What Jesus Said About Who He Is

[Nakosis]

Some have confirmed that they don't care about the truth, so why are they involved in this discussion? This is fairly typical for the militant types among the lost. They aren't seeking the truth - they have another agenda. So, this Scripture comes to mind:

Matthew 7:6 KJV Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Indeed, here's another one that comes to mind....

Proverbs 9:8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 03 August 2011 - 04:03 AM, said:

Yes, of course it is. But it is personal experience rooted in the claims of Scripture, which is itself rooted in historical and geographic fact. All of the claims of Scripture are rooted in historical and geographic fact.

I find historical "fact" to contain a lot of opinion. So to me it's not as reliable as personal experience and basically it's better determine the truth of something for yourself.

Uh no, historical, geographic fact are not opinions. Either something happened or it didn't. By your logic you would pretty much have discard the historical record of every person, or nation that ever existed and the recorded events that they participated in as well. The Bible contains a wealthy of historical data including events, persons, and places that have been verified and are part of the modern historical record. So really, you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote

Again, that is part of it. It has to be. But that experience is again rooted in the integrity of Scripture, which heretofore, you have not really provided any evidence that would challenge its integrity.

Any challenge to its integrity would be what you find for yourself to be true. What would you rely on more, something you experience for yourself or something you've read about?

That is pure nonsense. If you claim there is something wrong with the historical record, the onus is on you to justify that claim. I can tell you why I believe and the evidence based on the historical record as well as my personal experience. But if you are going to say that the accepted record is flawed or unreliable, the responsibility is on you to either back those assertions with evidence to that end, or in absence of that, withdraw them..

Ok, fair enough. However this leaves you pick the meaning that is appropriate for you while someone else can pick a different meaning, appropriate for them. It kind of fits with my observations. You use of the word faith is not universal among all people or even all Christians. However you say this is what the word means to you in the context that you use it, I'll accept that.

I gave you the general usage of the word in Scripture, not the meaning of it.

A man does not love his dog the same way he loves his children or the same way he "loves" Mexican food. "Love" as a basic denotation, but depending on the context, "love" can mean something different. So it is with a lot of words. Words in the Bible are no different.

Furthermore, the Lord can minister the same truth or the same passage of Scripture different ways to different people depending their speicific, individual need(s). Often times, people do see verses differently, not because one is right or wrong, but because that verse was ministered to them to meet a need in area of their life that was totally different than how it was ministered to another person. Diversity in views and understanding of Scripture can be like the different varieties of flowers of a bouqet. One is not better than the other; they all contribute to overall beauty of the whole. It is in that variance of understanding that we are able to edify and encourage each other with what has brought encouragement and edification to us.

Again historical references are filled with opinion and bias. You still pick who you choose to listen to for your own reasons and there's no guarantees you choose correctly. History is a crap-shoot where you have to hope your resources are reliable.

Yeah, well I am student of history and you are pretty much out in left-field with that nonsense. Yes, there are areas of history, "unknowns," where historians are left to speculate due to gaps in information. And sometimes historians speculate on unknown motives behind the actions of certain people, but they are very careful to distinguish that from the actual historical record. But to relegate the entire historical record as being "filled" with opinion and bias is just stupid.

That argument won't fly with the Scriptures, though. The record given is very straight forward and has been demonstrated to amazing accurate and brutally honest. So your position is really one of a general ignorance. I think the one being given to opinion and bias is you.

For me that is why I prefer what I know and what I've experienced for myself. One really has no idea how much historical documents have been altered, purposely or not from the original intent of the author.

Yes we do. In fact, the Bible has far more manuscript evidence in its favor in existence than any other ancient document in the world.

Also as you point out words are used and applied in different ways. There's no guarantees the mental context of any author is appropriately understood. We fit the words to our own context. Our context is always going to be biased towards our own experiences and what we were taught.

Yeah if that were true, then we could not trust a newspaper, news broadcast, a biographical novel or any other writing. We should just read book about Winnie the Pooh and Grimim's fairytales.

Continued on next post

[Guest shiloh357]

What of you? If you are found to have relied on wrong information. A wrong interpretation. Wrong teachings from a particular church. Would you not also be accountable? I am perfectly fine with being accountable for me. I did the best I could to determine what was true. If that is not good enough then so be it. However why should I listen to your claims or anyone else's that don't match with my experience and what I've found out for myself?

I think you missed my point. My point is that God does not require me to beg and grovel and search high and low for what will convince you. All I am responsible for is telling you the truth as God has laid it out in His Word. You can mock it, reject it, treat it as you wish, but God is not going to lay that at my feet. He is not going to blame me for your rejection, just as I don’t get the credit if you do accept it. Once the truth has been delivered and I have done my best to make it as clear as I can, my responsibility in the matter is over. You will stand to give an account before the Lord for your rejection and you will judged by Him accordingly.

If that is not good enough then so be it. However why should I listen to your claims or anyone else's that don't match with my experience and what I've found out for myself?

That is not a very rational basis for rejecting something.

Yes faith his a starting point. A small amount of faith is necessary in any teacher. However at some point that faith has to be validated. My objection is to faith that never gets validated. With history there is only so much that can be validated. One has to take care with what they place their faith in. Too many people these days are way too trusting. They hear what they want to and too easily accept the truth of it.

Everything that you need to have validated as a basis for faith has been validated. That you don’t accept it, isn’t really very relevant. The evidence has been around for a very long time and there are thousands of books on the market that reveal the evidence, if you were really interested. All you really have are excuses. So far, all you have presented to me are ridiculous irratioal objections that have no basis in objective reality.

Sure it goes both ways. Sometimes people reject the truth regardless of any validation because it's something they don't want to hear. That is why I think it best to take the validation of truth into one's own hands, as much as possible

You want to make it subjective, but validation of facts is objective in nature. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot demand validation, but selectively decide what of that validated information you will or will not accept. Truth is not a smorgasboard. You don’t get to pick and choose what is true according to your taste. Truth stands on its own merits regardless of who believes or not.

.

It's not the argument I'm making. We have to rely on what was written since the person is not here to speak for themselves. We have to rely on the accuracy of translation. We have to rely that none of the test was altered since we have no original copies. We have to rely on our understanding of the context intended by the author. The human factor is involved in all of this. Humans are not always reliable. So my "advice" is what you do choose to have faith in, you do so with a grain of salt until you've done everything possible to validate to truth for yourself.

The problem with that is that you are speaking from a position of ignorance as if there has not been millions of hours of research, and scads of manusript and historical evidence that has been uncovered over the centuries. That doesn’t even include the massive archeological record that validates many of the Bible’s claims. The supernatural events that cannot be reproduced are embaedded in an historical record that has been validated by sources both friendly and unfriendly to the Bible. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Quote

Their martyrdom is of the public and historical record and is undisputed. Their claims are recorded in Scripture. They did not claim to "believe" Jesus was alive. Their specific recorded claims are that they were eyewitnesses that Jesus was alive and that they had spent time with Him for 40 days after His resurrection. The historical evidence is that they claimed to have been with Jesus personally, and that their enemies sought to kill them, not only in Jerusalem, but in other parts of the world. All of that is part of the hsitorical record and is not merely an opinion.

Sorry, it doesn't match with what I've read and doesn't really even make sense. Why would they be a threat because they claimed to know Jesus or even claimed to have see someone come back to life. Seems little justification to go around killing people. More likely they were killed because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and they believe his teachings had the authority of God.

The reason is very simple, if you knew anything about the Bible or history. 1st centiry Israel was under Roman occupation and Rome ruled the region with an iron fist as it did through out other regions of the empire. Those under Roman domination were expected to submit the laws Rome enacted without question. Insurrections were punishible by death and would even result in a tightening of the grip of their rule. The religious leaders of that time period in Israel were given many speicial priviledges, acoutrements and perks for keeping the people in line and keeping the peace. They were puppets and they enjoyed that position and strictly guarded it.

Jesus was a threat for two reasons. Number one because He was hailed as the Messiah, a political King meant to rule over Israel. A direct descendent of King David and the last thing the religious leaders wanted was Messiah, a King that would rival the authority of Caesar and potentially try to usurp Caesar’s authority in Judea and bring the full weight of the wrath of Rome. In fact, it was exactly the uprising of messianic Bar Kokhba that resulted in exactly what the religious leaders feared. Jerusalem was sacked by the 10th, 12th, 5th and 15th Legions.

Secondly because in addition, Jesus was being hailed as “Lord.” Well that claim would offend the imperial cult of Rome that proclaimed that only Caesar was Lord and god in the empire. The message that Jesus was both Messiah and Lord was a dual offense that would incur the wrath of the empire if it caught on. The enemies of the disciples could not disprove the resurrection of Jesus and it was their job to keep a lid on this new movement as so their only recourse was to imprison and/or kill the apostles who continued to proclaim this message. They were indeed a major political threat to the religious leaders at the time.

I don't care if you are right are wrong,

You should care. If I am right, you stand to lose a lot. You the one taking the risk, not me. If you are right, I don’t really stand to lose much.

however you should, for your own knowledge, verify your claims. I don't think you are going to be able to do that here.

I have already provided the evidence and rationale for my claims. If anything it is YOU that has made some pretty outlandish claims about history and the historical record that you need to prove.

But for your reference, you should click on the main apologetics tab and scroll down to my thread, “The Bible: Where it came from and why we can trust it.” I have provided a lot more information there than I have here.

[Nakosis]

Uh no, historical, geographic fact are not opinions. Either something happened or it didn't. By your logic you would pretty much have discard the historical record of every person, or nation that ever existed and the recorded events that they participated in as well. The Bible contains a wealthy of historical data including events, persons, and places that have been verified and are part of the modern historical record. So really, you don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, then pick something you feel has been verified and lets test it.

That is pure nonsense. If you claim there is something wrong with the historical record, the onus is on you to justify that claim. I can tell you why I believe and the evidence based on the historical record as well as my personal experience. But if you are going to say that the accepted record is flawed or unreliable, the responsibility is on you to either back those assertions with evidence to that end, or in absence of that, withdraw them.

I didn't claim anything. I asked you a question.

A man does not love his dog the same way he loves his children or the same way he "loves" Mexican food. "Love" as a basic denotation, but depending on the context, "love" can mean something different. So it is with a lot of words. Words in the Bible are no different.

Furthermore, the Lord can minister the same truth or the same passage of Scripture different ways to different people depending their speicific, individual need(s). Often times, people do see verses differently, not because one is right or wrong, but because that verse was ministered to them to meet a need in area of their life that was totally different than how it was ministered to another person. Diversity in views and understanding of Scripture can be like the different varieties of flowers of a bouqet. One is not better than the other; they all contribute to overall beauty of the whole. It is in that variance of understanding that we are able to edify and encourage each other with what has brought encouragement and edification to us.

But still no guarantee of understanding the intent or context of the author.

Yeah, well I am student of history and you are pretty much out in left-field with that nonsense. Yes, there are areas of history, "unknowns," where historians are left to speculate due to gaps in information. And sometimes historians speculate on unknown motives behind the actions of certain people, but they are very careful to distinguish that from the actual historical record. But to relegate the entire historical record as being "filled" with opinion and bias is just stupid.

Who's doing that. You first agree with me then create a strawman argument to attack.

That argument won't fly with the Scriptures, though. The record given is very straight forward and has been demonstrated to amazing accurate and brutally honest. So your position is really one of a general ignorance. I think the one being given to opinion and bias is you.

Ok, then pick something if you are willing and lets test it. I'd pick something but it's your belief. You'd know better then I what you feel has been validated.

[Nakosis]

I think you missed my point. My point is that God does not require me to beg and grovel and search high and low for what will convince you. All I am responsible for is telling you the truth as God has laid it out in His Word. You can mock it, reject it, treat it as you wish, but God is not going to lay that at my feet. He is not going to blame me for your rejection, just as I don’t get the credit if you do accept it. Once the truth has been delivered and I have done my best to make it as clear as I can, my responsibility in the matter is over. You will stand to give an account before the Lord for your rejection and you will judged by Him accordingly.

Makes it very convenient to be a Christian.

That is not a very rational basis for rejecting something.

Who said anything about rejecting? I'm talking about validating.

Everything that you need to have validated as a basis for faith has been validated. That you don’t accept it, isn’t really very relevant. The evidence has been around for a very long time and there are thousands of books on the market that reveal the evidence, if you were really interested. All you really have are excuses. So far, all you have presented to me are ridiculous irratioal objections that have no basis in objective reality.

All I've done is suggested it is better to validate the truth of something for yourself. I've even agreed with some of your points. What you have done is find cause to argue. I suspect that'd be true regardless of what I say.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot demand validation, but selectively decide what of that validated information you will or will not accept. Truth is not a smorgasboard. You don’t get to pick and choose what is true according to your taste. Truth stands on its own merits regardless of who believes or not.

Where have I done this? I'm sorry you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against something else.

The problem with that is that you are speaking from a position of ignorance as if there has not been millions of hours of research, and scads of manusript and historical evidence that has been uncovered over the centuries. That doesn’t even include the massive archeological record that validates many of the Bible’s claims. The supernatural events that cannot be reproduced are embaedded in an historical record that has been validated by sources both friendly and unfriendly to the Bible. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

I'll accept my ignorance. I've offered to let you inform me. However since you see no responsibility in this, I'll stop asking. Maybe someone else will be more willing.

The reason is very simple, if you knew anything about the Bible or history. 1st centiry Israel was under Roman occupation and Rome ruled the region with an iron fist as it did through out other regions of the empire. Those under Roman domination were expected to submit the laws Rome enacted without question. Insurrections were punishible by death and would even result in a tightening of the grip of their rule. The religious leaders of that time period in Israel were given many speicial priviledges, acoutrements and perks for keeping the people in line and keeping the peace. They were puppets and they enjoyed that position and strictly guarded it.

Jesus was a threat for two reasons. Number one because He was hailed as the Messiah, a political King meant to rule over Israel. A direct descendent of King David and the last thing the religious leaders wanted was Messiah, a King that would rival the authority of Caesar and potentially try to usurp Caesar’s authority in Judea and bring the full weight of the wrath of Rome. In fact, it was exactly the uprising of messianic Bar Kokhba that resulted in exactly what the religious leaders feared. Jerusalem was sacked by the 10th, 12th, 5th and 15th Legions.

Secondly because in addition, Jesus was being hailed as “Lord.” Well that claim would offend the imperial cult of Rome that proclaimed that only Caesar was Lord and god in the empire. The message that Jesus was both Messiah and Lord was a dual offense that would incur the wrath of the empire if it caught on. The enemies of the disciples could not disprove the resurrection of Jesus and it was their job to keep a lid on this new movement as so their only recourse was to imprison and/or kill the apostles who continued to proclaim this message. They were indeed a major political threat to the religious leaders at the time.

Ok, so they were killed because they believed Jesus was the Messiah, they believed he was Lord, they believe he was a direct descendent of David. I don't suppose you're going to accept I was right here...

You should care. If I am right, you stand to lose a lot. You the one taking the risk, not me. If you are right, I don’t really stand to lose much.

Isn't the import thing here whether your understanding Jesus is right or wrong? Whether your understanding of God is right or wrong. If you are wrong, you take the same risk as I. At least I can claim I tried my best to validate what was true.

"Sorry God, I tried but your Christians turned out not to be too helpful. It wasn't their responsibility to help me validate what they claimed to be true."

I have already provided the evidence and rationale for my claims. If anything it is YOU that has made some pretty outlandish claims about history and the historical record that you need to prove.

But for your reference, you should click on the main apologetics tab and scroll down to my thread, “The Bible: Where it came from and why we can trust it.” I have provided a lot more information there than I have here.

Then this all should have been easy for you.

btw I had already looked at your thread but you started off saying any questions that challenged the claims would be ignored. So I didn't really see any point.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Nakosis

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 03 August 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

Uh no, historical, geographic fact are not opinions. Either something happened or it didn't. By your logic you would pretty much have discard the historical record of every person, or nation that ever existed and the recorded events that they participated in as well. The Bible contains a wealthy of historical data including events, persons, and places that have been verified and are part of the modern historical record. So really, you don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, then pick something you feel has been verified and lets test it.

Mt. Ebal: Joshua 8:30 tells us that Joshua built an altar there. The ruins of that altar have been found and it is the only altar on the mountain. They have been dated to the period of Rameses II, which is the period most scholars believe that the children of Israel departed from Egypt.

Quote

That is pure nonsense. If you claim there is something wrong with the historical record, the onus is on you to justify that claim. I can tell you why I believe and the evidence based on the historical record as well as my personal experience. But if you are going to say that the accepted record is flawed or unreliable, the responsibility is on you to either back those assertions with evidence to that end, or in absence of that, withdraw them.

I didn't claim anything. I asked you a question.

But I see the premise behind your question. Your question is based on the premise that since my claims don't match your expierience, you can afford to reject those claims. If you applied that premise to every part of your life you would have to reject any claim based on knowledge or facts that are outside the scope of your experience. Again, not a very rational or intelligent approach.

Quote

A man does not love his dog the same way he loves his children or the same way he "loves" Mexican food. "Love" as a basic denotation, but depending on the context, "love" can mean something different. So it is with a lot of words. Words in the Bible are no different.

Furthermore, the Lord can minister the same truth or the same passage of Scripture different ways to different people depending their specific, individual need(s). Often times, people do see verses differently, not because one is right or wrong, but because that verse was ministered to them to meet a need in area of their life that was totally different than how it was ministered to another person. Diversity in views and understanding of Scripture can be like the different varieties of flowers of a bouquet. One is not better than the other; they all contribute to overall beauty of the whole. It is in that variance of understanding that we are able to edify and encourage each other with what has brought encouragement and edification to us.

But still no guarantee of understanding the intent or context of the author.

Incorrect. Context is exactly how you determine the intent of the author when it comes to understanding certain key words in a sentence. Context is always a clear indicators of what a person means.

If in the course of a conversation I say, "that man is green," Do I mean that he is green in color? Do I mean he is inexperienced? Do I mean he is envious? The context of the conversation would indicate what I meant by that statement.

Quote

Yeah, well I am student of history and you are pretty much out in left-field with that nonsense. Yes, there are areas of history, "unknowns," where historians are left to speculate due to gaps in information. And sometimes historians speculate on unknown motives behind the actions of certain people, but they are very careful to distinguish that from the actual historical record. But to relegate the entire historical record as being "filled" with opinion and bias is just stupid.

Who's doing that. You first agree with me then create a strawman argument to attack.

I am going off of exactly what you said. You said that history is full of opinion and bias. My comments were based on that poor assumption that you put out there.

Quote

That argument won't fly with the Scriptures, though. The record given is very straight forward and has been demonstrated to amazing accurate and brutally honest. So your position is really one of a general ignorance. I think the one being given to opinion and bias is you.

Ok, then pick something if you are willing and lets test it. I'd pick something but it's your belief. You'd know better then I what you feel has been validated.

I have done that above.

shiloh357, on 03 August 2011 - 07:14 PM, said:

I think you missed my point. My point is that God does not require me to beg and grovel and search high and low for what will convince you. All I am responsible for is telling you the truth as God has laid it out in His Word. You can mock it, reject it, treat it as you wish, but God is not going to lay that at my feet. He is not going to blame me for your rejection, just as I don’t get the credit if you do accept it. Once the truth has been delivered and I have done my best to make it as clear as I can, my responsibility in the matter is over. You will stand to give an account before the Lord for your rejection and you will judged by Him accordingly.

Makes it very convenient to be a Christian.

No, it means that it is YOUR decision. I am not expected to argue into the Kingdom. It has to be your choice and I am not responsible for your choice. You are. Skeptics want to argue endlessly and try to keep us on the line indefinitely. My job is to present the truth and let you make the decision. I am accountable for my decision and you are accountable for yours. It has nothing to do with being convenient. If you choose to reject the truth, the consequences if you are wrong are yours alone to bear. My point is that your rejection of the truth does not mean I am unsuccessful in sharing it. It means that you have chosen continued separation from God and that you consciously accept the consequences for that decision, which entails an eternal future of misery and perpetual destruction. If you choose to assume that risk, for whatever reason, there is no amount of evidence and nothing I can say that will deter you.

Who said anything about rejecting? I'm talking about validating.

The point is that rejecting something simply because it isn't part of the limited scope of your experience is not a rational basis for rejecting ANYTHING.

Quote

Everything that you need to have validated as a basis for faith has been validated. That you don’t accept it, isn’t really very relevant. The evidence has been around for a very long time and there are thousands of books on the market that reveal the evidence, if you were really interested. All you really have are excuses. So far, all you have presented to me are ridiculous irratioal objections that have no basis in objective reality.

All I've done is suggested it is better to validate the truth of something for yourself. I've even agreed with some of your points. What you have done is find cause to argue. I suspect that'd be true regardless of what I say.

No. Again, I am going off your prior comments. On the one hand you have indicated that you don't believe anything that doesn't agree with your expierience, which is a subjective approach. But validation is not based on subjective experience; it is based on objective evidence, which includes, for our purposes here, history, culture, archeology and so forth. But you have already decided that at least history cannot be very reliable because it is filled with bias and opinion, which tells me that you have already erected a standard by which you will reject any evidence that leads in a direction you are not prepared accept. You have already prejudged at least a portion of objectifable, verifieable evidence as unreliable and in this discussion I have also noted that you are willing to accept any angle, no matter how irrational, improbable or absurd in order to preserve your unbelief. Alll of the evidence I can provide is outside the limited scope of your experience and I think, is also outside what you are even willing to make room for on a purely objective level.

Continued on next post

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

The problem with that is that you are speaking from a position of ignorance as if there has not been millions of hours of research, and scads of manuscript and historical evidence that has been uncovered over the centuries. That doesn’t even include the massive archeological record that validates many of the Bible’s claims. The supernatural events that cannot be reproduced are embedded in an historical record that has been validated by sources both friendly and unfriendly to the Bible. Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

I'll accept my ignorance. I've offered to let you inform me. However since you see no responsibility in this, I'll stop asking. Maybe someone else will be more willing.

I did not say it was not my responsibility to inform you. I said it was not my responsibility to spend countless hours trying to convince you as if God is holding me responsible for your acceptance or rejection of the truth. I am not going to sit here forever and beg and grovel at your feet trying to get you to believe the truth. If you have understood the truth and the consequences for rejecting and choose to reject it anyway, that is on your head.

Why would you accept ignorance? As I have stated if you are interested in the truth, there are libraries and Christian bookstores and even online Christian retailers who have the information if you are truly seeking. If you are really interested in the truth, there is far and away more information available out there than I have the time or ability to recollect to you in this forum.

Quote

The reason is very simple, if you knew anything about the Bible or history. 1st century Israel was under Roman occupation and Rome ruled the region with an iron fist as it did through out other regions of the empire. Those under Roman domination were expected to submit the laws Rome enacted without question. Insurrections were punishable by death and would even result in a tightening of the grip of their rule. The religious leaders of that time period in Israel were given many special privileges, accoutrements and perks for keeping the people in line and keeping the peace. They were puppets and they enjoyed that position and strictly guarded it.

Jesus was a threat for two reasons. Number one because He was hailed as the Messiah, a political King meant to rule over Israel. A direct descendent of King David and the last thing the religious leaders wanted was Messiah, a King that would rival the authority of Caesar and potentially try to usurp Caesar’s authority in Judea and bring the full weight of the wrath of Rome. In fact, it was exactly the uprising of messianic Bar Kokhba that resulted in exactly what the religious leaders feared. Jerusalem was sacked by the 10th, 12th, 5th and 15th Legions.

Secondly because in addition, Jesus was being hailed as “Lord.” Well that claim would offend the imperial cult of Rome that proclaimed that only Caesar was Lord and god in the empire. The message that Jesus was both Messiah and Lord was a dual offense that would incur the wrath of the empire if it caught on. The enemies of the disciples could not disprove the resurrection of Jesus and it was their job to keep a lid on this new movement as so their only recourse was to imprison and/or kill the apostles who continued to proclaim this message. They were indeed a major political threat to the religious leaders at the time.

Ok, so they were killed because they believed Jesus was the Messiah, they believed he was Lord, they believe he was a direct descendent of David. I don't suppose you're going to accept I was right here...

Well, you aren't right. You missed it entirely.

They put their lives on the line for what they KNEW not what they believed. They did not believe Jesus was resurrected. They claimed to know for a fact based on personal experience that Jesus was alive from the dead. They talked to him, touched Him, ate with Him, and that is not "belief" that is a claim of something they knew to be 100%, incontrovertibly true.

They did not believe He was Lord. They KNEW He was Lord and proclaimed Him as such. There was no belief involved in their testimony at any time. Their lives were on the line because their enemies did not a Messianic movement in competition with Roman rule. And since their enemies could not refute the claim of Jesus' resurrection, they decided to kill the disciples. I thought I had made it clear enough last time.

Quote

You should care. If I am right, you stand to lose a lot. You the one taking the risk, not me. If you are right, I don’t really stand to lose much.

Isn't the import thing here whether your understanding Jesus is right or wrong?

If I am wrong, then the worst thing that will happen to me is I go floating away in limbo or simply fade into nothing. If YOU are wrong, you stand to lose far, far more than me. I am not the one taking the gamble.

If you are wrong, you take the same risk as I.

If I am wrong there is no hell, no punishment, nothing. I don't risk anything at all. If YOU are wrong, there will be Hell to pay and you will be paying it for all eternity with no hope of reprieve. You will live in perpetual destruction.

"Sorry God, I tried but your Christians turned out not to be too helpful. It wasn't their responsibility to help me validate what they claimed to be true."

You won't even get the opportunity to speak on your behalf. You will step out into eternity without God and without hope and you will step straight into the consequences you chose to accept. You may have your day in the sun for now, but life is like a vapor; it is here today and it is gone tomorrow and you don't know when your number is up. There are thousands of people who get up every day not realizing that it is their last. That is the risk that you assume.

Then this all should have been easy for you.

It is you that have made outlandish claims that need supported. I have provided support for my position and I have pointed you to my other paper. There is no reason to reinvent the horse. You can read that paper at your leisure.

btw I had already looked at your thread but you started off saying any questions that challenged the claims would be ignored. So I didn't really see any point.

No, that is not entirely what I said. What I said that was that the thread was not for debates. I said that challenges or questions about the paper could be started in other threads and I would entertain those questions and challenges there. I guess you missed that part.

[Nakosis]

Mt. Ebal: Joshua 8:30 tells us that Joshua built an altar there. The ruins of that altar have been found and it is the only altar on the mountain. They have been dated to the period of Rameses II, which is the period most scholars believe that the children of Israel departed from Egypt.

Yes that was a very interesting find. Now while it's not unreasonable to consider this maybe that alter the people who excavated the site and numerous other archeologist are far from as certain as you seem to be. As I said, history is full of opinions. Here's a reference you might be interested in.

Mount Ebal

Your question is based on the premise that since my claims don't match your expierience, you can afford to reject those claims. If you applied that premise to every part of your life you would have to reject any claim based on knowledge or facts that are outside the scope of your experience. Again, not a very rational or intelligent approach.

Actually the way I see it, I can't afford to reject anything especially something beyond the scope of my experienced. I ask for validation because I'm interested in learning, especially in cases where I might be wrong.

Context is always a clear indicators of what a person means.

Sure if one is certain of the context. However, especially in historical situations context can get cloudy.

I suspect this prompted Paul to say.

"1 Corinthians 13:12 Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror.

Later we will see him face to face.

We don't know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us."

I think it remains reasonable to question that which we assume certainty in.

If in the course of a conversation I say, "that man is green," Do I mean that he is green in color? Do I mean he is inexperienced? Do I mean he is envious? The context of the conversation would indicate what I meant by that statement.

Language is funny, especially English. Much of our ability to communicate comes not so much through the words that we use but a pool of shared common experiences. For example the phrase "that man is green". I've heard the phrase before, I am aware of the connection between green and envy. Because of that share context I could probably figure out what you meant. Or at least be aware that their might be different possible meanings and so take the time to inquire further. The problem with historical documents is that the non-verbalized context is missing. We can assume like I might do with the phrase "that man is green," however further inquiry is greatly limited. The author is not around to clarify the context for us. So I think important to remain open to questioning one's own certainty.

I am going off of exactly what you said. You said that history is full of opinion and bias. My comments were based on that poor assumption that you put out there.

Yes, you misunderstood the context of my statements. I'm trying to clarify that for you.

I have done that above.

Yes, thank you. That was quite interesting.

No, it means that it is YOUR decision. I am not expected to argue into the Kingdom. It has to be your choice and I am not responsible for your choice. You are. Skeptics want to argue endlessly and try to keep us on the line indefinitely. My job is to present the truth and let you make the decision. I am accountable for my decision and you are accountable for yours. It has nothing to do with being convenient. If you choose to reject the truth, the consequences if you are wrong are yours alone to bear. My point is that your rejection of the truth does not mean I am unsuccessful in sharing it. It means that you have chosen continued separation from God and that you consciously accept the consequences for that decision, which entails an eternal future of misery and perpetual destruction. If you choose to assume that risk, for whatever reason, there is no amount of evidence and nothing I can say that will deter you.

I think the certainty you assume is just as risky. If you've misunderstood any part of the Bible or Jesus you could end up misleading those who have chosen to rely on your certainty.

The point is that rejecting something simply because it isn't part of the limited scope of your experience is not a rational basis for rejecting ANYTHING.

Ok, but you remain arguing against your own assumptions.

No. Again, I am going off your prior comments. On the one hand you have indicated that you don't believe anything that doesn't agree with your expierience, which is a subjective approach. But validation is not based on subjective experience; it is based on objective evidence, which includes, for our purposes here, history, culture, archeology and so forth. But you have already decided that at least history cannot be very reliable because it is filled with bias and opinion, which tells me that you have already erected a standard by which you will reject any evidence that leads in a direction you are not prepared accept. You have already prejudged at least a portion of objectifable, verifieable evidence as unreliable and in this discussion I have also noted that you are willing to accept any angle, no matter how irrational, improbable or absurd in order to preserve your unbelief. Alll of the evidence I can provide is outside the limited scope of your experience and I think, is also outside what you are even willing to make room for on a purely objective level.

So even as I tell you the truth of my intent you remain certain in your assumptions. And, you see no risk in this?

[Nakosis]

Indeed, here's another one that comes to mind....

Proverbs 9:8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Which one are you?

I find I always learn more from my mistakes then my successes. I've made a lot of mistakes. I don't that that has made me wise, but I have come to appreciate individuals who have taken the time to provide me correction.

If you find me mocking feel free to call me on it. It's sometimes tempting in the midst of an argument when one doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. However I try to remain patient and consider everyone is doing the best they can to explain their particular position.

I also sometimes get tempted into sarcasm. While the intent is humor, it doesn't always come across well in a forum.

[Nakosis]

I did not say it was not my responsibility to inform you. I said it was not my responsibility to spend countless hours trying to convince you as if God is holding me responsible for your acceptance or rejection of the truth. I am not going to sit here forever and beg and grovel at your feet trying to get you to believe the truth. If you have understood the truth and the consequences for rejecting and choose to reject it anyway, that is on your head.

One should do their best to verify the truth before accepting it or rejecting it don't you think? If I fail to verify what someone else claims and accept it without question isn't that also on my head.

Why would you accept ignorance? As I have stated if you are interested in the truth, there are libraries and Christian bookstores and even online Christian retailers who have the information if you are truly seeking. If you are really interested in the truth, there is far and away more information available out there than I have the time or ability to recollect to you in this forum.

I tried that but found a lot of inconstancy in what has been claim as the truth. Also it's not very interactive. It's difficult to engage these author to point out their inconsistencies. However if you don't have the time, I understand.

Ok, so they were killed because they believed Jesus was the Messiah, they believed he was Lord, they believe he was a direct descendent of David. I don't suppose you're going to accept I was right here...

Well, you aren't right. You missed it entirely.

Actually I was right, you didn't accept it.

They put their lives on the line for what they KNEW not what they believed. They did not believe Jesus was resurrected. They claimed to know for a fact based on personal experience that Jesus was alive from the dead. They talked to him, touched Him, ate with Him, and that is not "belief" that is a claim of something they knew to be 100%, incontrovertibly true.

They did not believe He was Lord. They KNEW He was Lord and proclaimed Him as such. There was no belief involved in their testimony at any time. Their lives were on the line because their enemies did not a Messianic movement in competition with Roman rule. And since their enemies could not refute the claim of Jesus' resurrection, they decided to kill the disciples. I thought I had made it clear enough last time.

Yes made your opinion clear. you need this to be true to support your claims. I don't need it to be true or false. I'll just point out it is not consistent with what others have said.

If I am wrong, then the worst thing that will happen to me is I go floating away in limbo or simply fade into nothing. If YOU are wrong, you stand to lose far, far more than me. I am not the one taking the gamble.

How do you know that is the worst thing that will happen if you are wrong. Say for example the Muslims are right or the Jews are right or the Heathens?

You are taking the chance that what you don't know won't hurt you. I at least consider the possibility that what I don't know might indeed hurt. So I'm doing my best to find and verify what is true. If I fail at least I tried. Regardless of what happens, I won't feel any shame of guilt for that.

If I am wrong there is no hell, no punishment, nothing. I don't risk anything at all. If YOU are wrong, there will be Hell to pay and you will be paying it for all eternity with no hope of reprieve. You will live in perpetual destruction.

Again you assume much. I hope it works out that you are right.

You won't even get the opportunity to speak on your behalf. You will step out into eternity without God and without hope and you will step straight into the consequences you chose to accept. You may have your day in the sun for now, but life is like a vapor; it is here today and it is gone tomorrow and you don't know when your number is up. There are thousands of people who get up every day not realizing that it is their last. That is the risk that you assume.

And you don't assume any risk, along with all the others who are confident in their truths. I actually hope there is nothing at stake, but not for my sake.

It is you that have made outlandish claims that need supported. I have provided support for my position and I have pointed you to my other paper. There is no reason to reinvent the horse. You can read that paper at your leisure.

Actually you've been making outlandish claims on my behalf.

No, that is not entirely what I said. What I said that was that the thread was not for debates. I said that challenges or questions about the paper could be started in other threads and I would entertain those questions and challenges there. I guess you missed that part.

And here I am. Where you tell me to go back to that thread.