K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
Is it specifically rising from the dead, or can we broaden it to any grand scale miracle of similarly awe and majesty?
Kam
- Status
Kam
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
He not only rose from the dead but taught His disciples that was why He was sent. To die for the salvation of men.
The Old Testament already wrote that this would happen many centuries in advance.
The Old Testament already wrote that this would happen many centuries in advance.
P
pablope
Guest
That’s all well and good, my friend. Would you then deny the dreams and visions of millions of other people who may have experienced Buddha, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah in a similar vein?
No…only that we do not know who they experienced. Was it really from God, or some other entity aside from God?
We do know that God is constant and does not change…so we know that He would not reveal anything contrary to what has been revealed.
Apply this verse to test and know what if from God and what is not:
from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. These are serious questions.
It’s certainly true that critical scholarship on the origins of Christianity is more developed than on other religions–for instance, it appears that there’s a fairly recent book by a scholar named Schoppen arguing for a highly skeptical approach to early Buddhist literary texts, which is a fairly new argument in scholarship on Buddhism but a well-established approach in secular scholarship with regard to the Bible. Some of that is just because Western scholarship has naturally focused on our own sacred traditions longer and harder than on others, and some of it probably is (as you suggest) due to bias on the part of post-Christian scholars against the tradition in which their culture is steeped.
But in fact scholars take this approach across the board, even if as I said they’ve developed it a bit further in the case of Christianity. All scholars would agree that you can’t simply assume that Muhammad or Buddha said or did something because sacred texts say they did.
If a Muslim said, “You must believe in Muhammad’s revelation because it came through an angel” (which I think in fact Muslims generally would not say), I could reasonably point out that I don’t know for sure that the story of Muhammad encountering some kind of supernatural being is true in the first place (leaving aside the more common Christian doubts as to what kind of being he encountered).
The fact that the earliest Christians almost certainly believed that Jesus actually rose from the dead is indeed a strong argument that the thing really happened. But it’s not totally foolproof–people can persuade themselves of the weirdest things with the utmost sincerity. Also, we don’t actually have proof beyond reasonable doubt that any of the original witnesses died for their faith. Acts (whose historicity many scholars doubt, putting it as late as the early second century) says that James the son of Zebedee did, and John 21 (backed up by very early extra-scriptural tradition) says that Peter would/did. The evidence for the death of the “other” James is perhaps stronger, because it’s in Josephus as well–but one could question whether he was in fact a witness of the resurrection (in Josephus’ account it’s not clear that he was a Christian at all, if I remember rightly). The other stories about the martyrdoms of the apostles are more dubious. In short, I think this is a valid point, but it’s not a knock-down proof. I think it’s extremely implausible that they were engaged in some kind of conscious fraud, but that’s not generally the most likely hypothesis to explain the founding of any religion. (It’s possible in the case of Joseph Smith, and perhaps–though much less likely–also in the case of Muhammad. But it isn’t the first conclusion I’d jump to.)
R
rinnie
Guest
No he did not have to die and come back again for me to believe.’
But for some reason this is my GRACE week. Somehow lately everyhing comes down to the grace of God.
But the reason I believe Jesus being God over another other divine figure is because God knew how we are wired. I mean he wired us.
In the beg.there was Adam and Eve, then the O.T. Father Abraham. But even since the beginning of the world when God created it, he showed us how he would send us a Savior.
When Adam and Eve sinned it was then God told us he would send us someone.
It was not truly until Jesus came that we came to understand that he was God made Man. If you read the word of God and the O.T. you can see now there were many hints.
But the true reason I believe is I think God gave me the grace to accept and believe. Anyone can have it all they have to do is ask.
And the more you ask and want to know the more you receive.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Just curious. How did you arrive at such a conclusion with no doubt in your mind? And if you “totally believe Him” then why are you not Christian? I mean do you believe Him when he says “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.”?
A
Adonia
Guest
If one finds it necessary to do that. ( through the reason and rational exploration process). I prefer to accept my faith as Jesus says to do - like a little child. I accept all that it claims and strive to live as it says we should. My mind is satisfied as to the reasons why we are on earth and by doing that I am now free to concentrate on surviving the here and now.Hi Adonia
I guess you are correct in that there is a point after which you have to have faith. However, telling people to have faith that gravity does NOT exist, only for them to believe you and jump off a building can have grave outcomes, I am sure you will agree?
Assessing the current realities of life is critical, through reason and rational exploration, as already outlined by my dear friend, IbnFiktur. This will close the gap more and more between faith and certitude. Isn’t that a good approach to faith?
I have been a Baha’i for 23 years
God bless
Kam
E
EviPolevhia
Guest
No, what I said was quite sound. From the point of view of a Catholic, non-Catholics follow false teachings. So if you took the point of view of a non-Christian, Christian’s follow a false teaching. That would make Christianity a false religion if you believed differently then them. Like a Muslim. They view modern Christians as following false teachings. I am not saying that one religion is true and another is false, I am saying the perspective one comes from is the thing that informs that.Hello EviPolevhia
By your very same logic then, what do you make of the teachings of Christ that differ from the important teachings of Moses? Namely, the changing of the Sabbath Day, and the disagreements He had with the Pharisees over divorce, and putting away one’s wife (e.g Matt 19:1-10)
By your own very logic, Christianity is a false religion. God forbid! This is assuredly false logic!
So yes, by my logic Christianity would be a false religion if you approached it from a viewpoint that it is wrong.
This is not false logic, thank you though.I know little to nothing of the Baha’i Faith, and what I do know of Catholicism would probably be called wrong by most people here. So I must beg your forgiveness but I cannot answer the question you asked. You would be better off to ask a Catholic that.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
Much of written history is accepted with a less critical approach than critics afford to Christianity. Think about how much weight is assigned to primary sources. If you are going to call the first Christians liars, you can also accuse many other people of being liars. Yet many people won’t do that unless they have other reasons to want to not accept history, like believing in conspiracy theories.
I meant the Talmud. It would have been easier for the Jews to claim that Jesus did not exist or do any miracles than to accept it.
I meant that it was nonsense at the time. God in human form would have been idiotic and a God who died such a horrible death would have been unthinkable. There is no way they would be willing to embrace martyrdom unless they had full faith. The only way to have that kind of faith given the circumstances would be to witness miracles.
I meant the Talmud. It would have been easier for the Jews to claim that Jesus did not exist or do any miracles than to accept it.
I meant that it was nonsense at the time. God in human form would have been idiotic and a God who died such a horrible death would have been unthinkable. There is no way they would be willing to embrace martyrdom unless they had full faith. The only way to have that kind of faith given the circumstances would be to witness miracles.
K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
Well, I can think of other “grand” miracles that have occured in religious history.???
Such as?
All I want to know is, would the list we are compiling necessitate the inclusion of a “grand” miracle to be performed in order to distinguish the individual from being a true prophet from a false prophet?
Kam
K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
E
EviPolevhia
Guest
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
Hi there RinnieNo he did not have to die and come back again for me to believe.’
But for some reason this is my GRACE week. Somehow lately everyhing comes down to the grace of God.
But the reason I believe Jesus being God over another other divine figure is because God knew how we are wired. I mean he wired us.
In the beg.there was Adam and Eve, then the O.T. Father Abraham. But even since the beginning of the world when God created it, he showed us how he would send us a Savior.
When Adam and Eve sinned it was then God told us he would send us someone.
It was not truly until Jesus came that we came to understand that he was God made Man. If you read the word of God and the O.T. you can see now there were many hints.
But the true reason I believe is I think God gave me the grace to accept and believe. Anyone can have it all they have to do is ask.
And the more you ask and want to know the more you receive.
So do you think the grace of God is reserved for Catholics only…
…or does everyone receive the grace of God, but Catholics receive it in its “fullness”?
God bless
Kam
K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
I am not a Christian beacuse modern day Christianity is not a shadow of what it was during Jesus’ time.
Besides, if I was to become Christian, exactly which denomination of Christianity should I join? Protestant? Catholic?
I do believe Him when He says “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.”
…however I also believe Him when He says "And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
…the “end of the age” has come and gone, so it is still Jesus with you, but His name has changed to a “new name” according to Revelation 3:12 “Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.”
God bless
Kam
K
Kam_Fanaian
Guest
Hi my friend,
I hope this post was not addressed at me? I have no detailed knowledge of Church history or the early Church Fathers, so I would always try to refrain from judging the history of post-crucifixion Christianity and its historical validity
I do take the history, on faith, that it is true, and that the Bible IS the Word of God
Kam
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
- Status