, is nonsense.
It would not have been easy to expose it as a lie. It would have been incredible difficult if anyone was actually that bother to do so, which I doubt they were considering Christianity was a small cult in a time when the Romans were dealing with large number of large Jewish uprisings that had nothing to do with Jesus or the Christians.
If I told you that 25 years ago 500 people in New York had witnessed a man walking on water and then floating into the sky would you please explain to me how it would be "easy" for you to demonstrate that wasn't true.
Or heck, lets make it easier. 500 people in Dublin last year witnessed Bertie Ahern walk through a wall and then set himself on fire. Can you explain to me how it would be easy for you to demonstrate that this isn't true.0 -
Not this again. That assertion, to put it mildly, is nonsense.
It would not have been easy to expose it as a lie. It would have been incredible difficult if anyone was actually that bother to do so, which I doubt they were considering Christianity was a small cult in a time when the Romans were dealing with large number of large Jewish uprisings that had nothing to do with Jesus or the Christians.
If I told you that 25 years ago 500 people in New York had witnessed a man walking on water and then floating into the sky would you please explain to me how it would be "easy" for you to demonstrate that wasn't true.
Or heck, lets make it easier. 500 people in Dublin last year witnessed Bertie Ahern walk through a wall and then set himself on fire. Can you explain to me how it would be easy for you to demonstrate that this isn't true.
It would be easy because we know that a Christian Church existed in Jerusalem right up to the fall of the city in 70AD. Therefore anyone wishing to explode Paul's claim would merely need to travel to Jerusalem, visit the church, and ask, "OK, where are these witnesses?"
Remember also that the Jewish leadership quickly recognised the new Christian faith as a threat. If it had been possible then they would certainly have countered claims such as those in 1 Corinthians which were being distributed in all the cities in the Empire where large Jewish communities were located.
Think of the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons etc. There is no shortage of literature exposing the falsity of the version of historical events as presented by those sects. The same is true of Gnosticism. We have many documents that challenge their versions of historical events. Yet we have no documents from the first two centuries AD that make any serious attempt to challenge the Christian versions of events that we know were circulating at that time when eye witnesses were still alive.
So to return to your questions about Bertie Ahern. If those supposed witnesses had formed an organisation that met every week at the same time in the same place then it would be easy for you or me to go and question them to see if they were for real or not. If we found their testimony to be unconvincing then we would probably tell as many other people as possible. This would lead to two results. Firstly, we would produce some kind of literature (leaflets, letters, books or blogs) that would record our scepticism. Secondly, if sufficient numbers of us reported our scepticism then we might expect the Bertie-worshipping cult to go the way of similar hoaxes and to fizzle out.
However, if we found the witnesses to be convincing then we might actually join their group. Or, if we didn't want to risk such persecution, we might just quietly slip away and say nothing. In that case we would expect two results. Firstly, there would be a lack of contemporary documentation refuting the Bertie-worshippers' version of events. Secondly, rather than fizzling away, the Bertie-worshippers might continue to grow and end up embracing a third of the world's population.0 -
Advertisement
-
It would be easy because we know that a Christian Church existed in Jerusalem right up to the fall of the city in 70AD. Therefore anyone wishing to explode Paul's claim would merely need to travel to Jerusalem, visit the church, and ask, "OK, where are these witnesses?"
Well leaving aside that such a journey would not have been "easy" by any stretch of the imagination (and quite an undertaking simply to disprove one aspect of Paul's claims), even if a Jew had taken it upon himself to do that how would that have demonstrated that there weren't 500 witnesses?
The 500 are not detailed in Paul's letter in any fashion at all. He simply claims they exist. You are working under the assumption that if they existed they must have still been part of the early Christian gatherings.
It is quite easy to see how if they didn't exist that wouldn't have caused a problem to the believers. You end up with a situation where everyone knows someone who saw Jesus, but they don't know them enough to give you details.Remember also that the Jewish leadership quickly recognised the new Christian faith as a threat. If it had been possible then they would certainly have countered claims such as those in 1 Corinthians which were being distributed in all the cities in the Empire where large Jewish communities were located.
That is nonsense. There were cults and new religions springing up all the time. The Jewish establishment had neither the time nor the ability to go around disputing all their claims.
This was a time before the internet. It would have been expensive and troublesome to go to the effort of disputing one claim, let alone all of them of all the new cults. This also works under the assumption that they would have been aware of what all these claims are in the first place.Yet we have no documents from the first two centuries AD that make any serious attempt to challenge the Christian versions of events that we know were circulating at that time when eye witnesses were still alive.
Would you have expected their to be?
Who would have kept these documents alive? The Christians?So to return to your questions about Bertie Ahern. If those supposed witnesses had formed an organisation that met every week at the same time in the same place then it would be easy for you or me to go and question them to see if they were for real or not.
I never mentioned anything about forming an organisation that met every week. You are inserting that to make it easier. There is no evidence that Paul's 500 formed a meeting group that was easily visited by anyone who wanted to check out their story.0 -
Well, to use terms that you will agree with, the pharisee movement were totally anti Christian, so they preached that Christ was a false prophet as though it was truth. Saul himself was actively involved in persecuting christians.Maybe you would like to support your claim that Pharisees were used to preaching nonsense as it were truth. Do you actually have examples of Pharisees inventing false historical events and witnesses? Or are you just making this up as you are going along?
Chairman Mao's 'little red book' is one of the best selling books of all time and it was only published 34 years ago. Does that mean we should trust what it says?The fact that 1 Corinthians was not dismissed as a cranky hoax but rapidly became one of the most distributed documents in history would indicate that it was considered credible and trustworthy by huge amounts of people. It would have been easy to expose it as a lie if the 500 witnesses didn't exist - but such an exposure apparently never happened.0 -
Indeed, and Mao's Little Red Book was distributed far more quickly and effectively than the bible was initially, and inspired innumerable mad extravagances of faith and endurance, even unto the point of death, despite entire peoples and continents saying that it was nonsense.The fact that 1 Corinthians was not dismissed as a cranky hoax but rapidly became one of the most distributed documents in history would indicate that it was considered credible and trustworthy by huge amounts of people. It would have been easy to expose it as a lie if the 500 witnesses didn't exist - but such an exposure apparently never happened.
That doesn't mean that so much of one word of what Mao wrote is accurate, though. Reason is a far better indicator of accuracy than emotion.
.0 -
If I go into a bar in Limerick and call out 'Was anyone here at the Match when Munster beat the all blacks'It would be easy because we know that a Christian Church existed in Jerusalem right up to the fall of the city in 70AD. Therefore anyone wishing to explode Paul's claim would merely need to travel to Jerusalem, visit the church, and ask, "OK, where are these witnesses?"
Chances are some people will put their hands up and claim to have been there whether or not thats true or not
Similarly, There are many more people in the world claiming to have been at the Cavern when the Beatles first performed than would have physically fit in the building at the time and almost every 60s hippy claims they were at the first woodstock.
If the jews or the romans had contradicted the claims of Paul (and maybe they did), you and other christians would write it off as propaganda and persecution (and you would be justified in doing so)Remember also that the Jewish leadership quickly recognised the new Christian faith as a threat. If it had been possible then they would certainly have countered claims such as those in 1 Corinthians which were being distributed in all the cities in the Empire where large Jewish communities were located.
I think the inventions of the printing press and the internet might have something to do with that.Think of the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons etc. There is no shortage of literature exposing the falsity of the version of historical events as presented by those sects.
How strange that the christian roman empire would keep and preserve documents that support christianity and criticise alternative sects while destroying (or at least not preserving) texts that are critical of christian doctrine.The same is true of Gnosticism. We have many documents that challenge their versions of historical events. Yet we have no documents from the first two centuries AD that make any serious attempt to challenge the Christian versions of events that we know were circulating at that time when eye witnesses were still alive.
But there still might be documents out there. The vatican library is vast, and the archives are highly secretive. Why would there be so much secrecy if all the documents support christianity?0 -
Come off it. Every year hundreds of Jews made the pilgrimage from Corinth to Jerusalem to participate in the Passover and other festivals. The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem were well aware of what was happening in Corinth and other places. If Paul had made a fanciful claim about witnesses then there would have been a flood of literature to explode those claims.Well leaving aside that such a journey would not have been "easy" by any stretch of the imagination (and quite an undertaking simply to disprove one aspect of Paul's claims), even if a Jew had taken it upon himself to do that how would that have demonstrated that there weren't 500 witnesses?
Yes, I've assumed that people who saw Jesus raised from the dead (and are described by Paul as being 'brothers') might just be found in the church. How foolish of me. :rolleyes:The 500 are not detailed in Paul's letter in any fashion at all. He simply claims they exist. You are working under the assumption that if they existed they must have still been part of the early Christian gatherings.
So, you have evidence of other cults where the high priests actively cooperated with the Roman authorities in order to have the cult leaders killed? Most historians accept that Christianity rapidly became a threat to Judaism. I know of no serious historian who would argue that, by 55AD, Christianity was seen by Judaism as being no more dangerous than many other cults.That is nonsense. There were cults and new religions springing up all the time. The Jewish establishment had neither the time nor the ability to go around disputing all their claims.
This was a time before the internet. It would have been expensive and troublesome to go to the effort of disputing one claim, let alone all of them of all the new cults. This also works under the assumption that they would have been aware of what all these claims are in the first place.
The Jews. They actually had these buildings called synagogues where they used to hold manuscripts. We have records of all kind of rabbinical discussions and arguments from those times that have survived. It is inconceivable to any but the most biased critic that such documentation would have survived but that refutation of Christian claims somehow mysteriously disappeared.Would you have expected their to be?
Who would have kept these documents alive? The Christians?
I know you didn't mention it. Of course you didn't, because wanted to make your analogy as inaccurate as possible to create a straw man. The early church, founded on the testimony of witnesses to Christ's resurrection, used to meet every week.I never mentioned anything about forming an organisation that met every week. You are inserting that to make it easier. There is no evidence that Paul's 500 formed a meeting group that was easily visited by anyone who wanted to check out their story.0 -
Advertisement
-
How strange that the christian roman empire would keep and preserve documents that support christianity and criticise alternative sects while destroying (or at least not preserving) texts that are critical of christian doctrine.
But there still might be documents out there. The vatican library is vast, and the archives are highly secretive. Why would there be so much secrecy if all the documents support christianity?
Not this old chestnut again? We have manuscripts and copies of Gnostic Gospels that were considered heretical by the Church yet have survived to this day. We have records of mithraism and many other kinds of paganism that have survived the 'Christian' roman empire.
The notion of a Church that was somehow able to destroy every copy of anything it disagreed with is a myth that belongs in fiction such as the Davinci Code rather than in any serious debate about history.0 -
Not this old chestnut again? We have manuscripts and copies of Gnostic Gospels that were considered heretical by the Church yet have survived to this day. We have records of mithraism and many other kinds of paganism that have survived the 'Christian' roman empire.
The notion of a Church that was somehow able to destroy every copy of anything it disagreed with is a myth that belongs in fiction such as the Davinci Code rather than in any serious debate about history.
You're talking about a specific document that may not have been widely copied or distributed (and may not have been created in the first place)
Do you think that every single christian document has survived?
Documents get lost and destroyed over time if they are not specifically copied and preserved. Libraries were regularly burnt down and sacked.
The absence of a document refuting a claim by Paul is not proof that claim is true.0 -
You're talking about a specific document that may not have been widely copied or distributed (and may not have been created in the first place)
Do you think that every single christian document has survived?
Documents get lost and destroyed over time if they are not specifically copied and preserved. Libraries were regularly burnt down and sacked.
The absence of a document refuting a claim by Paul is not proof that claim is true.
If such a document existed it would be one of Judaism's primary weapons of defence against the inroads being made by Christianity. As such there would be plenty of copies and some would have survived. We actually know quite a lot about how Judaism has developed since the 1st Century and what have been the major controversies and issues. We also know many of the debating tactics that Judaism has employed against Christianity.0 -
Come off it.
Come off it yourself PDN
You are arguing from a position of absence. This is what conspiracy theorists do (The US Air force would have shot down the 9/11 planes. They didn't, demonstrating that they were in on it)
It is a particularly sloppy way of arguing, and surprising coming from you because you are so critical of this type of argument when it is used in reverse (why did none of these 500 write down their own accounts? why is there no record of these miricles outside the bible, why is there no record of Jesus outside the Bible etc etc).
Starting with the assertion that the Jews would have gone to great lengths to disprove Paul's claims and then asserting that because there is no evidence they did supports Paul's claims is nonsense. You are arguing from a hypothetical. You haven't demonstrate that the Jews would have actually gone to great lengths to demonstrate Paul's claims were false, you are just asserting that from common sense.
One could equally say that if the Jews would have gone to such great lengths to denounce Paul and other Christian claims, where are the documents doing so?
You take the absence of documents to some how mean the Jews who did investigate this found out that it was all real and then kept quiet about it.
Is it not a far more logical conclusion that they didn't actually bother to investigate these claims at all?The Jews. They actually had these buildings called synagogues where they used to hold manuscripts. We have records of all kind of rabbinical discussions and arguments from those times that have survived. It is inconceivable to any but the most biased critic that such documentation would have survived but that refutation of Christian claims somehow mysteriously disappeared.
Ok, so where is it then?
If the Jews were so bothered by Christianity where is the tons of documents they would have no doubt spend a lot of time and effort refuting all the claims of the Christians, would they not?0 -
Like John, Matthew or Mark?why did none of these 500 write down their own accounts?why is there no record of these miricles outside the bible, why is there no record of Jesus outside the Bible etc etc
The Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, Papyrus Oxyrhnchus 1224, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Peter, Secret Mark, the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Secret Book of James, the Preaching of Peter, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp to the Philippians, Pliny the Younger to Trajan, the Apology of Quadratus of Athens, the Apology of Aristedes, the writings of Marcion. All these are works usually dated before 150 AD which refer to Jesus and to various miracles including the Resurrection. None of them are in the Bible.0 -
Remember also that the Jewish leadership quickly recognised the new Christian faith as a threat.
How do we know this? Our best historical source for 1st Century Judea, Josephus, barely gives Christianity a mention. If Christianity was a significant influence in the region when Josephus was writting we would have to expect him to give plenty of time writing about it. After all his writings were not a piece of academic scholarship, they were intended to be used as a resource to support the Roman imperial rule over the region. If Josephus regarded Christianity as anyway relevant he would have dealt with it, to relegate a cult which you think was a threat to the Judaic religion to a couple of short lines would be inexplicable for an author who does not shy away from giving minute detail.
Also I am confused how you first, quite accurately, point out that there is no existing Jewish texts from the very early Christian period refuting the claims of Jesus' resurrection, how we have numerous Judaic texts from that time, and then you somehow manage to spin this to support the idea that Christianity was a significant threat to Judaism at that period. How I see it is that if anything it just goes to show how unimportant Christianity was regarded by the Jews. That the Jews could not even be bothered to refute the claims tells me that Jews in Jerusalem were not in the slightest bit worried by yet another small cult.So, you have evidence of other cults where the high priests actively cooperated with the Roman authorities in order to have the cult leaders killed?
Josephus mentions (I think it was in the "Antiquities of the Jews") an apocalyptic preacher called Jesus son of Annanas (sp?) who was handed over by the Jewish ruling class to the Roman Governor to be sentenced around 65-70 AD.0 -
-
No, considering Paul mentioned them separately to the 500.Like John, Matthew or Mark?All these are works usually dated before 150 AD which refer to Jesus and to various miracles including the Resurrection. None of them are in the Bible.
Please point out which ones mention 500 witnesses to Jesus or contain their accounts
Where are all the Jewish documents stating that these miracles didn't happen.0 -
Not sure how anybody else feels, but to me, a guy claiming five hundred witnesses to something doesn't make it five hundred times more likely to be accurate. We still have to trust that he's recording things accurately.No, considering Paul mentioned them separately to the 500.
As an itinerant preacher presumably deriving a living from his ability to sell the credibility of the stories that he told, there does seem to be a slight risk that he may have been tempted to exaggerate his claims.
And that's ignoring the distinct possibility that changes were made to the text later to shore up what is, in all honesty, an extremely improbable story.0 -
PDN, as a non-Catholic do you accept the testimony of the tens of thousands of people who attended a ceremony in Fatima, Portugal 90 years ago who claimed that they witnessed the sun fall from the sky and changed colours, allegedly the miracle was carried out by St Mary?
I believe that this event is not accepted by many (if any) of the Christian churches, apart from Catholicism. However there were up to twenty times as many witnesses to this event than the 500 supposedly mentioned by Paul and these people were far better educated and far more advanced than the citizens of 1st Century Jerusalem. I assume a few of these witnesses would have been alive fairly recently, the girl who claimed to have seen the original vision of Mary only died 3 years ago.
In your opinion how do the two events compare?0 -
Advertisement
-
Depeche_Mode wrote: »PDN, as a non-Catholic do you accept the testimony of the tens of thousands of people who attended a ceremony in Fatima, Portugal 90 years ago who claimed that they witnessed the sun fall from the sky and changed colours, allegedly the miracle was carried out by St Mary?
I believe that this event is not accepted by many (if any) of the Christian churches, apart from Catholicism. However there were up to twenty times as many witnesses to this event than the 500 supposedly mentioned by Paul and these people were far better educated and far more advanced than the citizens of 1st Century Jerusalem. I assume a few of these witnesses would have been alive fairly recently, the girl who claimed to have seen the original vision of Mary only died 3 years ago.
In your opinion how do the two events compare?
I have no idea what happened in Portugal 90 years ago. Large numbers of people claim to have seen something unusual and that should certainly be taken into account by those who would declare it to be impossible. They may have seen something that has a natural explanation, or there may be a supernatural explanation (either divine or demonic).
Either way, I am not exercised enough about it to post in a Catholic forum to belittle those who believe it to be genuine. If I were, then the presence of so many witnesses would be evidence that I would have to take into account.0 -
Mark Hamill said:
I never said miracles define Christianity. It is the infallible word of God (the Bible) that defines Christianity. To reject it is to reject Christianity. It testifies to the miracles, to the resurrection of Christ, to His deity, to the Flood, to many things. Once one rejects its testimony about any of this, one has rejected the faith. Certainly one may misunderstand some of what the Bible says, but the key is whether one accepts or rejects the Bible as the infallible source of truth.But what are the doctrines that define Christianity? Why should it be the miracles that define it? Surely its the 10 commandments that defines Christianity, the belief in one God and the respect of other people (and how you go about showing that belief and what that respect actually means to you) that defines Christianity. If miracles where so important, then surely they would still be occuring today. Surely if God wanted miracles to define Christianity something would have happened during 9/11, or the tsunamis in 2004 or even the Burmese Cyclone thats killed at least 22,000 people.
I don't want to be in control of my life if that means going any way other than God's way. Sadly, I do go my own way many times. But I labour to put off my old ways and put on the way of Christ - to have His mind instead of the natural selfishness of the human heart.If everything you do in your life is automatically done according to someones elses will, regardless of wether you realise it or not, then you are not in control of it at all, and to think otherwise is just fooling yourself.
Thanks for that. Strikes me it would be better to tell the kids that this is a rough guide to atomic structure and include the caveat you just did. But that would undermine the culture of absolute trust in the scientific community, I suppose. Imagine kids thinking the scientists hadn't it all sussed, or that one couldn't depend on the certainties proclaimed about origins.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Wow. Science sounds very scary to me! Can you give me an example of a scientific lie that beginners start with and the lesser lie they progress to?
In secondary school the structure of an atom would be explained to you as protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (neutral particles) stuck together in a ball (called the nucleus) with electrons (negatively charged particles) floating around it in definite paths. (pic here). However, in college you are told that the electrons don't actually have definite paths, thats its more of an area round the nucleus that they're likely to be in called the electron cloud (pic here), and that the electron can technically be anywhere. (I don't actually understand it very well, and even for my purposes the first explanation is fine, but its still wrong, and if you ask high level physicists they will tell you that that the second explanation isn't actually 100% right either).
If the word that tells of miracles is unreliable, what can we think about the commandments it insists on? Why base own's conduct on so flimsy a structure?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, if we can leave out the miracles and the doctrines of heaven and hell - why should we pay any attention to the commandments?
Why shouldn't you hold on to the commandments? Its funny, its normally Atheists who call out for miracles as a proof of Gods existence and a justification of religion.
God the Holy Spirit reveals it in our spirits; that is confirmed by the word of God (the Bible); and graciously God also confirms it by events in our lives - answers to prayer, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Certainly, one could get a similar feeling about God while dismissing the Bible. But it would be similar only in that it would give one a good feeling - not give one a real knowledge of God and His will for us. Delusion is as emotionally powerful as the truth.
Then how do you now the difference?
Those who are of God hear His voice - recognise it as the Truth and follow it. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”John 8:47.0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »Mark's Gospel ended with no-one seeing the risen Jesus, never mind 500 witnesses.
If you choose to reject the authenticity of the last few verses (which I don't), then the Gospel ends thus:When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
We have the empty tomb and the announcement of the Resurrection, coupled with the announcement of Jesus' imminent post-Resurrection appearance.0 -
They may have seen something that has a natural explanation, or there may be a supernatural explanation (either divine or demonic).
Could the same be said for the event in Jerusalem?
What we have are two events:
- One is mentioned by only one person, Paul, in one letter. It occurred to 500 unnamed people in a far away city years before and the details of the event are not provided. You accept this claim.
-The second event happened in the 20th century. It is recorded in numerous media sources. There were between 70,000 - 100,000 eye-witnesses, some of whom were alive up until recently. You do not accept this.
What has the Jerusalem event got that the Fatima event doesn't?Either way, I am not exercised enough about it to post in a Catholic forum to belittle those who believe it to be genuine.
An ironic statement considering you earlier questioned why there are no rebuttals to Paul's claims. Perhaps the Jewish scholars back then had a similar attitude to yourself when it came to the early Christians?If you choose to reject the authenticity of the last few verses (which I don't),
Well the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at Mark 16.8 and Mark 16.9-20 are a different written style to the rest of the Gospel.0 -
Not sure how anybody else feels, but to me, a guy claiming five hundred witnesses to something doesn't make it five hundred times more likely to be accurate. We still have to trust that he's recording things accurately.
That is a good point, but really the issue here is not Paul's account (which may or may not be accurate), but the assertion that the absence of Jewish counter-claim to this account is some how evidence in support of the authenticity of these accounts.
As I said to PDN this is how conspiracy theorists argue, setting up an assertion of what should have happened and then using the absence of this transpiring in support of their own theories. The US Air Force should have shot down the 9/11 planes, they didn't which demonstrates that they were in on it. Kennedy's Secret Service detail should have taken a different route through Dallas. They didn't demonstrating that they were in on it.
The argument is that the Jews should have easily countered these claims of resurrection, and the fact that they didn't demonstrates that the resurrection claims were too overwhelming to counter.
There are a number of issues with that. PDN has claimed that it would have been easy for the Jews to produce these counter claims and that they would have strongly wished to. The problem with that though is the issue of where are they then?
The idea that every Jew who attempted to produce a counter claim was bowled over by the Christians and quietly stopped seeking counter claim is rather implausible. If the Jews were so interested in discrediting the Christians where is the documentation for this?0 -
Akrasia said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
There are variations within Socialism, etc. yet each can rightly claim to be socialist. It is only when one departs from fundamental issues that the claim is bogus.
Exactly. In both systems there is a spectrum that is acknowledged to be fundamental by those in it, even at opposite ends. Then there are those outside of that who yet claim the name but are not recongised as genuine by those within.But there are strong disagreements over what the fundamental elements of socialism are. There are stalinists and Maoists who claim to be socialists while anarchists would call them state capitalists or totalitarian regimes Different versions of socialism are fundamentally incompatible and many people have died fighting against other factions with different opinions on how a socialist society should be established and run.
The same can be said for different versions of christianity. There are conflicts about what the fundamental aspects of christianity are.
The issue of honesty is this: what would an unbiased observer make of their claims, if he examined the foundation documents of the belief and compared them to those held and practiced by each side? A lot of variation would be understandable in many issues, but key beliefs would stand out and demand that they be adhered to if one is genuine in professing the name.
The honest enquirer will resort to the Bible for an answer to this, or at least demand that any answer be justified from the Bible. Honest answers will rule out as Christian anyone, for example, who denies the virgin conception of Christ, His atoning death, His bodily resurrection. Those are so plainly stated in the Bible that no debate can be had. Many others likewise.Some people think its simply believing in god, others think simple belief isn't enough and its necessary to be baptised and attend church, Whose version of the fundamental aspects or christianity is correct?
If we take a fundamental that is disputed - justification by faith alone, which is denied by Roman Catholicism; or the deity of Christ, which is denied by the Jehovah Witnesses - again, the Bible is the final arbiter. When the issue is diligently studied, the truth is there. Any who deny these show that they are not taught of God, are not real Christians.
God by His Spirit confirms His truth in His people's hearts.
The Bible gives the definition. God confirms this by the His Spirit. His people recognise that and accept or reject movements on that basis. Mormomism is correctly rejected as non-Christian, as it teaches fundamental error.Quote:
If you hold to the fundamentals of Christianity, you can at least claim the name of Christian. Whether you actually are is another matter.
But if you reject any of the doctrines that define Christianity, you are just being dishonest. You might validly claim to be re-defining Christianity - but that means the former type is the bogus one.
Bottom line - Christianity already has a definition. Anything outside that is not Christianity.
Which definition? Who gets to decide? Are mormans christians? They certainly consider themselves to be, but many people reject that claim because it conflicts with their own personal version of christianity.
That's what our will was orininally made for - to love and obey God. All was good and happy then. When man took the reins... well, we see the results all around us. But God did not sit back and give us up - He has provided a way back to Himself, at His own expense. He has brought many millions out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of His Son, and the work continues. One day it will be perfected and Paradise restored.Quote:
Christians do run their own lives, but it is only successful in so far as it according to His will.
So god gave us free will and punishes us if we use it to do anything other than exactly what he commands us to do.
How nice of him.
The latter captures it better. Our will now is not free in the same sense Adam's will was before the Fall. Now our will acts according to our nature - we naturally sin. But when God regenerates a sinner and turns him into a Christian, a new nature takes control (though the old is still there, in resentful rebellion). Our will now acts according to our new nature, bar the struggles with the old. In the afterlife, only the new nature remains, and it is superior even to Adam's, in that it will not be free to sin or obey - it will only be free to obey.Quote:
He keeps us from totally falling away in this life, and grants us many victories over sin - but only in the afterlife will we perfectly walk worthy of our calling.
Does this mean we won't have any free will in the afterlife? Or we will technically have free will, but everyone will always 'choose' the same path 100% of the time?
The true Christian never seeks to fit the commands of God to suit himself. An honest attempt to fit our responses to the commandments is the only acceptable course.We do make up our own rules. We 'interpret' the commandments in order to fit in with our life. 'Honour your father and your mother' goes out the window when the father or mother is sexually abusing a child. Would a child reporting the abuse constitute a breach of the commandments?
As to 'conflicting' commands, there is never any real conflict, only our difficulty in seeing the right way. Your example is a valid one: the child would not be dishonouring his parent if he reported the abuse, for the commandment is not the only one. The whole of God's law is brought to bear on our life, not just one bit. The apostles answered the Jewish rulers in a similar way; the commandment of God is to obey our rulers, but the rulers told them to disobey God. How was this to be resolved? Easy - God has the higher call on our obedience.
There is no commandment to own slaves, so how is that me picking and choosing in the Bible? As to the behaviour of slaves, yes, I do believe if slavery were part of the social order as it was in Roman times, the slave should be obedient and hardworking. The issue for the Christian is how we are to respond to bad circumstances and ill-treatment by our fellowman. Not rendering evil for evil is a prime directive.Quote:
Why hold to bits of the Bible? Is it not just a tactic to allow one to keep a job even when one has abandoned the beliefs required of the job?
You already do hold to bits of the bible. You don't own slaves, and I presume you don't believe that people who find themselves enslaved are morally obligated to be obedient and hard working.
But that is not to say anyone is obliged to accept illegal slavery, and more than one is obliged to accept sweatshop slavery under capitalism. Where rights exist, we may insist on them, as Paul did when he exercised his right to appeal to Caesar.
Not all things are likewise plain, but I wonder what contradictory bits you are thinking of?Quote:
God the Holy Spirit usually uses the Bible to speak to His people. And He never says anything contrary to it; indeed, He always confirms it.
only if you use amazing twists of logic to explain away all the contradictory bits0 -
Depeche_Mode wrote: »Could the same be said for the event in Jerusalem?
What we have are two events:
- One is mentioned by only one person, Paul, in one letter. It occurred to 500 unnamed people in a far away city years before and the details of the event are not provided. You accept this claim.
-The second event happened in the 20th century. It is recorded in numerous media sources. There were between 70,000 - 100,000 eye-witnesses, some of whom were alive up until recently. You do not accept this.
What has the Jerusalem event got that the Fatima event doesn't?
I am not interested in the Fatima event. If I were I would look into it and post on a Catholic forum.
You, however, seem to care enough about Jesus to spend a lot of time on this forum discussing Him. Now do you want to talk about the subject at hand or not? You are welcome to start a thread on Fatima if you wish. we have some Catholic posters who may well wish to discuss it.
Perhaps they were similarly uninterested. After all, tens of thousands of your members converting to a new religion is hardly worth getting all bothered about, is it?An ironic statement considering you earlier questioned why there are no rebuttals to Paul's claims. Perhaps the Jewish scholars back then had a similar attitude to yourself when it came to the early Christians?0 -
Please point out which ones mention 500 witnesses to Jesus or contain their accounts
Where are all the Jewish documents stating that these miracles didn't happen.
Nobody said that they did mention the 500 witnesses. I quoted all these works in response to your question as to "why is there no record of Jesus outside the Bible?" I answered your question by demonstrating that there is an abundance of records of Jesus outside the Bible.
There are, apparently, no Jewish records stating that the miracles didn't happen. Which is exactly what we should expect since the historical events of Christ's ministry and death would have been so well known in Jerusalem as to make any attempt at refutation pointless.
Jewish response to the Gospel would have relied on documents of which we have abundant proof - the Old Testament scriptures and the rabbinical teaching. These all stressed monotheism, obedience to the law etc. Their response would have been theological rather than historical. Think of Galileo and the Catholic Church - they couldn't argue with him on scientific grounds so they used theology instead.0 -
There are, apparently, no Jewish records stating that the miracles didn't happen. Which is exactly what we should expect since the historical events of Christ's ministry and death would have been so well known in Jerusalem as to make any attempt at refutation pointless.
Out of interest, do we have any Jewish records stating that any non-Christian miracles didn't happen? We know that Judea was full of false prophets at the time and people claiming to be miracles workers and occasionally drawing a large support, so did the Jews bother refuting any of these? If we have a good record of Jewish arguments against every quack and madman who claimed to be a miracle worker except for Jesus then Christians could use this as a good starting point in arguing that Jesus' miracles were in some way different to your run-of-the-mill false prophet's miracle and were indeed precieved as a threat by the Judaic elite.
If however Judaism treated Christian claims like any other Jewish cult's claims (with complete disinterest) then to say the lack of Jewish arguments against Jesus' miracles is in anyway evidence in support of their validity would be a pretty weak argument.After all, tens of thousands of your members converting to a new religion is hardly worth getting all bothered about, is it?
Do we know that tens of thousands of Jews converted to Christianity in the early years of the religion? As I mentioned earlier Josephus deemed Christianity worthy of only a couple of lines by the end of the century, this is not what one would expect for a religion which was threatening the Jewish religion in Judea.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't want to be in control of my life if that means going any way other than God's way. Sadly, I do go my own way many times. But I labour to put off my old ways and put on the way of Christ - to have His mind instead of the natural selfishness of the human heart.
Surely it would make someone a better Christian if they chose to run their life in Gods way, as apposed to being forced to running their life in Gods way by God? Not wanting to control your life out of fear of making a mistake seems quite childish.Thanks for that. Strikes me it would be better to tell the kids that this is a rough guide to atomic structure and include the caveat you just did. But that would undermine the culture of absolute trust in the scientific community, I suppose. Imagine kids thinking the scientists hadn't it all sussed, or that one couldn't depend on the certainties proclaimed about origins.:D
We were actually told during the secondary school classes that what we were being told wasn't 100% true, but to avoid confusion and for the purposes of the exam, we were told the simple version.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that scientists have it all sussed, I've never even heard of a scientist claiming to have it all sussed, the closest I've heard is that one day science will be able to explain everything (but we're very far from that day.If the word that tells of miracles is unreliable, what can we think about the commandments it insists on? Why base own's conduct on so flimsy a structure?
Why discard all of something, if only part of it is unneccessary. There are plenty of good ideals in the bible, unfortnately they are usually described with alagory, and people tend to get stuck on the veracity of the story, forgetting that its the point it makes that is important.God the Holy Spirit reveals it in our spirits; that is confirmed by the word of God (the Bible); and graciously God also confirms it by events in our lives - answers to prayer, etc.
Those who are of God hear His voice - recognise it as the Truth and follow it. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”John 8:47.
But how do you differentiate between those who actually hear Gods voice, and people who are just hearing voices because they're crazy (or because they want to hear Gods voice because it makes them feel more important). People have killed because they "heard Gods voice" and they would claim that its real and that they feel the same things that you have felt, how do you know the difference.0
Advertisement