Who is Jesus?

[Believer112]

Who is Jesus? Isn't it amazing how one Jewish man transformed the world for generation to come? Have you wondered how this one man transformed the world? Something truly amazing must have happened during that time to get them to believe in Jesus and have the Way spread like wildfire. Was the resurrection the talk of the town? Was it the eyewitness accounts for all the miracles being performed? Maybe it was just supernatural work of God. What say you?

A question for the non believer.

Amen Christ lead me to this site, I have no car so it is a struggle to get involved at my home church 35 minutes away, pray for me that Christ reforms my ways, and provides me the means soon, to rebuild my life, with work, transportation and recovery from pain and healing my heart of 7 deaths in 3 years of close friends, it set me on a course of booze, woman and no fiath, doing a 40 day jpurney in christ and today is day 7 of 40, pray that christ purifys my snow as pure as it is falling snow tonight here in maine and I made this prayer in the snow tonight fallling from heaven to ask he, christ purifies my souls as fresh as the fallling snow on my soul tonight at 2am in the morning, amen

I'll pray for you man! The power is in Jesus name! As your relationship deepens with Christ, reformation, purity and love will come (at least in my life). God knows your needs but ask anyway. We as evil fathers know how to give good gift how much more would a perfect Father with perfect Love want for His children. God will open a door for a job take it. It may not be a job that you want in the natural but God's way are not our ways, God say's He will bless the work you set your hands to. Confess God's word with your mouth (read the Word!) and believe in your heart. Satan will create stumbling blocks and doubt so resist the devil. Welcome to Worthy and God Bless you!

[Believer112]

http://en.wikipedia....amian_religions

Thank you for this website. "Abrahamic religion" didn't know there was such a thing. I didn't care too much for the "unbiased" tone. It made it sound like a fairy tale in places. All the head knowledge about Christianity is here and more; if you follow the other links. Why come to a forum for information? The only way to understand Jesus is from the heart and noone here can do that for you. It's up to you to open your heart. I guess predestination is true there are some predestined for life and others to death.

Now I understand why Radical Islam wants to destroy America and Israel.

"This has been contested by critics such as Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer who believe that Muhammad, by his own example^{[citation needed]}, sought forced universal conversion of non-Muslims. For example, in the Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24) Muhammad says, "I have been ordered (by Allah) to struggle against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle."^[64] The Qu'ran says (as instructions for a particular war situation only, therefore, not to be used outside the context of that particular war), "If then, ye (the 'Pagans') repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith."^[Qur'an9:3] (Again, a short extract from instructions for a particular war situation only, therefore, not to be used outside the context of that particular war) "...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)..."^[Qur'an9:5] "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth."^{[Qur'an9:29]"}

I enjoyed reading the letters of a disciple (Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus) of the same Apostles in the bible that you call liars. This man was on his way to the coliseum of Rome to be feed to the lions.

Chapter 6

By Death I Shall Attain True Life

All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. "For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?'' Him I seek, who died for us: Him I desire, who rose again for our sake. This is the gain which is laid up for me. Pardon me, brethren: do not hinder me from living, do not wish to keep me in a state of death; and while I desire to belong to God, do not ye give me over to the world. Suffer me to obtain pure light: when I have gone thither, I shall indeed be a man of God. Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. If any one has Him within himself, let him consider what I desire, and let him have sympathy with me, as knowing how I am straitened.

Chapter 7

Reason Of Desiring To Die

The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are [in Rome] help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet prefer this world to Him. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die for the sake of Christ. My love s has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves anything; but there is living water springing up in me, and which says to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,

A letter to the Romans

[Believer112]

I don't agree. If someone was there to mourn, then they would have a lot to mourn for. At the end of the day, we're humans and we're going to feel things regardless of whether or not we want to. That person is going to experience sadness. Why is that? I don't know. It just is.

I don't mourn for the ones in Christ just the ones who have rejected Him.

[808state]

Hi 808state,

This is going to be a short post, because I think the discussion has run its course and continuing further would probably not serve anything more than has been served thus far.

I'd like to summarize how I see some of the key issues.

The criteria by which you measure historical evidence is unrealistic. I think if you applied that consistently, then much of what we know about history would have to be labled as 'unsure'.

The reason I say this, is because while the number of testimonies or accounts can be quantified, the bias of any account can rarely be established. If you can doubt the resurrection (or the evidence, if you will) based on bias (seeing that there are multiple accounts, I'm assuming your issue is bias), then surely you must also doubt the ghost stories in Rome, unless you've ruled out bias and/or established complete objectivity. I'm not sure how this is possible for any historical account. It's also not a standard approach since in a legal dispute or courtcase there will rarely not be bias, yet testimony is still accepted.

I understand your frustration with my arguments against the evidence you have presented for the Bible, but I wouldn't say the criteria I use for measuring the authenticity of historical documents is unrealistic. My primary issue is that when you're dealing with supernatural or any other extraordinary claimants, they don't have a very good track record of telling the truth. You have many many people claim to have had supernatural experiences and powers. You've had many people claim to be to Gods or of some similar divinity. A large portion of these people were found to be either lying or misinterpreting reality to some degree. So, when you're dealing with supernatural claims, keeping an open mind is good but you always have to keep in mind it's track-record. Personal testimonies aren't sufficient enough to be used as compelling evidence in this case. We've had many people over the years claim to have had come into contact with bigfoot, but do you believe bigfoot exists? Many people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens, but I think i'd need to see more evidence before I'd take their word for it. Many people have claimed to come into contact with Gods of other religions, but not all of the religions can be right, so who's testimonies do we believe in that regard?

At one point in the thread you argued that there was no evidence that "eyewitnesses" of Jesus were simply just making up stories. I asked you a question earlier in the thread that I think it brings up an interesting point: There were some pseudepigraphical works about Jesus that were not included in the canonized Bible, but why would these writers, that I would say most modern-day Christians would agree were lying, make up stories about Jesus? And why would so many believe these stories? If these guys were willing to lie about Jesus for whatever reason, why wouldn't the writers in the canonized Bible? You responded to these questions not by actually answering them but by explaining why these pseudographical works were not authentic to begin with. I understand that. I agree with you. But, again, I think if you were to address my original questions, you would have a better idea of why anyone would want to make up stories about a spiritual figure to begin with, and see why some might see it as plausible.

And then there were the arguments for the Bible that were based on assumptions. Why wouldn't the Romans produce a body? But before we could even get to answering that question, you guys would have to demonstrate that the Romans knew about the resurrection within a reasonable timeframe of Jesus's death, and that the followers of Jesus, at the time, posed such a threat that the Jews felt that the Romans would have to produce a body. Ya guys didn't do that.

In terms of Christianity being no different than other religions, according to your last post you're basing that position on the idea that they're all a placebo. But that's not how one ought to go about comparing different views. If you're going to base a comparison on the notion that the various beliefs you're comparing are all false, then it's obvious that from that viewpoint they're all the same. Religions, like other beliefs should be compared according to their claims.

What I said was that Christianity was no different than the other religions in the sense that it expected you to live your life in particular way and obey certain commands. I could have been misunderstanding your and Shiloh's argument, but I thought what you guys were saying was that since the Bible claims that the desire/strength to obey the commands in the Bible comes through God, that it some how made Christianity more authentic than other religions.

I don't think you've really shown that any meaning in life can exist if there is no ultimate meaning. You're saying our bodies and emotions are set up that way, but yet you're saying there's something wrong with the sociopath's physical and emotional setup. So we should all do what we're setup to do except those that are setup differently. You're creating an absolute based on the tyrrany of 'normality'. Since sociopaths are in the minority their physical and emotional make-up must be wrong. But from a materialistic point of view, there cannot really be an absolute imperative. The sociopaths are only wrong as long as they're in the minority, but who says they're not just pioneers of evolution? Imperative measured against society is still subjective because society is composed of individuals.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm not saying there's something wrong with the sociopath because he's a minority, but because of the resulting anguish that his condition causes both himself and, often times, other's around him. You would of course have to clarify that the anguish is coming from the condition itself and not simply how other people view the condition. I wouldn't argue that simply because something isn't common that it would automatically mean that it's wrong. If the world were suddenly to evolve into a world of sociopaths, it still wouldn't be pleasant life for those sociopaths. They may not feel for others, but they feel for themselves. If their careless actions would cause someone to act out against them in one way or another (which it typically does), then those actions against them would obviously cause them anguish. Logical thinking is the objective standard that I am basing all of this on.

I've given examples of people who have climbed to the top of some category, and you've answered it by saying, "You have to love what you do and not just do it for fame or money". I don't really think you're qualified to *know* every depressed successful person's intentions during the making of their successes. How could you possibly know that those ending up depressed were simply, 'not loving what they do'.

You've also not responded to the research done by Martin Seligman, which shows a link between 'making your own meaning' and 'depression'.

You weren't very specific with the circumstances of the people in your original examples. Typically, when someone reaches the pinnacle of their career and then becomes depressed, it's because they were expecting that "pinnacle" to bring them something that they didn't have before. And, usually, the pinnacle usually involves money, fame, approval, etc. Of course, it could be something else making them depressed, but again, you weren't being super specific on the circumstances of these people.

And as far as the research goes, I can't say much as I can't find the entire article on the web without having to pay for it, but what I have read seems to suggest that self-centeredness is the primary cause of the depression. It suggests that Church provided a community that was a good support system for people, I wouldn't argue that at all. I think, and I could be wrong, that when he says "greater purpose" he's talking about outside of one's self. Having a greater purpose in life doesn't have to mean for God, it could simply dedicating a part of your life to helping other's in one form or another. It's about stepping outside of yourself, and I wouldn't argue that. Finding what makes you happy is important, but self-indulgence is not a healthy road to go down either. You definitely need a balance. But again, can't find the full article anywhere, so I don't really know what it actually says on the matter.

Lastly with regard to the analogy of whether anything intrinsically valueable has been lost if the world suddenly disappeared. It seems you believe it's value to be entirely subjective. It's only really a loss if someone was there to miss it. That demonstrates that life, love, emotion, experience, morality, has no real intrinsic value. It's all subjective. It's only as valueable as it's deemed to be, which begs the question why one should deem anything as valueable.

The reason why things should be deemed valuable is because we deem them to be valuable through our human-nature. Is there some objective reality outside of the human mind that applies value to human life? I don't know. But the fact that, in nature, survival (in the different forms that I talked about) seems to be one consistently important thing, I would say as humans it's evident that we're supposed to heed to that.

I think that summary about covers the key points for me. You're ofcourse welcome to have the final say, but I think for me the discussion has become rather like that monopoly game I was talking about earlier.

808state, I sincerely believe that you're not being reasonable in your evaluation of Christianity. If you applied the same criteria to everything in life that you do to the evidence we've offered, I think you'd find yourself doubting even the ground under you feet.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe, no proof is possible" - Stuart Chase

I can't say that I agree 100% with Stuart Chase, which is why I have my own saying on this:

There are two types of students: those who study in order to find work, and those who study in order to avoid work. Likewise there are two types of seekers: those who seek in order to find truth, and those who keep on seeking in order to avoid the truth.

Anyway, I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation. You're a smart gal and I've learnt quite a bit from this dialogue, and I hope that atleast in some small way you've learnt from me. Thank you so much, and I sincerely wish you all the best and God's blessings upon you.

Well, it was nice discussing this with you as well. You're a smart fella yourself. I told Shiloh this, but I think perhaps because you already so firmly believe your religion to be Truth, that maybe it could blind you a bit from seeing how the evidence you present would not necessarily be sufficient enough for someone who doesn't already believe. I can't prove to you that I am keeping an open-mind/heart about all of this, but the Truth has to be evident to me, and it's not in this case. Not right now, anyway.

[KennethWLawrence]

Who is Jesus? Isn't it amazing how one Jewish man transformed the world for generation to come? Have you wondered how this one man transformed the world? Something truly amazing must have happened during that time to get them to believe in Jesus and have the Way spread like wildfire. Was the resurrection the talk of the town? Was it the eyewitness accounts for all the miracles being performed? Maybe it was just supernatural work of God. What say you?

A question for the non believer.

I may be a bit late to the discussion but:

1. Some people can only believe in a world that can be demonstrated by observation and controlled experiment. Other people, based on their own experiences and on unlikely events that have happened to them, or experiences that others have testified to, believe in things that disappear when you try to observe them.

2. The testimony of the apostles has been verified by the experiences of many people and the extremely unlikely success of Christianity. Jesus' power is shown not only in the New Testament, but in the way Christianity has spread.

We should believe that He is Lord. The testimony of so many people deserves consideration.

Ken

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm not missing the point, I just don't think it's a very strong one. I don't think it was in the writer's motive to glorify themselves necessarily. If that were the case, then why involve Jesus at all? Why not make themselves the complete center of the story? The entire point was to glorify a particular character, not necessarily themselves. If they came out looking perfect all the time, it would undermine the point they were trying to make. Jesus is what they are trying to "sell" essentially, and they themselves were the examples of what Jesus could do for your everyday average person. The more flawed they are as people, the more great it makes their eventual transformation, and it makes their "product" (Jesus) look more impressive as well.

Actually it is a very strong point in the context the point was originally made, which you seem to have forgotten. Obviously, the writers are pointing people to Jesus. The point about the self-deprecating information goes to the credibility over against the typical way people who are attempting to start their own religion operate. Typically, those who seek to start a religion have a personal agenda and seek to get people to follow THEM, not someone else. They don't air their dirty laundry and try to hide their personal flaws from their followers. They use methods of brainwashing and intimidation to prevent anyone from challenging or questioning their leadership and they certainly try to keep any flaws hidden that might diminish the confidence of their followers.

The disciples make no such attempt hide their flaws. They do not act like people trying to start another religion. Jesus was not a product they were trying to "sell." Rather, they were witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Their message was that Jesus was alive. The fact that they encountered a personal transformation does not stand as an argument against their message or the reliability of the NT.

But this is a perfect set up for manipulation for reasons I already mentioned in the previous post. It puts the believer in a place of complete submission, and it makes it very easy for someone to take advantage of that vulnerability.

That is not true.

It's pretty formulaic, and you see in played out in life in many different contexts. You get someone to believe that you are superior to them and that they're better off with you rather than without you. It would make sense that someone would apply this to a religion as well. If you want someone to follow a particular religion, you put a deity in the center of that religion so the follower will have something in the religion that they feel a genuine connection to. You make sure it's known that the follower will always be inferior to that deity, and that they are to obey that deity no matter what.

As always, you continue to show a shallow understanding of what you are addressing. God is not about people performing well enough for Him. They could not possibly do that anyway. God's program is all about restoring man to Himself. The problem is that man is unwilling to be honest about his condition before God. Man is born spiritually dead and separated from God. God is sinless. Man is entirely sinless and helpless under his own power to change His condition. Salvation is an inward transformation from being unable to please God to a condition where man is imputed a resotred rightstanding before God. In addition, obedience is a willing act performed from a grateful heart, not an attempt to please or appease God. "Religion" amounts to performance-based acceptance; if you do good enough, you will be accepted. In Christianity, it is God Himself who does all the work needed for redemption to take place. God does not treat man as inferior. Rather, the Bible tells us that God has made us Kings and Priests. We are a holy nation and royal priesthood of believers. He is a "friend that sticketh closer than a brother." We are heirs of His Kingdom and joint-heirs with Christ according to the Bible. Instead of making us inferior to Jesus, we are joint-heirs; we are treated as the firstborn sons of God. He has given us His Name and has chosen to live within us. We are the apple of His eye and the Bible says He rejoices over us with dancing.

Right. I feel like this where our differing perspectives will really start to clash. I understand that the Bible teaches that Jesus is where people will find strength and the desire to be good, but it still sets guidelines for how people are supposed to live their lives, and the point is still for Christians to follow those guidelines to the best of their ability.

That is not really correct. Our obedience is not about being good. Rather our obedience is to God is done willingly. We cannot be "good" enough to please God. Our obedience stems from our love for Him, not some attempt to appease an overlord.

And from my perspective, since I don't believe Jesus to have any supernatural powers or divine significance then I don't really believe that Jesus is anything more than a placebo in all of this so, ultimately, Christianity doesn't differ from other religions in this regard.

So you DO believe the Bible's claims about Jesus as false, after all? How did you arrive at that view?

Right, but some of these ideas existed independently prior to the Bible. Certainly someone could have thought to combine them?

No, that is not how it works. Man, left to his own has never concieved any such thing. The Bible originates in the ancient near east. If you examine the ancient cultures that are contemporary with the Bible, you do not find any culture that contains any gods that resemble the God of Scripture. He is entirely unique to any human convention of "god." In fact, modern philosphy rejects the notion of an eternal God who has no beginnnig or end. A hard determinist cannot accept that concept. The Judeo Christian God simply stands entirely contrary to how humanistic minds think. Mankind simply could not have and would not have created the God of the Bible.

The Bible presents a God that man cannnot control, that is separate from creation and who stands as both man's Creator and Judge. A God who cannot be seen and was entirely holy and sinless and self-sufficient was simply not part of paradigm of that time period. It is counter-intuitive to think that the human mind would create a God with attributes that the human mind could not concieve of in the first place.

Had the Bible been written by man of that time period, we would not expect to see lots of things that are there. We would expect to see things that are not there. The hygene laws listed in the Bible were not in practice in any other nation, the dietary laws, the concept of a Sabbath, the concept of redemption through animal sacrifice was not a part of any other religion of that time period. Sacrifices in pagan cultures were for the appeasement of their gods and to garner their favor. Human and child sacrifice and communication with the dead, astrology, the prohibitions of homosexuality, incestual relations, beastiality, and transsexual behavior are unique to the Bible, as no other surrounding cultures prohibited such acts. Every commandment of God was part of a behavioral pradigm that stood as the polar opposite to the conventional religiious, and moral thought of its day.

As far as humans not being able to think up a sinless God goes, typically the deity heading a religion doesn't condone the things he is telling people not to do, so naturally the Christian God is going to be "sinless." It's just logical. Maybe the question is, could it be possible that humans could even create the moral code that is presented in the Bible?

The problem with that is that the Bible's definition of "sin" differs quite a bit from what man defines as sin. Most of what the Bible prohibits as sin was not only being committed in ancient times, but is being committed today and the Bible is mocked as an outdated moral code. Given that human nature is prone towards the sins (particularly those of a sexual nature) that the Bible prohibits, it makes no sense to claim that human nature would have created a god that would prohibit them from the things they enjoy doing.

What you fail to understand is that it is impossible to mentally conceive of something for which there is no frame of reference within the sphere of human experience. All of the gods and mythological creatures conceived of in pagan cultures resemble creatures that exist in the human experience. The God of the Bible was simply not something humanity would have ever conceived of in billion years. We know of God only because He has chosen to make Himself known.

[Guest shiloh357]

As far as God being separate from his creation, i'd imagine you would have to exist separately from your own creation in-order to create it. It's logic. It's not so unbelievably advanced that no human could draw that conclusion.

Except the way God is depicted as separate from creation is unique when compared to the pagan gods. The pagan gods are themselves created beings and require food and sustenance from the creation. God, on the other hand needs nothing from creation and has no image or form, nor does He have a beginning or point of origin. That is something ancient near east cultures had no frame of reference for, and thus would not have created or even conceived of such a god.

Again, the issue with this argument is that it already assumes that Jesus actually has the power to have that effect on his followers. If he does, then you're right. But if he doesn't, then Christianity is no different from other religions in regard to being expected to live your life in a certain manner.

If I am wrong, there is no Christianity. The difference between Christiainity and other religions is that Christianity is based on the person of Jesus. You cannot be a Christian without participation in the person and life of Jesus Himself. Jesus is Eternal life. No other religion makes a similar claim.

No, I think it does, I don't believe because no one has given me reason to believe.

You have been given lots of reasons to believe, but you respond with absurd, unrelaistic, counter-intuitive responses that deny observable reality. All you have done is reach for any angle, no matter how nonsensical, absurd and contrary to observable reality in order to preserve your unbelief. If your brand of logic (if can even be called "logic") were applied to other contexts, it would make the science of historiography a farce.

Many people have claimed to have come into contact with bigfoot for decades, but I don't necessarily believe that he exists just because a lot of people say he does, there has to be a bit more to it than that.

Which makes my point. Your responses are based on disimilar nonsense like that. You have to oversimplify the issue in order to make ridiculous comparisons like that.

I think perhaps you're letting your belief blind you from the fact that what you have offered as evidence simply is not sufficient enough to people who don't already believe.

It is not that you are an unbeliever. It is rather the case that you have decided that you will not believe no matter what and that is reflected in the intellecually shallow and absurd responses you dream up in addition to concoting ridiculous comparisons between the evidence offered and the claims of those who say they saw bigfoot. The problem is that you are unwilling to objective about the evidence and are unwilling to engage it.

The issue is that most of the arguments you have given me were still assuming that certain unverified parts of the Bible had actually occurred. So, you were essentially trying to verify unverified information with unverified information. It doesn't work.

I was doing no such thing. My argument has been that claiming something is "unverified" is not really an argument against it being true. It is a meaningless argument, really. The problem is that you are using "unverified" as an excuse for your unbelief AND you are really drawing an assumption that I don't think you have really investigated very deeply at all. You demonstrate a very shallow understanding of Christianity, and thus it appears that you do not have any real basis for your claim that the claims of the Bible are largely unverified. You assume they aren't, but it doesn't appear that you are qualified to make that claim.

The Qu'ran provides historical context to supernatural claims. In Greek mythology, the Trojan War provides historical context to a conflict that happened between a few goddesses/gods. In-fact, there were many myths in those times that had historical context. So, this is not uncommon.

Explain/demonstrate the nature of the historical contexts of those writings.

Could you demonstrate how the writers "went out of their way" to be factual about geographical, genealogical, and historical information?

Well for starters there is the book of Acts, which lists over 60 different major and minor geographic locations and correctly identifies major and minor rulers and government officials within the Roman empire. In Paul's epistle to the Romans, He mentions Erastus the Chaimberlain (treasurer) of Corinth. There is a plaque still erected in the ruins of 1century Corinth honoring Erastus the Chamberlain because of his contributions to the city. He was companion of both Paul and Timothy and traveled to Macedonia with Timothy. I don't have time to list everything, but there is enough of this type of imformation present in the NT and even in the OT to make it rather unrealistic to assert that they decided to make up fanciful mythological tales. The precision with which they treat historic information demonstrates men who took their writing very seriously and intended for their audiences to take them just as seriously.

[808state]

Actually it is a very strong point in the context the point was originally made, which you seem to have forgotten. Obviously, the writers are pointing people to Jesus. The point about the self-deprecating information goes to the credibility over against the typical way people who are attempting to start their own religion operate. Typically, those who seek to start a religion have a personal agenda and seek to get people to follow THEM, not someone else. They don't air their dirty laundry and try to hide their personal flaws from their followers. They use methods of brainwashing and intimidation to prevent anyone from challenging or questioning their leadership and they certainly try to keep any flaws hidden that might diminish the confidence of their followers.

The disciples make no such attempt hide their flaws. They do not act like people trying to start another religion. Jesus was not a product they were trying to "sell." Rather, they were witnesses of the resurrected Christ. Their message was that Jesus was alive. The fact that they encountered a personal transformation does not stand as an argument against their message or the reliability of the NT.

You make two points in this argument. The first one being that typically those shaping religious stories want to shape them in such a way that would glorify themselves and would make them the leaders of the religion. But this doesn't have to be so. For example, the Qu'ran was written by many people who weren't seeking self-glorification. Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, there were writings about Jesus that were not included in the canonized Bible because they were not considered to be authentic. So, we do have evidence that there were people at the time who were willing to just make up stories about Jesus without glorifying themselves in the process.

Your second point is that people who are shaping their own religions wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry for followers to see. This would be a good point if the people we were talking were trying to get people to follow them, but as we already made clear, they weren't. Aristotle and Plato were both incredibly self-deprecating in their writings, but it didn't make their ideas seem less credible to people.

And again, this is all assuming a lot. This is assuming that all of the authors attributed to writing the New Testament had actually written the New Testament. This is assuming that the people who wrote the New Testament were not just writing down stories that had been floating around at the time. There seems to be a lot of scholarly dispute in this area.

As always, you continue to show a shallow understanding of what you are addressing. God is not about people performing well enough for Him. They could not possibly do that anyway. God's program is all about restoring man to Himself. The problem is that man is unwilling to be honest about his condition before God. Man is born spiritually dead and separated from God. God is sinless. Man is entirely sinless and helpless under his own power to change His condition. Salvation is an inward transformation from being unable to please God to a condition where man is imputed a resotred rightstanding before God. In addition, obedience is a willing act performed from a grateful heart, not an attempt to please or appease God. "Religion" amounts to performance-based acceptance; if you do good enough, you will be accepted. In Christianity, it is God Himself who does all the work needed for redemption to take place. God does not treat man as inferior. Rather, the Bible tells us that God has made us Kings and Priests. We are a holy nation and royal priesthood of believers. He is a "friend that sticketh closer than a brother." We are heirs of His Kingdom and joint-heirs with Christ according to the Bible. Instead of making us inferior to Jesus, we are joint-heirs; we are treated as the firstborn sons of God. He has given us His Name and has chosen to live within us. We are the apple of His eye and the Bible says He rejoices over us with dancing.

The issue with your argument is that it already assumes that the Bible is true. I know what the Bible says on the matter, but what I am looking at is the potential intention behind it. Later on in this post you say that if you're wrong about your religious beliefs then Christianity doesn't exist. Bingo! All religions make certain claims, if the religion is wrong, then at-least some of those claims are false.

That is not really correct. Our obedience is not about being good. Rather our obedience is to God is done willingly. We cannot be "good" enough to please God. Our obedience stems from our love for Him, not some attempt to appease an overlord.

I understand this. Again, you're missing my point. You can look at this one of two ways, either the Bible is true, like you believe, and Christians are simply meant to love God and through that will act in a way that is more pleasing to him (relatively speaking). Or God is used as a placebo to motivate Christians into living their lives a certain way.

So you DO believe the Bible's claims about Jesus as false, after all? How did you arrive at that view?

Just my personal experiences. The more I learnt about the Bible, the more it seemed like something humans would create. Firstly, it just doesn't strike me as very advanced in it's thinking. Certainly the people writing it were smart, but it doesn't seem advanced/enlightened enough to have been inspired by God's word. It's overly simplistic in how it views the world and how it works. Which works well with humans because, I think many us wouldn't want things too complicated anyway. I look at nature, and I don't see the Biblical God behind it. It definitely isn't evident to me and I feel it should be if it's true. I was a theist for a large part of my life, and over time I found there was a psychology behind it. The world makes more sense now then it did back when I believed there was a God. And it wasn't because I didn't want to believe in a God, I did, I do. But just through my experiences/research I've done, I don't think there is any real evidence for one, that's not to say that there isn't one, but I don't see it at this point in time.

The Bible originates in the ancient near east. If you examine the ancient cultures that are contemporary with the Bible, you do not find any culture that contains any gods that resemble the God of Scripture. He is entirely unique to any human convention of "god."

One could use that same argument and apply to different other religions. Just because it had not been thought of before does not mean it has been

[808state]

If I am wrong, there is no Christianity. The difference between Christiainity and other religions is that Christianity is based on the person of Jesus. You cannot be a Christian without participation in the person and life of Jesus Himself. Jesus is Eternal life. No other religion makes a similar claim.

Again, right. If you're wrong, then the claims that Christianity makes are not true. If you're wrong, then you aren't actually engaging in Jesus Christ. I think this concept has now been firmly established, or I hope it has.

Which makes my point. Your responses are based on disimilar nonsense like that. You have to oversimplify the issue in order to make ridiculous comparisons like that.

All i'm arguing is that testimony alone doesn't always do the trick. I could bring up the fact that many people from other religions have claimed to have experiences with their own Gods as well if you want a more similar comparison, but my point remains the same.

I was doing no such thing. My argument has been that claiming something is "unverified" is not really an argument against it being true. It is a meaningless argument, really. The problem is that you are using "unverified" as an excuse for your unbelief AND you are really drawing an assumption that I don't think you have really investigated very deeply at all. You demonstrate a very shallow understanding of Christianity, and thus it appears that you do not have any real basis for your claim that the claims of the Bible are largely unverified. You assume they aren't, but it doesn't appear that you are qualified to make that claim.

The fact that it's "unverified" doesn't make it true or false. That's my point you seem to keep missing. I'm not arguing that because it's unverified that means it's not true. I mean, early in this discussion you were arguing that because no one could disprove the Bible, that automatically meant it was to be looked at as Truth through the "the prinicple of general trustworthiness" (which isn't used in modern historiography), and is, at-least how you wanted it applied here, an argument from ignorance. All I have been arguing is that there is not enough sufficient evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible. If I were arguing that because there is not enough evidence for the supernatural claims of the Bible that means it's not true, then I would be making an argument from ignorance.

Well for starters there is the book of Acts, which lists over 60 different major and minor geographic locations and correctly identifies major and minor rulers and government officials within the Roman empire. In Paul's epistle to the Romans, He mentions Erastus the Chaimberlain (treasurer) of Corinth. There is a plaque still erected in the ruins of 1century Corinth honoring Erastus the Chamberlain because of his contributions to the city. He was companion of both Paul and Timothy and traveled to Macedonia with Timothy. I don't have time to list everything, but there is enough of this type of imformation present in the NT and even in the OT to make it rather unrealistic to assert that they decided to make up fanciful mythological tales. The precision with which they treat historic information demonstrates men who took their writing very seriously and intended for their audiences to take them just as seriously.

Well, of course they wanted to be taken seriously, it would defeat the purpose if they didn't. It was common for ancient historians to record history and then attribute a mythological reason behind it. Herodotus, one of the most influential historians of all time, did this.

[Guest shiloh357]

You make two points in this argument. The first one being that typically those shaping religious stories want to shape them in such a way that would glorify themselves and would make them the leaders of the religion. But this doesn't have to be so.

But that is what we observe happen all the time. YOU may not choose to admit that, but it is observable reality. People who seek to found a new religion never disparage themselves or reveal their flaws. They always present themselves as an unquestionable leader who is the only messenger of God and their personal failings are always hidden.

For example, the Qu'ran was written by many people who weren't seeking self-glorification.

That is not true. My former psychology professor is a Muslim and according to him (I asked him about this before posting) and he told me that Islam teaches that the Koran is the word of God given to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel. He may have dictated to scribes, but Muhammed alone is the recognized author.

Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, there were writings about Jesus that were not included in the canonized Bible because they were not considered to be authentic. So, we do have evidence that there were people at the time who were willing to just make up stories about Jesus without glorifying themselves in the process.

That is not the same. Most of those were gnostic mystical writings which were written anonymously. In the Bible we are dealing with eyewitnesses and actual followers of Jesus. We are talking about people who made claims that cannot be brushed aside as made up fables. The text does not give us that option.

Your second point is that people who are shaping their own religions wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry for followers to see. This would be a good point if the people we were talking were trying to get people to follow them, but as we already made clear, they weren't. Aristotle and Plato were both incredibly self-deprecating in their writings, but it didn't make their ideas seem less credible to people.

You cannot compare the writings Aristotle and Plato with the Gospels. The Gospels make unique claims that not even Aristotle or Plato would make. The writings of Aristotle and Plato are two completely different genres and I would also add there is more historical and manusript evidence for the accuracy of the Bible than the writings of either Aristotle or Plato.

And again, this is all assuming a lot. This is assuming that all of the authors attributed to writing the New Testament had actually written the New Testament.

There is not one credible reason to abandon that assumption. I am operating from that assumption, but so far, you have not provided a reason for why my assumption is misplaced.

This is assuming that the people who wrote the New Testament were not just writing down stories that had been floating around at the time.

There were stories of Jesus and traditions that had been written down and even oral traditions as well. That is not indispute. Even Luke makes that point. He is a physician and historian and he demonstrates that he is quite skilled in historical accounts and is amazingly accurate. In the first four verses of Luke, he claims to have investigated and claims and even interviewed eyewtnesses and was endeavoring to put forth an orderly record of the events of the life of Jesus. His attention to detail is worthy of any modern historian.

There seems to be a lot of scholarly dispute in this area.

If you are talking about the 3 Quests for the Historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar, what you have are scholars who basically poisoned the well before they began their research.

The issue with your argument is that it already assumes that the Bible is true.

Yes. So why is that assumption wrong?

I know what the Bible says on the matter, but what I am looking at is the potential intention behind it. Later on in this post you say that if you're wrong about your religious beliefs then Christianity doesn't exist. Bingo!

Yes, but the problem is that my beliefs don't rest on me. They rest on the words of Jesus and the only way for me to be wrong is for Him to be wrong. Christianity stands or falls on the person of Jesus, which cannot be said for any other religion. One does not have a relationship with Buddha or Mohammed to be a follower of either. One cannot be follower of Jesus without participation in His Person and His life.

I will respond to the rest of your comments later...