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.
Thanks for answering me. Really. I understand what you explain, but again to the question of reconciling with other Holy books. Most if not all involve historical figures. Right? Most if not all involve what people of ancient times (or even more recently) may or may not have actually seen or witnessed that was then passed down through the ages by spoken or written word that none of us today can really know for certain actually happened. Certainly not first hand anyway.
What we do seem to know first hand today is that these sorts of miracles stopped happening about the time empirical science started to shine a brighter light on what is actually going on when sometimes we humans even today can't be so sure.
To go the necessary further step far as you are concerned anyway, please explain how you reconcile with the Book of Mormon, for example. Joseph Smith is also a historical figure. Smith also had visions; of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and an angel. If Smith in reality had these visions, then the Mormon faith is indeed founded on actual historical events, and then it is the Mormon faith that is valid. Joseph Smith was an actual historical figure who believed he saw the risen Jesus after he had been crucified. As a result he and his followers have devoted their lives to proclaiming the Book of Mormon as Gospel...
See how that works? Or doesn't from the standpoint of reconciling one faith with another? Distinguishing truth from fiction? From faith? This sort of explanation doesn't work. Does it?
IOWs, how do you reconcile with Mormons or Jews or me as I would like to reconcile with you?
I'm with you, LearnMe. I too have searched in vain for extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus and the apostles and couldn't find a single reputable thing. The only thing I know of that mentions Jesus outside the Bible is a controversial passage supposedly an interpolation by Eusebius that is attributed to Josephus circa 95 CE--about 65 years after the crucifixion. In between there isn't a single mention of Jesus or the apostles outside the Bible. This is the primary reason why I lost my Christian faith--because it could NOT be substantiated.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 07-29-2019 at 01:36 PM..
The only reconciliation is being able to separate the individual from the national, flesh from spirit, allegoric/metaphoric/symbolic from literal fact.
I believe a lot of the sacred writings were not about the historical things, I believe some historical things obviously happened, but you can’t just treat ANY sacred writings as literal physical historical facts OR myth
I agree with you in principle since I believe what has been recorded in the spiritual fossil record reveals God's influences on human thinking. It clearly reveals a template for how belief in God evolved as a meme within cultures over generations and eras. The Avatar or Savior meme is pervasive, both cross-culturally and generationally. I find that probative.
Is it primarily for fellowship, to learn, to teach others, to make your voice/opinion heard?
I think for me it can be a combination of all of these things at times.
I am a hermit with no actual friends, I stay in forums because it's pretty much my only communication with people. I think I should be insane without it, I mean, more insane than I am now, or maybe I can say that I am a different kind of sane.
I'm with you, LearnMe. I too have searched in vain for extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus and the apostles and couldn't find a single reputable thing. The only thing I know of that mentions Jesus outside the Bible is a controversial passage supposedly an interpolation by Eusebius that is attributed to Josephus circa 95 CE--about 65 years after the crucifixion. In between there isn't a single mention of Jesus or the apostles outside the Bible. This is the primary reason why I lost my Christian faith--because it could NOT be substantiated.
There doesn't have to be any extra biblical sources, what we know and can prove is that in the era of Jesus, a genius was born. Even if Jesus never lived, somebody wrote those parables, and the parables teach secrets of the law like no other person in history. Whoever wrote the NT had knowledge of secrets unknown for thousands of years and then displayed during the era in which Jesus was supposed to live in.
The NT is it's own proof, that 4000 years after Adam, a genius of the law and prophets was born to relay astounding secrets of the law and the prophets.
For instance, child birth.
No longer would it be that a woman was pregnant for 9 months to deliver a little baby, but virgins would become pregnant, and when they gave birth, they gave birth to full grown mature men, grown men being birthed by virgins that never knew their husbands in a biblical way.
This is by prophesy, that God declared a new thing in the Earth, that a woman would give birth to a fully grown, mature man, and Isaiah said,'' Who in the world has heard of such a thing?''
The only issue is whether the Bible is truthful in its claims that Jesus is who He claimed to be, and that He did literally and historically rise from the grave. The apostles believed, because they saw with their own eyes, that He did. And they were willing to go to their deaths for their beliefs because, again, they were eyewitnesses, not second or third hand believers.
I don't know if Joseph Smith claimed to have seen the risen Jesus or not. But if he did, it was a claim. You cannot compare that with the Biblical statements that Jesus appeared over a forty day period to many people, including over 500 hundred people on one occasion. The apostle Paul had been an enemy of Christians and persecuted them until his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road. There was no reason for Paul to have given up the life that he had as a Pharisee, to suffer for proclaiming the risen Jesus unless he actually believed that he did have an encounter with Jesus. Jesus' own brothers didn't believe his claims about himself before his crucifixion. But one of Jesus' brothers, James, became head of the Jerusalem church. There was a cause for that. The best explanation being that Jesus appeared to him after his crucifixion. Otherwise, why would James, a devote Jew, suddenly start proclaiming the risen Jesus?
Yes. I'd say that's ultimately the "only issue" and it's quite the issue all considered...
I think most people accept that Jesus was a historical figure, just like Mohammad, the Buddha and Joseph Smith. What all else we are called upon to believe about these historical figures is precisely where that line between the truth and much else begins. Apparently you are not interested in addressing my Nine Truths, and that's too bad, because I think doing so tends to focus the attention where it serves best in this regard. If the focus need be as you insist instead, I can only point out your criteria for establishing truth is much less demanding than mine.
I see no difference between what you say is just a "claim" by Joseph Smith, for example, as compared to what the Bible claims the apostles saw. I can perhaps understand how and why you know less about people like Joseph Smith and Mohamed and Buddha, but you really should know better about all manner of interpretation and understanding related to the Resurrection. What was actually a physical rising but more about a belief in a soul that rises, like an angel that has no physical form. Lots of choice to believe whatever one wants, even among theological scholars. You have CHOSEN to believe what you do, requiring very little in the way of what more and more people require as proof today.
How do we really know what the apostles saw for example? Any different from what these other historical figures claim they saw, with witnesses and devout followers and all the rest all the same? Do we not all know how people can believe whatever they choose? Even to the point of going to their own deaths as a result? Being persecuted as a result?
This is certainly not only the story of Jesus and his apostles. Do we not all also know the story of Jim Jones? That was nearly 1,000 people willing to go to their death for their beliefs! And that's modern verifiable history, not history going back to the days when all manner of beliefs prevailed, now generally debunked. Miracles certainly don't happen any more like back in those days anyway, but people still seem to believe whatever they wish, just like back then. Stuff people believe with all their being, but true?
You are simply picking what you want to believe and not requiring the sort of proof others like me generally require before believing anything. No different from how people choose to believe what they will about the Shroud of Turin as another example, even today...
"The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man. Some believe the image depicts Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after crucifixion. Historical and scientific evidence points to it being a medieval creation. It is first securely attested in 1390, when a local bishop wrote that the shroud was a forgery and that an unnamed artist had confessed; radiocarbon dating of a sample of the fabric is consistent with this date."
Yes. I'd say that's ultimately the "only issue" and it's quite the issue all considered...
I think most people accept that Jesus was a historical figure, just like Mohammad, the Buddha and Joseph Smith. What all else we are called upon to believe about these historical figures is precisely where that line between the truth and much else begins. Apparently you are not interested in addressing my Nine Truths, and that's too bad, because I think doing so tends to focus the attention where it serves best in this regard. If the focus need be as you insist instead, I can only point out your criteria for establishing truth is much less demanding than mine.
I see no difference between what you say is just a "claim" by Joseph Smith, for example, as compared to what the Bible claims the apostles saw. I can perhaps understand how and why you know less about people like Joseph Smith and Mohamed and Buddha, but you really should know better about all manner of interpretation and understanding related to the Resurrection. What was actually a physical rising but more about a belief in a soul that rises, like an angel that has no physical form. Lots of choice to believe whatever one wants, even among theological scholars. You have CHOSEN to believe what you do, requiring very little in the way of what more and more people require as proof today.
How do we really know what the apostles saw for example? Any different from what these other historical figures claim they saw, with witnesses and devout followers and all the rest all the same? Do we not all know how people can believe whatever they choose? Even to the point of going to their own deaths as a result? Being persecuted as a result?
This is certainly not only the story of Jesus and his apostles. Do we not all also know the story of Jim Jones? That was nearly 1,000 people willing to go to their death for their beliefs! And that's modern verifiable history, not history going back to the days when all manner of beliefs prevailed, now generally debunked. Miracles certainly don't happen any more like back in those days anyway, but people still seem to believe whatever they wish, just like back then. Stuff people believe with all their being, but true?
You are simply picking what you want to believe and not requiring the sort of proof others like me generally require before believing anything. No different from how people choose to believe what they will about the Shroud of Turin as another example, even today...
"The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud is a length of linen cloth bearing the negative image of a man. Some believe the image depicts Jesus of Nazareth and the fabric is the burial shroud in which he was wrapped after crucifixion. Historical and scientific evidence points to it being a medieval creation. It is first securely attested in 1390, when a local bishop wrote that the shroud was a forgery and that an unnamed artist had confessed; radiocarbon dating of a sample of the fabric is consistent with this date."
I in fact require evidence for what I believe and don't believe anything because I simply want it to be true. The evidence for Jesus is of the historical kind. The evidence is the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus who not only truly believed that they saw the risen Jesus, but spent the rest of their lives proclaiming the gospel message at great cost to themselves, even to in at least some cases, being martyred.
Not all Jews believed in a resurrection of the dead. Those who did believed in a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. No one, including the disciples of Jesus believed that anyone would be resurrected before the end of the age. For that reason, the disciples didn't understand Jesus when he told them repeatedly that he would be killed and rise on the third day.
When Jesus was crucified, the 11 remaining of the 12 apostles (Judas Iscariot, who had betrayed Jesus had committed suicide) fled in fear of their lives. They were not expecting to see Jesus alive again. But three days later Jesus did rise again, and appeared to them and to many others over a forty day period.
Jesus had truly died. The Roman soldier who pierced Jesus side with a spear made sure that Jesus was dead. So the swoon theory is invalid.
The disciples did not hallucinate seeing Jesus. An hallucination doesn't appear multiple times over a forty day period and have conversations with a group of people. Also, when one person has an hallucination, other people don't experience the exact same hallucination. So the hallucination theory is not valid either.
The disciples did not conspire to commit fraud by stealing the body of Jesus to make people think that Jesus had risen. They themselves did not believe that Jesus was going to rise again. Why then would they attempt to make their fellow Jews who believed in a general resurrection at the end of the age, but not during history, believe something they themselves didn't believe, and as a result endure all the suffering and even martyrdom that came their way? They would have been better off just going back to the lives they had before ever meeting Jesus. So the conspiracy theory doesn't work either.
Nor was Jesus' resurrection a legend that developed later. The stories of Jesus' resurrection were going around right from the beginning, and in the very city where he had been crucified, Scholars recognize 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to be what is called a pre-pauline creed that most scholars believe that Paul received from Peter and James when he met with them for 15 days some three years after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road.
And again, Paul had been an enemy of the Christians and had arrested them and was responsible for the deaths of many Christians. But suddenly he had a change of heart and began proclaiming the Gospel message that he had despised. He had had an encounter with the risen Jesus. And the men who were with him also experienced something. They didn't see Jesus as Paul had, but they saw a light which accompanied the vision and they heard a voice but could not understand it. So Paul's experience was not a subjective hallucination. Why would Paul give up the very promising life he had as a Pharisee unless he actually saw the risen Jesus? He would not have.
The evidence for the risen Jesus is valid. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Whether you personally can accept the evidence depends on your presuppositions and your ability to be objective. Listen to the two videos below which deal with the historical evidence if you wish. It's your choice.
I in fact require evidence for what I believe and don't believe anything because I simply want it to be true. The evidence for Jesus is of the historical kind. The evidence is the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus who not only truly believed that they saw the risen Jesus, but spent the rest of their lives proclaiming the gospel message at great cost to themselves, even to in at least some cases, being martyred.
Not all Jews believed in a resurrection of the dead. Those who did believed in a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the age. No one, including the disciples of Jesus believed that anyone would be resurrected before the end of the age. For that reason, the disciples didn't understand Jesus when he told them repeatedly that he would be killed and rise on the third day.
When Jesus was crucified, the 11 remaining of the 12 apostles (Judas Iscariot, who had betrayed Jesus had committed suicide) fled in fear of their lives. They were not expecting to see Jesus alive again. But three days later Jesus did rise again, and appeared to them and to many others over a forty day period.
Jesus had truly died. The Roman soldier who pierced Jesus side with a spear made sure that Jesus was dead. So the swoon theory is invalid.
The disciples did not hallucinate seeing Jesus. An hallucination doesn't appear multiple times over a forty day period and have conversations with a group of people. Also, when one person has an hallucination, other people don't experience the exact same hallucination. So the hallucination theory is not valid either.
The disciples did not conspire to commit fraud by stealing the body of Jesus to make people think that Jesus had risen. They themselves did not believe that Jesus was going to rise again. Why then would they attempt to make their fellow Jews who believed in a general resurrection at the end of the age, but not during history, believe something they themselves didn't believe, and as a result endure all the suffering and even martyrdom that came their way? They would have been better off just going back to the lives they had before ever meeting Jesus. So the conspiracy theory doesn't work either.
Nor was Jesus' resurrection a legend that developed later. The stories of Jesus' resurrection were going around right from the beginning, and in the very city where he had been crucified, Scholars recognize 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to be what is called a pre-pauline creed that most scholars believe that Paul received from Peter and James when he met with them for 15 days some three years after his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road.
And again, Paul had been an enemy of the Christians and had arrested them and was responsible for the deaths of many Christians. But suddenly he had a change of heart and began proclaiming the Gospel message that he had despised. He had had an encounter with the risen Jesus. And the men who were with him also experienced something. They didn't see Jesus as Paul had, but they saw a light which accompanied the vision and they heard a voice but could not understand it. So Paul's experience was not a subjective hallucination. Why would Paul give up the very promising life he had as a Pharisee unless he actually saw the risen Jesus? He would not have.
The evidence for the risen Jesus is valid. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Whether you personally can accept the evidence depends on your presuppositions and your ability to be objective. Listen to the two videos below which deal with the historical evidence if you wish. It's your choice.
You’r evidence proves what you WANT AND NEED to believe.
You need to realize that mike.
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.
