How do you know

[Izraphel]

Okay guys, here’s one for you:

In the bible it states that after Jesus had already died on the cross a soldier wounded his body with a spear and blood came out.

but blood does not flow out of a dead body

once the heart stops beating, it’s almost impossible to get only a few drops of blood out of the human body even if you cut it to little peaces. you have to suck it out.

that would imply that Jesus was not dead when he was taken down from the cross and that means that he didn’t have to resurrect, he simply lived for some time after the crusifiction.

now I know that this will not shatter your faith or anything and I know that this is not enough to convince you that Jesus was not son of God but I just wanted to point out a little gap in the story.

and let me add up to the discussion:

you say that he fulfilled the prophecies, I say people who wrote the bible could have written anything on the matter.

you say he performed miracles, I say so what. even if he did (and some of them might be exagerated by the authors), it doesn’t prove that he was son of god, only that he could do strange things. i know a man who does ‘‘miracolous’’ things when it comes to healing people. he has healed and saved thousands of people who were about to die according to the doctors.

you say his teachings and messages were wonderful, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that he was God.

 

[discipleofJesus]

"Beyond these injuries, Jesus’ side was pierced with a spear. From this wound flowed a mixture of blood and water (John 19:34), a proof that physical death had occurred. This detail alone, and its confirmation by modern medical experts, strongly validates the claim that this narrative is an eyewitness account. An article in the *Journal of the American Medical Association * (21 March 1986) concluded:

Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge. [1463]"

Excerpted from ‘The Death of Christ’ by Dr. Norman Geisler (from Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker, 1999)
johnankerberg.com/Articles/theological-dictionary/TD0600W3.htm

 

[discipleofJesus]

patg:

Sorry, but I believe you are inaccurate. Others think so too, as indicated in the following comments from bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm
The Case Against 'The Case for Christ’
A study in Christian apologetics
A review and analysis of The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel, by Scott Bidstrup

Critique of Scott Bidstrup on The Case for Christ
by James Patrick Holding
tektonics.org/af/bidstrup02.html

 

[Marquette]

Izraphel:

Okay guys, here’s one for you:and let me add up to the discussion:

you say that he fulfilled the prophecies, I say people who wrote the bible could have written anything on the matter.

you say he performed miracles, I say so what. even if he did (and some of them might be exagerated by the authors), it doesn’t prove that he was son of god, only that he could do strange things. i know a man who does ‘‘miracolous’’ things when it comes to healing people. he has healed and saved thousands of people who were about to die according to the doctors.

you say his teachings and messages were wonderful, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that he was God.

1 John 2:18, 22 "Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, from this we know that it is the last hour. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ. THIS is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son."

 

[discipleofJesus]

What does “the Son of God” mean? Read the following

Lactantius (260-340 A.D.), a Christian apologist of the fourth century wrote

“He who hears the Son of God mentioned ought not to conceive in his mind so great impiety as to think that God begat Him by marriage and union with a woman…
In what manner, then, did He beget Him? First of all, divine operations cannot be known or declared by any one; but nevertheless the sacred writings teach us, in which it is laid down that this Son of God is the speech, or even the reason of God…
With good reason, therefore, is He called the Speech and the Word of God, because God, by a certain incomprehensible energy and power of His majesty, enclosed the vocal spirit proceeding from His mouth, which he had not conceived in the womb, but in His mind…
**John also thus taught: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.”**But the Greeks speak of Him as the Logos, more befittingly than we do as the word, or speech: for Logos signifies both speech and reason, inasmuch as He is both the voice and the wisdom of God…”
( Lactantius (260-340 A.D.), Divine Institutes, Book IV newadvent.org/fathers/07014.htm )

"V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY

…

**D. The Son **

The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person. This they understand in the sense of “concept” (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Gregory Nazianzen, “Orat. xxix”, p. 8, Cyril of Jerusalem, “Cat.”, xi, 19; John Damascene, “Fid. orth.”, I, viii). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene, “Fid.orth.”, I, viii). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental thought; but of the uttered word (“Dion. Alex.”; Athanasius, ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, “De Trin.”, II). They did not see in the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of Nyssa, “C. Eunom.”, IV; Gregory Nazianzen, “Orat. xxx”, p. 20; Basil, “Hom. xvi”; Cyril of Alexandria, “Thesaurus assert.”, vi).

We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St. John Damascene (Origen apud Athan., “De decr. Nic.”, p. 27; Athanasius, “Con. Arianos”, I, p. 19; Cyril of Alexandria, “Thesaurus”; John Damascene, “Fid.orth.”, I, xii). It is based on the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No actlon, transient or immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. God, as the supreme perfection, is from all eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this philosophy as their bssis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power – a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink."
( Excerpted from “CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity” newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm )

cont…

 

[discipleofJesus]

…

"VI. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN LATIN THEOLOGY

…

**A. The Son **

Among the terms empIoyed in Scripture to designate the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3).

Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to the Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth (cf. Suarez, “De Trin.”, I, v, p. 4; Petav., VI, i, 7; Franzelin, “De Trin.”, Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with revealed truth."
( Excerpted from “CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity” newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm )

 

[patg]

Critique of Scott Bidstrup on The Case for Christ
by James Patrick Holding

Ok, it’s a draw - we’ve each found writings we like which refute the other’s source(s). The bottom line is that none of the originals or critiquers can actually prove anything about Jesus’ divinity - it is, and always will be, a matter of faith (at least as long as we are in the physical universe).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Only God can raise the dead. Jesus raised the dead, Jesus gave sight to the blind, healed the sick, the sea and the wind(the elements and nature) obeyed his word, the demons recognized Jesus as the Son of God who is to come and Obeyed his word, Only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins, Jesus died and was buried, rose from the dead and still lives. God desired to live in the hearts and mind of men, this is accomplished through Jesus, you believe (that Jesus is God) because you have seen, most blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. Do not harden your heart, or you will be fulfilling a prophecy, believe in Jesus and you will be set free.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

patg:

Ok, it’s a draw - we’ve each found writings we like which refute the other’s source(s). The bottom line is that none of the originals or critiquers can actually prove anything about Jesus’ divinity - it is, and always will be, a matter of faith (at least as long as we are in the physical universe).

Hey discipleofJesus nice, thanks.

and patg for closure what you say is fine with me. It will always be a matter of Faith, God doesnt want it any other way or He would have done things differently.

Gabriel - amen!

 

[discipleofJesus]

patg:

Ok, it’s a draw - we’ve each found writings we like which refute the other’s source(s). The bottom line is that none of the originals or critiquers can actually prove anything about Jesus’ divinity - it is, and always will be, a matter of faith (at least as long as we are in the physical universe).

No it is a not a draw.

The following is excerpted from
“THE NEED FOR DEFENDING THE FAITH
by Norman L. Geisler
Founder of
Southern Evangelical Seminary”
Copyright © 1996 by Norman L. Geisler
ses.edu/journal/needforapologetics.htm

"7. Only the Holy Spirit Can Bring Someone to Christ

The Bible says that salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. He alone can convict, convince, and convert (John 16:8; Eph. 2:1; Titus 3:5-7). This is certainly true, and no orthodox Christian denies this. However, two things must be kept in mind.

First, the Bible does not teach that the Holy Spirit will always do this apart from reason and evidence. It is not either the Holy Spirit or Reason. Rather, it is the reasonably Holy Spirit using good reason to reach rational people.

Second, apologists do not believe that apologetics saves anyone. It only provides evidence in the light of which people can make rational decisions. It only provides evidence that Christianity is true. One must still place his faith in Christ in order to be saved. Apologetics only leads the “horse” to the water. Only the Holy Spirit can make him drink.

…

4. You Can’t Prove God or Christianity by Reason

According to this objection, the existence of God cannot be proven by human reason. The answer depends on what is meant by “prove.”

First, if “prove” means to demonstrate with mathematical certainty, then most theists would agree that God’s existence cannot be proven. The reason for this is because mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract, and the existence of God (or anything else) is a matter of concrete, real existence.

Mathematical certainty is based on certain axioms or postulates that must be assumed in order to get a necessary conclusion. But if God’s existence must be assumed in order to be proven, then the conclusion that God exists is only based on the assumption that He exists, in which case it is not really a proof at all.

Mathematical certainty is deductive in nature. It argues from given premises. But one cannot validly conclude what is not already implied in the premise(s). In this case one would have to assume God exists in the premise in order to validly infer this in the conclusion. But this begs the question.

Second, if by “prove,” however, we mean “give adequate evidence for” or “provide good reasons for,” then it would seem to follow that one can prove the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Indeed, many apologists have offered such proofs and people have become Christians after reading their writings (see “Sources” below).

5. No One is Persuaded of Religious Truths by Reason
According to this argument, no one is ever persuaded by reason to accept a religious truth by reason. Psychological, personal, and subjective factors prompt religious decisions, not rational arguments. But this objection is patently false for many reasons.

First of all, who ever became a believer because he thought it was irrational and absurd to do so. Certainly, the vast majority of people who believe in God or accept Christ do so because they think it is reasonable to do so.

Second, this objections confuses two kinds of belief: belief in and belief that. Certainly, religious belief in God and in Christ is not based on evidence and reason. But neither is it done without them. Every rational person looks to see if there is evidence that the elevator has a floor before he steps in it. Likewise, all rational people want evidence that an airplane can fly before they get in it. So belief that is prior to belief in. Apologetics deals with the former. It provides evidence that God exists, that Christ is the Son of God, and that the Bible is the Word of God. A religious decision is a step of faith in the light of the evidence, not a leap of faith in the dark–in the absence of evidence."

If you want to read the whole article, click on the link above. I highly recommend that Christians on this forum read the whole article.

 

[patg]

discipleofJesus:

No it is a not a draw.

I agree - I feel even better about my position after this discussion.

 

[tom4JC]

Hadith:

I see that many discussions have broken down into angry discussion. Let me use new tactic.

How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God? Because he said so is about as valid as J. Smith’s saying he was told to become Mormon.

So I ask for you to explain to me how I can know this Jesus was the Son of God.

For one man to be able to fulfill Every prophecy written in the Old Testament about him (i.e. born of a virgin, born of a virgin in Bethlehem, die on a cross, rise from the dead after 3 days, and many others) the chances are equivelent to 1 in 10 to the 27th power.

Look, to say 1 in 10 men are bald you will need 10 men.
To say 1 in 10 bald men are left handed you now need 100 men.
To say 1 in 10 left handed bald men are married, you need 1000 men.
To say 1 in 10 left handed, bald, married men wear glasses you need 10,000 men.
Following this?

So now, replace bald, left handed, etc. with born of a virgin, born of a virgin ‘in Bethlehem’, to be betrayed by a friend, to die on a cross, to die on a cross ‘with no bones broken’, to be buried in a rich man’s tomb, to rise from the dead after 3 days. Just to fulfill those prophecies alone there is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance.

There is so much more that you can know. If you don’t believe me or anyone else in this forum (and you shouldn’t), ask Him. Ask Jesus yourself. He will hear you. He will answer you.

 

[amgid]

RobinHood:

Now, I challenge you to find another man who’s arrival was proclaimed by another and started a movement in Judea, performed miracles, who’s hands and feet were pierced, where others were casting lots for his clothing while being crucified. All because He was rejected by Jews and betrayed by a friend.

God Bless

Pretty much everything you have written the Moslems already believe in. They believe that Jesus was a real historical figure; they believe that He was a prophet; they believe that He possessed supernatural powers and performed miracles; they believe that His ministry was foretold by former prophets; and they even believe in His virgin birth. So you are a bit wasting your time trying to convince them of all of that! The parts that they don’t believe in are:

(1) That He was the Son of God, or was divine. The Koran says that it is beneath the dignity of God that He should choose for Himself sons or daughters. It also says that God “is not begotten, and does not beget”. They also believe that God is ONE in the most absolutely logical sense of the term; therefore the whole idea of a “Trinity” is abhorrent to them.

(2) That He was actually put to death. They teach that the Jews hanged by mistake one of their own rabbis, and that Jesus was taken to heaven without tasting death.
If you want to convince a Moslem, you have to concentrate on these, rather than on the parts that they already believe in anyhow.

amgid