Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
King James Bible
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
I don't get the bolded part from a logical POV. That's like saying, "If you love her in your heart" and we all know love cannot be forced. One can show outward feelings of love toward a person without actually loving them "with all your heart". In the same way, one can profess to believe and even want to believe but being able to do so in one's heart is a product of conditioning over a lifetime and things like evaluating the research that says "Yea or Nay". How about saying, "Sure, I believe" without actually believing in my heart because I am incapable of doing it?
I used to believe in my heart once that God raised Jesus. I suppose I never really stopped to think about it. This was before the Internet when all the writings and research by skeptical scholars became available.
After reading what they had to say I had to admit to myself that while anything is possible, "Sure it's possible God raised Jesus" it was the lack of concrete evidence and not the words of anonymous writers 50-100 years later who weren't even there to see it, that just made it impossible for me to believe "in my heart" that Jesus actually raised bodily from the dead. "Possible, but not probable", being a deist who believes that God respects natural law and allows it to operate fully. I think it's equally probable that the disciples believed they saw Christ, but again the belief will always be a matter of faith and not any hard evidence.
So am I damned because I would acknowledge Jesus and say "Yes, it's possible God raised him, but I have to go with the evidence that indicates He did not"?
I don't get the bolded part from a logical POV. That's like saying, "If you love her in your heart" and we all know love cannot be forced. One can show outward feelings of love toward a person without actually loving them "with all your heart". In the same way, one can profess to believe and even want to believe but being able to do so in one's heart is a product of conditioning over a lifetime and things like evaluating the research that says "Yea or Nay". How about saying, "Sure, I believe" without actually believing in my heart because I am incapable of doing it?
I used to believe in my heart once that God raised Jesus. I suppose I never really stopped to think about it. This was before the Internet when all the writings and research by skeptical scholars became available.
After reading what they had to say I had to admit to myself that while anything is possible, "Sure it's possible God raised Jesus" it was the lack of concrete evidence and not the words of anonymous writers 50-100 years later who weren't even there to see it, that just made it impossible for me to believe "in my heart" that Jesus actually raised bodily from the dead. "Possible, but not probable", being a deist who believes that God respects natural law and allows it to operate fully. I think it's equally probable that the disciples believed they saw Christ, but again the belief will always be a matter of faith and not any hard evidence.
So am I damned because I would acknowledge Jesus and say "Yes, it's possible God raised him, but I have to go with the evidence that indicates He did not"?
Your assertion that there is no hard evidence as a basis for the disciples belief that they saw the risen Jesus is not valid. There has been an abundance of scholarly resurrection studies regarding the historical evidence for the resurrection. I'll post some of them. Whether you choose to read them or not is up to you.
These can be found at Gary Habermases website. Dr. Habermas is distinguished professor and chair of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg. Va., and a recognized authority on the resurrection of Jesus. Resurrection studies have been and are conducted by scholars both Christian and secular.
It would be to your benefit to seriously read and digest the information in the articles and in the video's I posted.
The Resurrection of Jesus: a Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter by Joseph W. Bergeron, M.D. and Gary R. Habermas, Ph.D. Irish Theological Quarterly
The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component
in Establishing Historicity - Southeastern Theological Review
I don't get the bolded part from a logical POV. That's like saying, "If you love her in your heart" and we all know love cannot be forced.
It is meant to distinguish between intellectual assent and "sincere" belief ... which is conceived of as rather the opposite of forced belief or feeling. The point is made that Satan believes that god raised Jesus from the dead, but doesn't take it on board so to speak, by repenting.
It is part and parcel of the anti-intellectual bent of literalist Christian dogma, because the mind gets in the way of emotion and intuition. One's mind must be disengaged to accept something by faith ... to not require substantiation or evidence before accepting an assertion requires that one be indifferent, if not hostile, to whether or not there are facts in evidence regarding what one is being asked to believe.
The irony of course (and I think this is what you're getting at) is that by affording belief "on the cheap" without a sound basis, you actually ARE forcing belief. In fact I would submit that "true" belief can't BE forced but only a pretense made of it. Because (un)belief is simply a tipping point where the preponderance of evidence for or against a thing determines the belief. This is why religious believers don't like to look at any information about their beliefs unless it supports the belief. It is why they fear doubt or uncertainty.
That is why belief in deities and the supernatural requires so much special pleading for gods and the supernatural that people use in virtually no other area of life. In the Real World we normally want documentation, evidence, signed contracts, or at least past experience from which to predict the future, before we believe in the reality of a thing. We don't trust extraordinary miraculous claims, and in fact normally regard the presence of such claims as something that REDUCES the credibility of the claimant. But somehow when it comes to something we really want to believe or that the people around us really expect us to believe, and that society has historically been credulous and deferential about, normal healthy skepticism goes right our the window.
It is meant to distinguish between intellectual assent and "sincere" belief ... which is conceived of as rather the opposite of forced belief or feeling. The point is made that Satan believes that god raised Jesus from the dead, but doesn't take it on board so to speak, by repenting.
It is part and parcel of the anti-intellectual bent of literalist Christian dogma, because the mind gets in the way of emotion and intuition. One's mind must be disengaged to accept something by faith ... to not require substantiation or evidence before accepting an assertion requires that one be indifferent, if not hostile, to whether or not there are facts in evidence regarding what one is being asked to believe.
The irony of course (and I think this is what you're getting at) is that by affording belief "on the cheap" without a sound basis, you actually ARE forcing belief. In fact I would submit that "true" belief can't BE forced but only a pretense made of it. Because (un)belief is simply a tipping point where the preponderance of evidence for or against a thing determines the belief. This is why religious believers don't like to look at any information about their beliefs unless it supports the belief. It is why they fear doubt or uncertainty.
That is why belief in deities and the supernatural requires so much special pleading for gods and the supernatural that people use in virtually no other area of life. In the Real World we normally want documentation, evidence, signed contracts, or at least past experience from which to predict the future, before we believe in the reality of a thing. We don't trust extraordinary miraculous claims, and in fact normally regard the presence of such claims as something that REDUCES the credibility of the claimant. But somehow when it comes to something we really want to believe or that the people around us really expect us to believe, and that society has historically been credulous and deferential about, normal healthy skepticism goes right our the window.
If a person wants to believe but is just the type where faith in something that cannot be proved doesn't move him/her toward belief, then isn't it God's job to move the person toward belief? If I can't believe without hard evidence that's just the way God wired me. He could have wired me to believe without requiring any proof but I'm not that kind of person, at least I was until recently because before I just took it for granted like so many Christians do.
If I told you I saw Elvis yesterday, you asked me why I believe it was Elvis and I said because it looked just like him, he was driving a pink Cadilliac, he sung Hound Dog and I recognized his voice and I gave a list of 100 credible pieces of descriptive info would you believe me? If not, why? Is my veracity in question? I am 1000% convinced it was Elvis. All 500 people who witnessed what I witnessed said the same thing. How do we separate what's real from what's fantasy that is truly believed in faith?
Mike gave me a list of references above, but the problem is they are all by biased Christian theologians. Where can I find some material by unbiased middle-of-the-road non-believers who are not hardened by skepticism but open to the possibility it could be true? It's all either by nuts like Lane Craig or over zealous atheists like Kenneth Humphries, nothing in between.
For everyone's info, Mike Licona was recently fired by the university he taught at because he dared to just suggest that maybe the resurrection of the zombie saints in Matthew may have been hyperbole used by the writer of Matthew to pump up the story. He was fired for that?????? Are Christians that afraid that a slight questioning of an unbelievable story would stir up all kinds of wrath against an otherwise respected Christian leader/believer? Here is where my faith would get very shaky. I'm nervous that the Christian apple cart gets so easily overturned, like it's on only one leg. Surely Christianity can survive without the story of 1000 year old bodies coming out of their graves and appearing to thousands of people in Jerusalem.
PS In Mike's post above he is presenting "irrefutable" proof Christ rose from the dead. This is direct contradiction with Hebrews which says that "faith is the substance of thing believed without irrefutable proof (evidence not seen) In those videos we are seeing the proof, according to Mike. This defeats the whole purpose of having faith by the Bible's definition. God is pleased when we do exactly the opposite of what Mike is advising and accept Jesus' resurrection on the basis of faith in the unseen and without any evidence to back it up if I understand Paul's stance on faith correctly.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 01-09-2016 at 11:42 PM..
Christians must believe in our hearts God raised Jesus from the dead because this is the center point of the gospel which is the foundation of Christianity , as If Christians take that point away and water down the gospel then Christians will be no different then the world with it hopelessness , or other religions which fail to offer the proof of hope ......... See Jesus give to His converts the new creation of the born again experience were God abides on the children of God and then the baptism of Holy Spirit with power of God , which God promised to Jesus from the Scriptures which proves the cross of Christ that Jesus was sacrificed ...... other wise these miracles on the children of God would not be here today .........................., so if God did not raise Jesus as some boldly say then the proof that the Spirit of God abides on many Christians is a lie , and we cannot bother to examine the Christians of any truth of this Spirit of God , which is a dishonor
If a person wants to believe but is just the type where faith in something that cannot be proved doesn't move him/her toward belief, then isn't it God's job to move the person toward belief? If I can't believe without hard evidence that's just the way God wired me. He could have wired me to believe without requiring any proof but I'm not that kind of person, at least I was until recently because before I just took it for granted like so many Christians do.
If I told you I saw Elvis yesterday, you asked me why I believe it was Elvis and I said because it looked just like him, he was driving a pink Cadilliac, he sung Hound Dog and I recognized his voice and I gave a list of 100 credible pieces of descriptive info would you believe me? If not, why? Is my veracity in question? I am 1000% convinced it was Elvis. All 500 people who witnessed what I witnessed said the same thing. How do we separate what's real from what's fantasy that is truly believed in faith?
Mike gave me a list of references above, but the problem is they are all by biased Christian theologians. Where can I find some material by unbiased middle-of-the-road non-believers who are not hardened by skepticism but open to the possibility it could be true? It's all either by nuts like Lane Craig or over zealous atheists like Kenneth Humphries, nothing in between.
For everyone's info, Mike Licona was recently fired by the university he taught at because he dared to just suggest that maybe the resurrection of the zombie saints in Matthew may have been hyperbole used by the writer of Matthew to pump up the story. He was fired for that?????? Are Christians that afraid that a slight questioning of an unbelievable story would stir up all kinds of wrath against an otherwise respected Christian leader/believer? Here is where my faith would get very shaky. I'm nervous that the Christian apple cart gets so easily overturned, like it's on only one leg. Surely Christianity can survive without the story of 1000 year old bodies coming out of their graves and appearing to thousands of people in Jerusalem.
PS In Mike's post above he is presenting "irrefutable" proof Christ rose from the dead. This is direct contradiction with Hebrews which says that "faith is the substance of thing believed without irrefutable proof (evidence not seen) In those videos we are seeing the proof, according to Mike. This defeats the whole purpose of having faith by the Bible's definition. God is pleased when we do exactly the opposite of what Mike is advising and accept Jesus' resurrection on the basis of faith in the unseen and without any evidence to back it up if I understand Paul's stance on faith correctly.
Historians speak in terms of evidence. Not 'Irrefutable' proof.
The Christian faith does not exist in a vacuum but is based on historical events, primary of which is the raising of Jesus from the dead. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection can be examined. You complained that there was no hard evidence. And now having been given the opportunity to see that there is indeed historical evidence, you choose to ignore it. You will listen to any source on the internet which attempts to discredit the Christian faith, but you will not listen to scholars who have studied the historical evidence for the resurrection on the pretense that it violates faith.
You complain about Christian theologians being biased. Yet everyone is biased to some extent. Everyone has a view. That includes skeptics. The issue then is to examine if what a person says has merit.
You are unwilling to either read the material I provided, or listen to the lectures on the videos, none of which include lectures by William Lane Craig who you unjustly refer to as a 'nut.' You would rather whine and make excuses for not believing. Then just go on whining. I'll not waste another second on you and I'll make no further replies to you.
I don't get the bolded part from a logical POV. That's like saying, "If you love her in your heart" and we all know love cannot be forced. One can show outward feelings of love toward a person without actually loving them "with all your heart". In the same way, one can profess to believe and even want to believe but being able to do so in one's heart is a product of conditioning over a lifetime and things like evaluating the research that says "Yea or Nay". How about saying, "Sure, I believe" without actually believing in my heart because I am incapable of doing it?
I used to believe in my heart once that God raised Jesus. I suppose I never really stopped to think about it. This was before the Internet when all the writings and research by skeptical scholars became available.
After reading what they had to say I had to admit to myself that while anything is possible, "Sure it's possible God raised Jesus" it was the lack of concrete evidence and not the words of anonymous writers 50-100 years later who weren't even there to see it, that just made it impossible for me to believe "in my heart" that Jesus actually raised bodily from the dead. "Possible, but not probable", being a deist who believes that God respects natural law and allows it to operate fully. I think it's equally probable that the disciples believed they saw Christ, but again the belief will always be a matter of faith and not any hard evidence.
So am I damned because I would acknowledge Jesus and say "Yes, it's possible God raised him, but I have to go with the evidence that indicates He did not"?
Because it takes more than simple mental knowledge--it takes trust in Christ. The devil believes in Jesus..but he doesn't trust him. Likewise, you can believe in God, or think it might be possible...but that's not the same as trust.
My take...
Jesus came to wake us up to Reality...in a sense you could call that ' to save us' from
our idiot delusions that this place is real...oh really? Jesus: Here, lemme show you something...Peter? Join me walking on water.
Is this place what you thought it was? No. Is there something going on you
were not aware of? Yes, and I'm here to show you...thus, save you.
So, if a person believes in a different set of Laws...Spiritual Laws, believes in the
Unseen World of the non-physical...that all is possible...that Jesus was able to actually
raise from the 'dead'...you are saved.
Saved from the limited egoic Thought System that keeps people in this Dream World.
Bingo! You are free from delusion. Oh, I mean saved from delusion.
Historians speak in terms of evidence. Not 'Irrefutable' proof.
The Christian faith does not exist in a vacuum but is based on historical events, primary of which is the raising of Jesus from the dead. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection can be examined. You complained that there was no hard evidence. And now having been given the opportunity to see that there is indeed historical evidence, you choose to ignore it. You will listen to any source on the internet which attempts to discredit the Christian faith, but you will not listen to scholars who have studied the historical evidence for the resurrection on the pretense that it violates faith.
You complain about Christian theologians being biased. Yet everyone is biased to some extent. Everyone has a view. That includes skeptics. The issue then is to examine if what a person says has merit.
You are unwilling to either read the material I provided, or listen to the lectures on the videos, none of which include lectures by William Lane Craig who you unjustly refer to as a 'nut.' You would rather whine and make excuses for not believing. Then just go on whining. I'll not waste another second on you and I'll make no further replies to you.
You didn't consider that I'd already watched/read those videos, which I have. I've watched every debate Lane Craig has done on YouTube. Does the phrase, "You'll recall that in my opening remarks I said that...." ring a bell? He uses that every debate he does. And anyone who would say that God was doing the Canaanite children a service by having them slaughtered IS a nutcase. And then he backtracked because his comment raised so much ire by saying "Maybe it wasn't a case of God doing them a favor. What Exodus was saying was that the women and children were given every chance to flee so they didn't have to be slaughtered. Therefore it's their faults they did get slaughtered, not God's."
The stuff you're referring me to is Christian propaganda. If you're going to refer me to something refer me to something unbiased, not stuff where I'm not being proselytized to. Or don't.
There is no historic evidence with regards to Jesus' resurrection. Watch the Habermas/Humphries debate. All "evidence" comes from the gospels, themselves a subject of considerable historic dispute. The minute you claim "ALL the apostles went on to be martyred for their faith" as you and other apologists have done publically when we haven't a single historical reference to such a thing, you open yourself up to charges of biased blather which immediately shoots your credibility, which I know you don't care about. You're a man on a mission and, like Paul, scruples do not exist if the important thing is to get the message out there at any cost, even veracity.
What I am looking for is stuff, NOT from Robert Price, Richard Carrier and the New Atheists who I consider biased---or from Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, and other similar Christian zealots who I also consider biased. I'm looking for secular Biblical historians of no persuasion who can look at the evidence without any particular leaning and report what their conclusions are. This will help me to determine why exactly a person cannot say, "Yes I believe if that's what God wants of me" without needing the criteria of having to believe it deep down in their heart in order to be saved, because I don't think such a thing is possible for any rational human unless they do it strictly on faith as Hebrews defines faith---"belief lacking evidence".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Because it takes more than simple mental knowledge--it takes trust in Christ. The devil believes in Jesus..but he doesn't trust him. Likewise, you can believe in God, or think it might be possible...but that's not the same as trust.
If I and millions of others had as much face-to-face contact with Jesus as satan has had I could believe without the slightest hesitancy.
Because it takes more than simple mental knowledge--it takes trust in Christ. The devil believes in Jesus..but he doesn't trust him. Likewise, you can believe in God, or think it might be possible...but that's not the same as trust.
And you can't trust a dead man, Thrill, so if Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, making him your Lord would be rather pointless.
So, since you and I are not persuaded by the "evidence" that the Jesus of the bible even existed, much less was raised and should be our Lord, then according to some Christians, yes, we are damned.
I suppose we could look at the passage in a different, and completely non-literal, way.
Being afraid of God/gods is a sort of "death", and it seems to have been a very common belief (perhaps it still is). Coming to trust that God was his/our Father, allowed Jesus to be raised out of that death.
Making "Jesus" Lord, need not mean worshiping a man, then. It could simply mean that if the way in which Jesus (the myth or the man, either way) portrayed the nature/spirit of God is true, it would allow one to stop fearing God and start trusting that a God who is "our Father" and who IS love would not be against us or angry with us. Allowing that confidence to sink in would make that spirit of Love one's "Lord" (rule one's life) and dispel the fear, raising us out of that death as well. If the spirit of Love rules us, then we are "saved": free of the felt need to hide from an angry god, and free to love.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are Christians that afraid that a slight questioning of an unbelievable story would stir up all kinds of wrath against an otherwise respected Christian leader/believer? Here is where my faith would get very shaky. I'm nervous that the Christian apple cart gets so easily overturned, like it's on only one leg. Surely Christianity can survive without the story of 1000 year old bodies coming out of their graves and appearing to thousands of people in Jerusalem.
