only one correct religion with the truth?

[PRmerger]

The only Roman verification is that Jesus was crucified, what happened after that is detailed very nicely by Paul. It was a spiritual event PR.

History does not record spiritual events.

Am I muddying things for you with this somehow?

.

So you don’t need Roman verification for the Resurrection.

That is a correct summary of your position? Yes?

 

[Servant19]

So you don’t need Roman verification for the Resurrection.

That is a correct summary of your position? Yes?

Just as I don’t need Roman verification that I have a soul

.

 

[Servant19]

So you don’t need Roman verification for the Resurrection.

That is a correct summary of your position? Yes?

Depends on which Resurrection you are talking about PR. The one that I believe in or the one that you believe in?

Which one?

.

 

[PRmerger]

Depends on which Resurrection you are talking about PR. The one that I believe in or the one that you believe in?

Which one?

.

The one you believe in, friend.

The one where you say that his body was glorified when it was Resurrected.

You don’t need Roman verification of this because…why?

And while we’re on the topic of verification by Roman or concurrent 3rd party document, what verification do you have of the virgin birth by any Roman manuscript?

You do believe in the virgin birth, yes?

 

[Servant19]

The one you believe in, friend.

The one where you say that his body was glorified when it was Resurrected.

You don’t need Roman verification of this because…why?

History of the physical world extends to the limits of physical things.

There is no historical verification of spiritual things. This is called Faith.

And while we’re on the topic of verification by Roman or concurrent 3rd party document, what verification do you have of the virgin birth by any Roman manuscript?

You do believe in the virgin birth, yes?

I refer you back to this post above dear sister

Not if its a simple healing done on a personal level, or he walked on water in an isolated lake, for example, or even if He floated up in the air for a while in front of the Apostles and no one else saw Him.

If its a world shaping event which is publicly displayed then yes, I expect some historical verification.

If I claimed that Baha’u’llah changed all the men in Iran into frogs for a day, you would assume that this would be witnessed by every woman in Iran and there would be several independent written records made, yes?

.

 

[Servant19]

.

Dear sister this all goes back to if you think God is a “personal God”

…

Or an “audience-seeking” God bent on removing our free will, and not willing to TEST Faith…

 

[PRmerger]

History of the physical world extends to the limits of physical things.

There is no historical verification of spiritual things. This is called Faith.

I refer you back to this post above dear sister

The Resurrection that you believe in was still a historical event. Even if it didn’t involve a physical body but rather a “glorified” one, it ought to have the same criteria because it was still an event in history.

So you can see, friend, how I would view your disregard for Roman verification of the Resurrection as being inconsistent, yes?

Same with the virgin birth. You believe in that yet there is no Roman verification for it.

It was not “spiritual”. You believe it actually occurred in Mary’s body, yes? And that Jesus was actually, flesh and blood, yes?

So why don’t you require Roman verification for this event?

Is it because you are being inconsistent, friend?

 

[Servant19]

The Resurrection that you believe in was still a historical event. Even if it didn’t involve a physical body but rather a “glorified” one, it ought to have the same criteria because it was still an event in history.

So you can see, friend, how I would view your disregard for Roman verification of the Resurrection as being inconsistent, yes?

Same with the virgin birth. You believe in that yet there is no Roman verification for it.

It was not “spiritual”. You believe it actually occurred in Mary’s body, yes? And that Jesus was actually, flesh and blood, yes?

So why don’t you require Roman verification for this event?

Is it because you are being inconsistent, friend?

Dear friend, I do not consider what happens to my father after (AFTER) death as a recordable, and historically verifiable event, or series of events. So why should I consider it a necessity for the Romans to make such records? They are unable to, beacuse it is not of this world.

That which is flesh is flesh, PR…fleshy things and things that take place within the flesh, have throughout history been “recorded”…its the scientific, empirical, evidential way.

That which is spirit is spirit. What occurs in the Kingdom is not of this world.

History is of this world.

And you are saying that the Resurrection of the dead is “of this world”…

You still seem confused dear sister…

.

 

[PRmerger]

The only Roman verification is that Jesus was crucified, what happened after that is detailed very nicely by Paul. It was a spiritual event PR.

History does not record spiritual events.

Am I muddying things for you with this somehow?

.

Well, I think, then, that I will just say, in response to your demand that the Resurrection be recorded in some Roman documents:

History does not record religious events.

So now what say you to the lack of Roman verification of the Resurrection?

 

[PRmerger]

Dear friend, I do not consider what happens to my father after (AFTER) death as a recordable, and historically verifiable event, or series of events. So why should I consider it a necessity for the Romans to make such records? They are unable to, beacuse it is not of this world.

So why do you consider it a necessity for the Romans to record a religious event about what occurred after his crucifixion?

You still seem confused dear sister…

.

Indeed, I will remain so until your position removes the cognitive dissonance it is now espousing.

I would like to see some consistency in your position.

Either you apply the criteria to your own beliefs about the Resurrection (“there needs to be some verification by Roman authorities”) and you’ll need to have some verification of a spiritual Resurrection and virgin birth…

OR

You apply the criteria to Christian beliefs and say, “Religious beliefs were not recorded in history” and thus we need no Roman verification of the bodily Resurrection and virgin birth.

Which is it?

 

[Servant19]

Well, I think, then, that I will just say, in response to your demand that the Resurrection be recorded in some Roman documents:

History does not record religious events.

So now what say you to the lack of Roman verification of the Resurrection?

Yes it does dear sister

It recorded the crucifixion of Jesus
It recorded the death of James, His brother
It recorded the death of Muhammad
It recorded the birth of the Bab, and Baha’u’llah
It recorded the death of all the Islamic Imams
It recorded the deaths of thousands of Babi and Baha’i martyrs

All of these things were recorded, and I could fill two whole pages with other religious events that were recorded in written history, by independent, objective historians/government authorities.



.

 

[Servant19]

So why do you consider it a necessity for the Romans to record a religious event about what occurred after his crucifixion?

Because you are mixing that which is flesh with that which is spirit. The Bible makes a clear demarcation, but for you it seems muddied somewhat dear sister.

Spiritual events and religious events are not the same thing. A spiritual event is personal and not publicly verifiable.

The resurrection was a spiritual event, not a religious event. It was made into a religious event for various reasons…

Indeed, I will remain so until your position removes the cognitive dissonance it is now espousing.

Sister, the dissonance is clear in the Bible. Flesh is flesh, and spirit is spirit .

I would like to see some consistency in your position.

Either you apply the criteria to your own beliefs about the Resurrection (“there needs to be some verification by Roman authorities”) and you’ll need to have some verification of a spiritual Resurrection and virgin birth…

OR

You apply the criteria to Christian beliefs and say, “Religious beliefs were not recorded in history” and thus we need no Roman verification of the bodily Resurrection and virgin birth.

Which is it?

Dear sister what is your understanding of “That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit”?

.

 

[tonyfish58]

Would this also apply to Bahais who demand proof for the miracles of Christ, such as walking on water and saints rising from their graves and roaming the streets?

Dear Friend - Baha’is have not and will never demand Proof Of miracles

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

I have no problems if one honestly says their religion is the only true religion even if it’s contrary to what I believe in. If all religions were true, why bother choose at all?

It is not that simple as God doeth as He willeth!

Progressive Revelation being the Key to your Answer

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[Jon190]

I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?

From a Christian point of view, all religions have at least some truth and wisdom in them. However, the world’s major religions make contradictory claims. For example, according to Christianity, Jesus was God, he was killed by crucifixion and he rose again. According to Islam, he wasn’t God but he was a very important prophet, he didn’t die on the cross and he didn’t rise again during his time on earth. If you don’t agree with that, and you instead believe the Christian version of events, you’re not a Muslim. If the fundamental claims of Christianity are true, then Islam is false. That’s not ‘morally wrong’, it’s just logic.

Why must a religion be a ‘lie’ if it claims to be the only truth? It doesn’t logically follow. Either it is the only truth (in which case, it’s not a lie), or it isn’t the only truth, in which case it could be a lie, or its founder/followers could be honestly misled. But again, in any case, I wouldn’t say that Christianity is the only truth. The fullest truth known to man can only be found in the Christian faith, but that doesn’t mean other religions don’t have varying degrees of truth too. In fact, it’s possible, though unlikely, that there could be another religion that doesn’t contradict Christianity at all, and that is entirely true just as Christianity is entirely true. But even then, it would lack the incarnation, the crucifixion and the resurrection, and therefore wouldn’t contain the fullness of truth that exists in Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Dear Friend - Baha’is have not and will never demand Proof Of miracles

God Bless and Regards Tony

Then your brother, Servant19, is doing something contrary to your faith, yes?

I see it as a reasonable way if it had just one non-Christian verification. Outside of Christian texts there is nothing about Jesus’ miracles and physical resurrection, nor of the several saints who were resurrected at the same time as Jesus’ resurrection. You’d think the Romans who were remarkably good record keepers would at least mention, just once, the fact that all these dead bodies had been resurrected?

Outside of any verification, I see your justification for the Divinity of Jesus as very theologically thin, and lacking depth. Jesus’ religion was so so so much more than any supernatural feats which were only witnessed by those who believed.

Please note: “Verification” is synonymous with “Give me proof”.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it does dear sister

It recorded the crucifixion of Jesus
It recorded the death of James, His brother
It recorded the death of Muhammad
It recorded the birth of the Bab, and Baha’u’llah
It recorded the death of all the Islamic Imams
It recorded the deaths of thousands of Babi and Baha’i martyrs

All of these things were recorded, and I could fill two whole pages with other religious events that were recorded in written history, by independent, objective historians/government authorities.



.

Those are not religious events, friend.

If they are, then you’ll have to include the virgin birth in that list and demand some Roman verification for that.

Why do you not require proof for the virgin birth written in some Roman document?
Why do you not require proof for the Resurrection (as you believe it) in Roman texts?

Both of those are as historically relevant as the death of Muhammad and the crucifixion of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Because you are mixing that which is flesh with that which is spirit. The Bible makes a clear demarcation, but for you it seems muddied somewhat dear sister.

If you could please give us the book, chapter and verse in our holy book that says that the virgin birth was only a spiritual event and not a physical event, that would be helpful.

And if you could please give the book, chapter and verse that states that the Resurrection was a clearly demarcated spiritual event, and not an event which involved the flesh, that would be helpful, friend.

As such, it appears as if you are simply making something up about a “clear demarcation”, as it applies to our discussion here.

Spiritual events and religious events are not the same thing. A spiritual event is personal and not publicly verifiable.

Well, that seems rather convenient to me.

Here I am asking you to apply the same criteria to your beliefs that you are demanding about Christianity: “I want verification and proof of your miracles! Roman writings that talk about it!”

But when I ask you, “Why don’t you want verification and proof of the Christian beliefs you embrace–the virgin birth, for example, or the spiritual Resurrection of Christ” you’re like, “Well, I don’t need Roman verification of these events because I just need faith for those.”

Apply your principles consistently, friend.

That’s all I’m asking right now.

Either all the miraculous events of Christianity that you reject are only spiritual events, and thus, they require no “proof”, per your paradigm.

Which means you can’t reject the Resurrection as Catholicism proclaims it occurred.

Or!

All the miraculous events that you accept are historical events and they require Roman verification.

Which means that you must reject the virgin birth, which you have already stated you believe in

Unless you have some outside verification of the virgin birth perhaps, dear friend?

 

[Servant19]

Those are not religious events, friend.

If they are, then you’ll have to include the virgin birth in that list and demand some Roman verification for that.

Why do you not require proof for the virgin birth written in some Roman document?
Why do you not require proof for the Resurrection (as you believe it) in Roman texts?

Both of those are as historically relevant as the death of Muhammad and the crucifixion of Christ.

Dear sister you are avoiding all my questions, while at the same time building a spindly web around all of the answers I give to your questions.

Please can you answer my questions dear friend?



I can quote you my previous posts (again) to answer your questions above.

If you could please give us the book, chapter and verse in our holy book that says that the virgin birth was only a spiritual event and not a physical event, that would be helpful.

I believe it was a physical event. Come on sister, is this serious??? Lol

And if you could please give the book, chapter and verse that states that the Resurrection was a clearly demarcated spiritual event, and not an event which involved the flesh, that would be helpful, friend.

1 Cor 15:43-44

.

 

[Matthew_Light]

Post #1000, are we there yet?