E
EndTimes
Guest
Yep… Your M.O. is to demand a Sign.
- Status
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
No, empirical data.Michaelangelo:
Yep… Your M.O. is to demand a Sign.
C
christismylord
Guest
No, faith is a gift from God. It is not of ourselves.
(2 Peter 1:1)
“Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”
(Ephesians 2:8)
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”
(Philippians 1:29)
“For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,”
(John 6:44)
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
And why should I hold those texts as authoritative in the matter?Michaelangelo:
No, faith is a gift from God. It is not of ourselves.
(2 Peter 1:1)
“Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”
(Ephesians 2:8)
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God”
(Philippians 1:29)
“For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,”
(John 6:44)
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
C
christismylord
Guest
Because when defined by human opinion, any definition or reasoning of a matter is subjective, because opinion differs. If there is an objective definition of faith (or anything, for that matter) there must be a source outside of human reasoning. Which must mean that there is a god. So don’t listen to any old human opinion, but those texts are God’s word so you should listen to them. This is not only my opinion, but objective Truth. You may not believe they are from God, but if the definition of faith is whatever is in the Merriam Webster dictionary, then it is subject to human opinion and reasoning and therefore is not an objectively true “thing.” There can be no Truth without God. And those documents are not any less true because human opinion disagrees, we can’t change the Truth, only decide whether or not to accept it. If there were no God, (which there is, His name is Jesus) all would be subject to human reasoning, which is not infallible or all knowing, and there would be no such thing as Truth. So because those sources are from God, they are objectively true. That is why you should believe them.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
So far, no objective support exists for the claim that those texts has a god as origin. So the claim about this being an objective truth crumbles.Michaelangelo:
Because when defined by human opinion, any definition or reasoning of a matter is subjective, because opinion differs. If there is an objective definition of faith (or anything, for that matter) there must be a source outside of human reasoning. Which must mean that there is a god. So don’t listen to any old human opinion, but those texts are God’s word so you should listen to them. This is not only my opinion, but objective Truth. You may not believe they are from God, but if the definition of faith is whatever is in the Merriam Webster dictionary, then it is subject to human opinion and reasoning and therefore is not an objectively true “thing.” There can be no Truth without God. And those documents are not any less true because human opinion disagrees, we can’t change the Truth, only decide whether or not to accept it. If there were no God, (which there is, His name is Jesus) all would be subject to human reasoning, which is not infallible or all knowing, and there would be no such thing as Truth. So because those sources are from God, they are objectively true. That is why you should believe them.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Equates to that 2000 year old demand for a Sign…
So? Nope! The only Sign that’s been given for that ancient M.O. - is the Sign of Jonah…
T
TMC
Guest
Of course, there is little reliable empirical data about what happened 2,000 years ago. If you are truly interested, I would recommend you look at how historians evaluate the written record of other historical figures. There are historians that apply the same techniques to Jesus as are applied to (for example) Caesar or Socrates. There is some very interesting material out there.
C
christismylord
Guest
They gave you the evidence when they recorded the events and miracles of Jesus in the Bible.
(John 20:31) “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
In Matthew 12:39, Jesus says, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” (Referring to Jesus’s death and resurrection)
You want proof or evidence? Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified. It’s not opinion, it is a historical fact. It happened. This proves that He is who He says He is. Therefore, His insight that He gave to the apostles is trustworthy, because He is who He says He is. So the Bible accounts are true.
As far as empirical data, in the gospels, it says the earth went dark during the latter part of the time that Jesus hung in the cross, and an earthquake occurred. In other documents by historians Thallus (AD 52) and Julias Africanus, (AD 221) (who quotes Thallus) there is recorded an darkness at this hour on this day. Also, Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria, (AD 33) writes of a “night in the sixth hour of the day,” and of a great earthquake in Bithnia, which is far away from Jerusalem. This proves that the darkness and earthquakes were valid and truly worldwide events as all of the earth responded to the death of God. There is sufficient evidence for the event of Jesus’s death having supernatural consequences. I didn’t take the time to pull from sources about His resurrection but it is true. He is God, and His Word, written by the apostles, is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and it is trustworthy.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
St. John was the last of the Evangelists so his Gospel is different in many respects from Sts. Matthew, Mark & Luke.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
True, but don’t forget the Father and the Holy Spirit!
E
EndTimes
Guest
Mirrors some Jews who would not accept Jesus’ Gospel and demand(ed) Signs in order to Believe!
Since Proof is diametrically opposed to actual Faith … God shall never give into Faithless demands
God gave to them the Sign of Jonah. They killed Him and 3 days later He was Risen from the Dead
And via the Gospel - Believers in Jesus exploded exponentially throughout the known world.
Last edited:
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Since you ignore my question, I will ignore you. Even Steven!
P
Pattylt
Guest
From reading these posts, I’m told not to ask for signs to believe in God and I need to have faith…but faith is a gift from God. My obvious conclusion is that I have not been given this gift from God since I don’t believe in God yet I can not ask for a sign either. I’m also told that God wants everyone to believe in Him…but without a sign or gift, I’m just left to assume that God doesn’t really want me! Have I missed a step?
Ps…please don’t tell me I have to want to have faith…I spent years trying that route. I still wouldn’t object to having it…I just don’t!
Ps…please don’t tell me I have to want to have faith…I spent years trying that route. I still wouldn’t object to having it…I just don’t!
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
So some are given very strong evidence while others (>99,99% of all people) will only be given the weakest possible kind of evidence? Well that seems fair… Not!
There is not sufficient reason for me to trust this anecdote.
Which generation are you referring to with this quotation? If I am the target for this quotation then the Jews in the story were not the target. But if the Jews in the story were the target, then I can’t be the target. And kindly explain if there has been any generation not being “wicked and adulterous”?
It seems like you and I have very different opinions about what a fact is. And the funny thing is that a vast majority of historians seems to disagree with you about this resurrection fact.
It is interesting that you give dates for both Thallus and Phlegon when I can’t find any such information. And there is NO support for the claim of a world wide darkness on that occasion, or anytime at all. A darkness lasting as long as claimed in the gospel would most certainly be noticed as something very unsual, and different from ordinary solar eclipses. Thus recorded in various cultures around the world.
There is also this claim about many dead rising from their graves and waling into Jerusalem when Jesus died. Yet not a single external source verifies this claim. Not even a Roman source, and they were tasked to maintain order in the city. As if the guards would not notice an empty graveyeard with the walking dead coming into the city. Furthermore, not a single Jewish family verifies that a dead realtive came back home that day. As if that would not be a story worthy to tell the grandchildren and their children.
So no, you have not provided sufficient evidence that these anecdotes are true. And the claim that a god is involved seems like a weak one too.
Thank you for you effort. I do appreciate it and do understand that you believe this is true. I used to as well until I started diggin a bit.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Yet the historical community does not verify these anecdotes as true events. Which leaves me no other choice but to ask for empirical verification. I mean just a simple thing as god preserving the original manuscripts would be a pretty good reason for me to view the stories as more credible. But nope, not even that.Michaelangelo:
Of course, there is little reliable empirical data about what happened 2,000 years ago. If you are truly interested, I would recommend you look at how historians evaluate the written record of other historical figures. There are historians that apply the same techniques to Jesus as are applied to (for example) Caesar or Socrates. There is some very interesting material out there.
C
christismylord
Guest
God has mercy on whom He desires to have mercy, and we don’t believe only those with access to a Bible and information about Jesus will be saved. Paul talks about unbelievers having a conscience and God’s laws written in their hearts. We will be judged on what we know, He does not judge babies or people living in places without access to His word because of things they can’t control.So some are given very strong evidence while others (>99,99% of all people) will only be given the weakest possible kind of evidence? Well that seems fair… Not!
I am not pointing this at you specifically, I am using it to show that Jesus condemns people who demand a sign to believe. God is outside time, things Jesus says to people are not only valid for those people 2,000 years ago. Yet that generation was especially condemned by Jesus because they failed to recognize God among them, even after many signs and miracles. Yes all generations have their wickedness, which is why we need a Savior.
I pulled it from the book The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Has some Protestant undertones but the factual evidence is untainted. Thallus originally did think it was a solar eclipse, Julias Africanus later disagrees because of the unusual nature of this darkness.
I am saying that the resurrection of Jesus is a true and unchangeable historical event. We have different opinions, but one is right and one is wrong because opinion can’t change truth. We both feel strongly about our opinions, in the end we will both know the truth.
Last edited:
C
christismylord
Guest
Yes true, Matthew 27:53 says “They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.” If someone today said they saw a dead relative appearing to them, would you believe this as a trustworthy “external source?” They may have been considered crazy
I find it odd that if there was a Jewish family’s journal that told of this that you would believe it, yet you do not believe the gospels written by apostles. 
Also, remember, it says “appearances,” not “came back home for the month.”The evidence is what it is, you gotta have faith, friend.
May I ask what you found by “digging in?” Is your doubt solely based on lack of evidence, or supported by actual conflicting evidence?
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
I think this back and forth arguing between me and others in this thread stems from miscommunication as well as different cultural settings. We are all sincere but fail to communicate our position to the other part. It is in my nature to question everything, which why I was drawn to science. Others refuse to question certain things due to various reasons. Lastly I think I put a different meaning in the word faith than what they do.
- Status