Why I believe...

Originally posted by LemonJello
okay...this is a step in the right direction.

please continue.

OK. Before I heap on the evidence, I have a question for you, so that we can have a point from which to work.

How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus?

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK. Before I heap on the evidence, I have a question for you, so that we can have a point from which to work.

How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus?

you just don't get me, do you? i am not in the dismantling-christianity-and-all-other-unfounded-assertions business, alright? i frankly just don't think it is my responsibilty to seek out and attempt to disprove unfounded claims. i think rather that people should only adopt beliefs that they think they have good reason to adopt; otherwise, an abstinence from such beliefs is the way to go. when have i ever asserted that the empty tomb of jesus thing is true or false? when have i ever asserted that any of your beliefs are patently without doubt true or false? i abstain from such assertions altogether until such time that i have justification for making them. i just want to know why you believe what you believe, but you keep playing hide and seek with your evidence.

so i'll answer you question with a big, fat I DON'T KNOW (IDK). the way i see it, you have at least a few options:

1. in response to IDK, you could say 'well, that must mean i am right because you cannot prove me wrong'. this stance is, for lack of better words, idiotic, stupid, and lazy. i'm not expecting you to say this.

2. in response to IDK, you could say 'well, i do think i know, and here's why...' this is what i am looking for.

3. in response to IDK, you could say 'well, i do think i know, but i don't have good reasons for thinking so...' i'll also accept this, but you'll have to live with it too.

so basically, despite your games, the onus is still yours to provide some evidence for what you believe.

so, i'll answer you with I DON'T KNOW. feel free to view this as the point from which to work, and as i said before, please continue.

Originally posted by LemonJello
you just don't get me, do you? i am not in the dismantling-christianity-and-all-other-unfounded-assertions business, alright? i frankly just don't think it is my responsibilty to seek out and attempt to disprove unfounded claims. i think rather that people should only adopt beliefs that they think they have good reason to adopt; otherwise, an abstine ...[text shortened]... feel free to view this as the point from which to work, and as i said before, please continue.

LJ I'm curious...would you accept an answer such as: "I have no proof or even solid evidence for the ressurection, however, I take it on faith that it is true since faith is the foundation of my religion anyway."

In spite of the fact that many of the Christians in this forum find it so important to prove the Bible and/or Christianity correct it is in reality a simple faith issue. Some have that faith, for whatever reason, and some don't.

I, for instance, feel reasonably confident that God exists. I think he is not very well understood by a great many Christians and I think many Christians attempts to make the Bible look more coherant that it is a bit pathetic. In the end, the numerous and varied attempts by Christians to somehow prove this or that so that they can feel better about what is a truly indefensible belief system is simply a smoke screen for thier own insecurities about their faith.

Ultimately I cannot prove the ressurection happened but I believe it did (or something like it) and my only defense of that position is my faith. The sooner Christians learn to say that the better off everyone is going to be. 😉

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
LJ I'm curious...would you accept an answer such as: "I have no proof or even solid evidence for the ressurection, however, I take it on faith that it is true since faith is the foundation of my religion anyway."

In spite of the fact that many of the Christians in this forum find it so important to prove the Bible and/or Christianity correct it is ...[text shortened]... The sooner Christians learn to say that the better off everyone is going to be. 😉

TheSkipper

As a non Christian I am 100% confident that TheSkipper "gets it". Everything in life, I think, comes down to faith (or lack there of). Faith in something should not come at the expense of tearing down what someone else believes in. If it does, then I think it is the destroyer's faith that should be questioned.

Rec'd

Originally posted by TheSkipper
LJ I'm curious...would you accept an answer such as: "I have no proof or even solid evidence for the ressurection, however, I take it on faith that it is true since faith is the foundation of my religion anyway."

In spite of the fact that many of the Christians in this forum find it so important to prove the Bible and/or Christianity correct it is ...[text shortened]... The sooner Christians learn to say that the better off everyone is going to be. 😉

TheSkipper

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The foundation of my belief is indeed a very strong faith. This faith is based among others on the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inerent word of the only true and living God. I believe that the Bible contains the truth. I have not only witnessed the truth of the Bible in my own life, but also seen its life changing power in the people around me.

I believe that it is only the gospel that is found in the Bible that can give people "true" peace and happiness. I believe that it is only the gospel of Jesus Christ that can save a person from the prince of Darkness (the current King of this world), Satan, and deliever a person from the bondage of sin. I can say that this belief is based not only on my own personal experience, but also on the testimony of countless other people that have experienced this same 'saving power'.

I could also add however, that my faith in Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible is not enterily based solely on a 'blind faith' as some people would put it. I cannot prove to anybody beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that the Bible contains the truth. But I can also rely on a lot of (tangible) evidence around me, which could point towards some elements of truth about the Bible. (I am refering to historical and archeological evidence.) (Lots of books have been written on this issue, and for LJ & co I could recomend "The case for Christ" written by Lee Strobel.)

However, my beliefs do not hinge on these bits of evidence alone. I would even go as far as to say that even if there was no historical or archeological evidence for the viability of the Bible it would not have any effect on my faith at all. The fact is that I have experienced such a profound truth about the 'life changing gospel' provided in the Bible that nothing can shake me from the rock on which I stand. My faith is built on a solid foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
LJ I'm curious...would you accept an answer such as: "I have no proof or even solid evidence for the ressurection, however, I take it on faith that it is true since faith is the foundation of my religion anyway."

In spite of the fact that many of the Christians in this forum find it so important to prove the Bible and/or Christianity correct it is ...[text shortened]... The sooner Christians learn to say that the better off everyone is going to be. 😉

TheSkipper

refreshing. like fisty, i think you get it Skipper.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The foundation of my belief is indeed a very strong faith. This faith is based among others on the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inerent word of the only true and living God. I beli ...[text shortened]... My faith is built on a solid foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

see, for some reason, i don't get the same warm feeling inside as when i read the Skipper's post. you use words like 'inerent' [sic], 'the truth', 'only the gospel...can save', 'profound truth'. it leads me to think that you don't believe it's all simply a matter of faith, which it seems to be.

you can certainly have your beliefs, but are you willing to admit that they may, in fact, be wrong?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The foundation of my belief is indeed a very strong faith. This faith is based among others on the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inerent word of the only true and living God. I believe that the Bible contains the truth. I have not only witnessed the truth of the Bible in my own life, but also seen it ...[text shortened]... rom the rock on which I stand. My faith is built on a solid foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

I will tell you that by this type of response you will gain a lot more respect from people that don't necessarily share your beliefs. I think it is great that you feel the way you do and you should let nobody try to destroy it. That is the entire point, in my opinion.

Rec'd

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The foundation of my belief is indeed a very strong faith. This faith is based among others on the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inerent word of the only true and living God. I beli ...[text shortened]... My faith is built on a solid foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

Hey dj2,

I gotta hand it to you, I'm really impressed by your last message. You stated what you believe without stomping on what somebody else may believe. Good job!

I have just a couple of comments about what you might to to improve your message even further. These are relatively small things, just nuance really and they will likely come as you get older and more adept at interacting with people (not a dis, just a reality of youth).

Again, the Christian cliche is pretty thick in this message. I know it is not a big deal and you probably here all these catch phrases CONSTANTLY if you hang out with other Christians (I know; I have been there). Really try to make a conscience effort to eliminate them. Like it or not Christians have a reputation that makes most people want to get away as fast as possible and the more you sound like the 'typical fundamentalist' the more they will want to escape.

Lastly, as LJ eluded to, your exuberance for your beliefs tends to come off a bit strong. I realize that your faith is strong and you have a great deal of excitement about all this...thats good. However, keep in mind that you believe this on faith not fact, even though it is a fact to you. Once you have been a Christian for a few years (as I assume you have) and hung around Christian groups you start to think that Christianity is the most obvious choice in the world. In reality, it is quite a big leap of faith and if you start thinking it is obvious you will eventually begin thinking the people who do not 'believe' are dumb or ignorant. In reality they just have not been given a good reason to make that leap yet because Christianity and/or Christians have not impacted their lives in such a way that would make them want to. So remember, it may seem like fact to you but to others it is not nearly so obvious and rather than berating them you need to be a 'reason' for them to make whatever leap needs to be made.

All in all, an excellent post. Nice job.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The foundation of my belief is indeed a very strong faith. This faith is based among others on the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inerent word of the only true and living God. I believe that the Bible contains the truth. I have not only witnessed the truth of the Bible in my own life, but also seen it ...[text shortened]... rom the rock on which I stand. My faith is built on a solid foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

You keep refering to these many books, and to both "historical and archeological evidence". So far you have stated only one source. Are there any other sources besides "The Case for Christ". Online sources would be most appreciated.

Originally posted by LemonJello
you just don't get me, do you? i am not in the dismantling-christianity-and-all-other-unfounded-assertions business, alright? i frankly just don't think it is my responsibilty to seek out and attempt to disprove unfounded claims. i ...[text shortened]... point from which to work, and as i said before, please continue.

Okay. Long silence. Let me have a go. I'll answer on option 2. History has it that the disciples found the tomb empty, later saw Christ having risen from the dead and then went out and propagated the good news. Okay. This is not conclusive proven and all the above is distputable, so fine, but lets say that is what happened. History also has it that most of the disciples were martyred for their faith in Christ. Also disputable, but lets say history is correct.

So 1. The disciples really saw the risen Christ and proclaimed it as such.
2. There are many scenarios, but lets say they fabricated the story, in a vain attempt to led the "legend" live on.

Now my reason for believing in 1 is because of human psychology. No sane human would die for something they don't believe. If they had fabricated any story and not really seen Christ, they would not have been willing to die for their fabricated story. Maybe one or two over zealous, psychologically challenged dudes, but not every single one of them. Wouldn't they have recanted when facing crucifixion or being burned? Come on. When faced with death, surely letting a "legend" live on becomes a small priority. My proof is that the fact that the disciples and and many other who lived at the time were willing to be martyred for their faith.

A great reference to check out is "Foxe's Book of Martyres", not sure about a http link.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The foundation of my belief is indeed a very strong faith. This faith is based among others on the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inerent word of the only true and living God. I beli ...[text shortened]... My faith is built on a solid foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

Next time there is some world disaster or international incident, look at your different national newspapers. Then compare them, what you will find will be conflicting reports of events. Maybe a different number of people dead, or various theories how such an event could happen. Then look at papers (you can do it on the internet) from other countries, depending on the viewpoint or bias of that paper or country, the facts maybe completely reversed. Then as the days role on and new evidence is supplied, again the stories change. Sometimes even many years later more facts emerge, released from secret government files.

So can we trust anything that has been written in our papers today as being true? I don't think we can, not unless perhaps we are there at the event, and even then our interpretation maybe wrong, or inaccurate.

Has human nature has changed so much over the last 2000 years, that the writers of the bible wouldn't make the same sort of natural errors ? I don't believe so.

Can we trust the events in the new testament to be completely & utterly true? I don't believe so, at best it can only hint at a truth disguised by inaccuracies & the biasness of the writers.

Are you willing to tell us about your profound truth that you have experienced? Then we can at least try, and pull that rock from under your feet, so that you are again, standing firmly on the ground 🙂

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Hey dj2,

I gotta hand it to you, I'm really impressed by your last message. You stated what you believe without stomping on what somebody else may believe. Good job!

I have just a couple of comments about what you might to to improve your message even further. These are relatively small things, just nuance really and they will likely come as you ...[text shortened]... o make whatever leap needs to be made.

All in all, an excellent post. Nice job.

TheSkipper

Thanks for the advise. 🙂

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay. Long silence. Let me have a go. I'll answer on option 2. History has it that the disciples found the tomb empty, later saw Christ having risen from the dead and then went out and propagated the good news. Okay. This is not conclusive proven and all the above is distputable, so fine, but lets say that is what happened. History also has it that most of ...[text shortened]... great reference to check out is "Foxe's Book of Martyres", not sure about a http link.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/foxes/findex.htm

Originally posted by Halitose
Okay. Long silence. Let me have a go. I'll answer on option 2. History has it that the disciples found the tomb empty, later saw Christ having risen from the dead and then went out and propagated the good news. Okay. This is not conclusiv ...[text shortened]... is "Foxe's Book of Martyres", not sure about a http link.

thanks for posting in the name of debate. 🙂 i see where you are coming from.

let's say i allow the assumption that the people you speak of really were martyred for their faith; it seems reasonable enough considering that many people have died for their beliefs and considering that intolerance has tainted history at times. i'm not really interested in researching the history of christian martyrs, so i'll just give you this assumption.

even given this assumption, i find your argument far from convincing. you are working under the assumption that EITHER 1. the disciples really did see the risen christ OR 2. the disciples intentionally fabricated a false claim that they saw the risen christ. you then go on to adopt 1. indirectly by rejecting 2. however, there is no reason to think upon rejection of option 2. that option 1. should emerge as the only alternative. for example, what about this option?:

3. the disciples never saw an empty tomb or the 'risen christ'; nor did they ever fabricate any false claim that they saw such things; but they still did believe strongly (and possibly falsely) that jesus was who he said he was. so they went out and continued to spread his word and were willing to die for their genuine (if maybe false) beliefs. later, when the account of jesus' life was set to writing, the tale was liberally embellished to include, among other things, the false claim that the disciples had seen an empty tomb and the risen christ.

i am not saying that 3. is correct. i am just trying to show that rejection of your option 2. does not necessarily lead us to adopting your option 1. in particular, if the credibility of the accounts contained in the bible is questionable, then so is your argument. given that i don't see good reason to think the bible is a credible historical reference, it is not surprising that i don't see your argument as persuasive.

i tend to agree with you that it is unlikely that so many would be willing to die for a story that they knew to be fabricated. however, this does not exclude the possibility that their faith was genuine regardless of whether or not jesus actually was who he said he was.