30 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI'm not claiming that I know anyone has died for a lie. Nor in fact, am I claiming that any of the disciples died for a lie - knowingly.
How would I know the answer to that?
Gumby? The tooth fairy?
I'm not claiming that I know anyone has died for a lie. Nor in fact, am I claiming that any of the disciples died for a lie - knowingly.
I'm sure they believed the drivel you're spouting. I'm sure you believe it too.
But believing it doesn't make it true.
I can believe something is true even if it isn't - and I can die with and for that belief.
I'm sure they believed the drivel you're spouting. I'm sure you believe it too.
But believing it doesn't make it true.
I can believe something is true even if it isn't - and I can die with and for that belief.
Yes, but the apostles witnessed Christ's crucifixion and death, and afterwards, met Him after His resurrection. If they met Him after His death, then they did not have to believe in the resurrection second-hand like we do. Therefore, it is not possible that they could die for something that might not be true, for they had been first-hand witnesses to the fact.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI reckon I can rustle up a book in my kid's collections that will claim to demonstrate the reality of santa claus. Does this mean santa claus is true?
[b]I'm not claiming that I know anyone has died for a lie. Nor in fact, am I claiming that any of the disciples died for a lie - knowingly.
I'm sure they believed the drivel you're spouting. I'm sure you believe it too.
But believing it doesn't make it true.
I can believe something is true even if it isn't - and I can die with and for that belief. ...[text shortened]... ething that might not be true, for they had been first-hand witnesses to the fact.[/b]
I'm not suggesting Jesus didn't live or die or have followers.
I'm suggesting that a physical resurrection didn't happen. Now if you can prove otherwise I'll go and take my communion like a good little christian. But if all you have to go by is an account written by someone decades later, I'll stay where I am thanks.
The reality of the resurrection is not necessary for belief in Jesus or belief in his message or even, dare I say, belief in his divinity. (Although of course, I don't believe in that.)
I heard a lecture by John Spong, the well known Episcopalian Bishop, who suggested that for him, a physical resurrection - that is an actual resurrection - diminished the significance of the event for his belief. Yes, I'm not misquoting here. If the bodily resurrection actually occurred he thought this would lessen the impact and power of the event.
I don't have a reference but I can chase it up if you're interested.
Anyway, it doesn't matter here. I'm simply pointing out that belief in christ doesn't have to hinge on a straight-jacketed need to have the gospels as literal truth.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by amannionBut they knew it was true because they saw it. And yes i do believe it. And you sound like you're angry. ;(
How would I know the answer to that?
Gumby? The tooth fairy?
I'm not claiming that I know anyone has died for a lie. Nor in fact, am I claiming that any of the disciples died for a lie - knowingly.
I'm sure they believed the drivel you're spouting. I'm sure you believe it too.
But believing it doesn't make it true.
I can believe something is true even if it isn't - and I can die with and for that belief.
30 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionBut if all you have to go by is an account written by someone decades later, I'll stay where I am thanks.
I reckon I can rustle up a book in my kid's collections that will claim to demonstrate the reality of santa claus. Does this mean santa claus is true?
I'm not suggesting Jesus didn't live or die or have followers.
I'm suggesting that a physical resurrection didn't happen. Now if you can prove otherwise I'll go and take my communion like a good little chri 't have to hinge on a straight-jacketed need to have the gospels as literal truth.
Of course, that is your prerogative, and I don't hold it against you.
I heard a lecture by John Spong, the well known Episcopalian Bishop, who suggested that for him, a physical resurrection - that is an actual resurrection - [b]diminished the significance of the event for his belief. Yes, I'm not misquoting here. If the bodily resurrection actually occurred he thought this would lessen the impact and power of the event.[/b]
Interesting (kind of). Is Spong seriously suggesting, contrary to the word of God, that Christ did not raise from the dead? Or is he simply admitting, albeit indirectly, that he missed the prophecy in the OT regarding Christ, which said plainly that His body would not see "corruption," i.e. decay? To suggest that the bodily (as opposed to the merely metaphorical) resurrection of Jesus would lessen the "power" of the event is tragically humorous, especially since it is the unique and conspicuous power belonging only to God which is most evident in a physical resurrection. Christ Himself prophesied that He would rise from the dead, and if He didn't rise from the dead, then there's really no reason to believe anything else He says.
I'm simply pointing out that belief in christ doesn't have to hinge on a straight-jacketed need to have the gospels as literal truth.
It is a need, if you intend to believe in the Christ found in the Bible.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasAt least half of all Christians do not take the all of the gospels a literal truth. So your claim translates into: At least half of all Christians do not believe (or intend to believe) in the Christ found in the Bible.
It is a need, if you intend to believe in the Christ found in the Bible.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasAh, but the OT prophecy relates to a messiah. So, it's valid only if you label (after the prophecy is made mind you) jesus the messiah.
[b]But if all you have to go by is an account written by someone decades later, I'll stay where I am thanks.
Of course, that is your prerogative, and I don't hold it against you.
I heard a lecture by John Spong, the well known Episcopalian Bishop, who suggested that for him, a physical resurrection - that is an actual resurrection - [b]dimin ...[text shortened]... ruth.
It is a need, if you intend to believe in the Christ found in the Bible.[/b]
This whole notion of taking statements made hundreds or thousands of years earlier as evidence of some blistering prophetical outcome is ridiculous and as convincing as those of Nostradamus - which is to say, not at all.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by chappy1No, not at all, just constantly amazed that there truly are people like you that can hold onto bizarre beliefs.
But they knew it was true because they saw it. And yes i do believe it. And you sound like you're angry. ;(
I know many christians - friends and family - and none of them hold these literalist views of their faith.
It must be an American thing I guess (I'm assuming that's what you are) and it never ceases to amaze me. But I'm not angry about it. Far from it - I love a good argument ... keep it coming.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, even if the other Christians which you speak of, whoever they are, do not accept all of the books of the Bible, they would still have to take the books they do accept as literal truth. I suppose a man could be truly converted stranded on an island if he had only a page of Matthew or Romans to work with.
At least half of all Christians do not take the all of the gospels a literal truth. So your claim translates into: At least half of all Christians do not believe (or intend to believe) in the Christ found in the Bible.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by amannionIt's kind of the whole point of "prophecy" to predict future events. If you are unaware of this, it might be handy to note that the OT is filled with very specific prophecies regarding the Messiah, which were known, then and now, to be predictive statements about the future. Christ fulfilled every single one of them.
Ah, but the OT prophecy relates to a messiah. So, it's valid only if you label (after the prophecy is made mind you) jesus the messiah.
This whole notion of taking statements made hundreds or thousands of years earlier as evidence of some blistering prophetical outcome is ridiculous and as convincing as those of Nostradamus - which is to say, not at all.
30 Nov 07
Originally posted by amannionOk wait, now I'm confused. What literalist views do I hold that Christians you know don't believe? I'm just curious because the views I hold are essential to being a Christian. The trinity, the resurrection, Jesus's divinity etc. Please tell.
No, not at all, just constantly amazed that there truly are people like you that can hold onto bizarre beliefs.
I know many christians - friends and family - and none of them hold these literalist views of their faith.
It must be an American thing I guess (I'm assuming that's what you are) and it never ceases to amaze me. But I'm not angry about it. Far from it - I love a good argument ... keep it coming.
01 Dec 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasYes he did indeed!
It's kind of the whole point of "prophecy" to predict future events. If you are unaware of this, it might be handy to note that the OT is filled with very specific prophecies regarding the Messiah, which were known, then and now, to be predictive statements about the future. Christ fulfilled every single one of them.
01 Dec 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeSon of Man is a referrence in the Book of Daniel to God. The Jews of the time knew exactly what he meant when Jesus said this.
When did Jesus claim to be God?
Didn't he keep saying he was the "Son of MAN"?
He did say that the Father and He were one--unless it's a later interpolation by mystically-minded editors--but perhaps he only meant that metaphorically.
He also agreed that he was the Son of the Living God. Still, that's not quite an assertion of identity, is it?
01 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasQuick, someone inform the Jews. They're still waiting for their Messiah. And to think the prophecies are from their own books! Off by 2000 years and counting...how embarrassing.
It's kind of the whole point of "prophecy" to predict future events. If you are unaware of this, it might be handy to note that the OT is filled with very specific prophecies regarding the Messiah, which were known, then and now, to be predictive statements about the future. Christ fulfilled every single one of them.
01 Dec 07
Just a couple of quick notes:
Prophecy, from a Jewish perspective, is not principally about future-telling; it may or may not be about it at all in any given case. Prophecy was speaking God’s message to the people, generally in highly symbolic and metaphorical language (why that latter fact is the subject of a great deal of rich study). I commend Abraham Joshua Heschel’s book The Prophets.
“Son of man” (ben Adam) was a common Jewish euphemism for a human being, as in “I saw one like a son of man.” This is not to say that Jesus and others did not (or did, for that matter) sometimes use the term in a more special sense; I’m just not arguing that one way or the other. (None of these phrases were capitalized in the original languages.)