Weird [Art] Aroused 'Jesus' statue outrage

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
???

Wow, esb, you need to truly wait and think a minute before you just post whatever it is you are feeling or thinking. I’m not one to give negative rep, and in fact I don’t plan on giving any, however, your general lack of concern for offense is getting a little annoying. I don’t mean any offense personally to you, but you take things way out of context and just boldly run with it. I think you fail to see the very hypocrisy of your own words. You have clumped together Christians and other groups with a hugely negative connotation and stereotype in many other post.

I am a Christian; however I would take offense if you were referring to Arabs, Jews, blacks, or any other group in which such generalizations were being tossed. I’ll save you the embarrassment of dissecting everything you have said here in this thread, however please just think a little before blasting out with such offensive and generalized claims, especially when you place no effort in correlating them to the subject.

Back on topic; I think that what we are dealing with here is just a piece of perverse artwork. One could argue otherwise and I don’t mean so as an insult to the creator, just that essentially this specific work is a perversion. I love art, art history, and I study the arts, however I would not want that hanging in my house or to see it in a museum, and I can’t think of many people that would. I think that such pieces as this are propagated through the media to create the desired conflicts that can be witnessed here. Obviously such a piece is going to offend some, is that so hard to understand?

> Mizuio Ken...Lol. :D

EDIT======I would like to thank esb, and others who have now edited their post to be more appropriate.
 

Pineapple

Just Smile.
Reaction score
574
This whole thing from an Athiests view point.

Who cares? They made jesus 'happy'. I am sure jesus was 'happy' once in a while. It is the same as someone doing something such as making a statue of Harry Potter 'happy'.

How is that similar? There is lots of peopel far to obsessed with harry potter, bordering religion. Now, thwey wouldn't go bitching off about it.
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
325
Yeah you're right, hard to answer to hypocrisy without more hypocrisies. I apologize (again) if I offended anyone...

But that's what happens when people have tried to force a religion into you, then when you grow up and try to change, it's hard. I didn't mean to stereotype everyone, and all the time I was talking about the people I've met, and seen (Internet, news, t.v., etc.).
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
Yeah you're right, hard to answer to hypocrisy without more hypocrisies.

But that's what happens when people have tried to force a religion into you, then when you grow up and try to change, it's hard. I didn't mean to stereotype everyone, and all the time I was talking about the people I've met, and seen (Internet, news, t.v., etc.).
I'm really sorry to hear that esb; that most those associated to a higher belief have been a let down to you, or what's more a tyrant concerning their own convictions. I would have to say however that we are all hypocrites to varying degrees. I have trouble believing that all the people you've met in whom ascribe to religion and the such are any less hypocritical than anyone else - although some could prove to be. The fact that some can take offense to something is no different then when you take offense to something; including the fact that it may offend you concerning that they themselves have been offended. :)

Harry Potter...Given the nature of what is involved, Harry Potter is not the same in some arguments and for yet others he may suffice. There is a big difference, however, in someone who is real and in whom many put their faith in compared to a fictional wizard in a story. I do not see what is so hard about understanding why people have been offended here; please note that people should be the appropriate word of choice.

P.S. I personally could care less that such offenses exist in that I know such is the world we live in. I just don't see what is so difficult or wrong about those whom do take offense? It seems appropriate to me, but I think you could find far more believers, and true ones at that, whom have a similar stance as mine.
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45

King TonGoll

ORLY?*DDR*
Reaction score
87
I'm really sorry to hear that esb; that most those associated to a higher belief have been a let down to you, or what's more a tyrant concerning their own convictions. I would have to say however that we are all hypocrites to varying degrees. I have trouble believing that all the people you've met in whom ascribe to religion and the such are any less hypocritical than anyone else - although some could prove to be. The fact that some can take offense to something is no different then when you take offense to something; including the fact that it may offend you concerning that they themselves have been offended. :)

Harry Potter...Given the nature of what is involved, Harry Potter is not the same in some arguments and for yet others he may suffice. There is a big difference, however, in someone who is real and in whom many put their faith in compared to a fictional wizard in a story. I do not see what is so hard about understanding why people have been offended here; please note that people should be the appropriate word of choice.
It takes one man to give a hit to the entire group, after all a group is as weak as it's weakest link. It matters not how fair, how just it is, thats just how it is. lol

concerning stereo typing, i have had my life threatened, i have been told "you are going to hell" i have been informed that i am going to hell. I have been told that I am wrong, and stu[id for what i think is true. and this is with most of the people of the christian group that i have met, believe it or not. Where i am from, panama, if you where not christian you where jewish, close to no atheist, and let me tell you they where treated like shit. I can tell you, you are not the majority and using you as a example of christians for me would be stereotyping. But i do not know all the christians on earth and thus can not Truly state that with certainty. but niether can you.

I am not being a hypocrit by saying the idea of the christian religion offends me, the fact that i offend them by exsisting would probably make it seem that way, but no it is not. I tend to give good thought into what i say.

and just so you know, there is not enough proof on earth to say with a certain mind that jesus was real, i am one who does not believe he was. so from my point of view he is just as fictional as harry potter. you can try and prove me wrong, but i will point out my facts easily, i have researched it in the past.

and to clear anything up, in the christian bible, it does clearly state that a person who believes in no god will burn in hell. lol

-mark 3:29 If you have a bible, you should know that what is written there clearly states that if you blaspheme against the holy spirit, and simply stating that you do not believe IS blaspheme acording to christianity, you can never be forgivin for your sins thus will go to hell.
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
325
So we're(atheists) basically already going to hell? What about his forgive-ness?...
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
I hope you don’t mind but for clarification sake and ease of read, I am going to fix your spelling, grammar, and punctuation when citing from your post.

It takes one man to give a hit to the entire group, after all a group is as weak as its weakest link.
Erm - “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, I don’t know who it was that first said this, but I believe this is the analogy you are referring to. This however is only an analogy and is appropriate to illustrate certain dynamics. If you are referring to the dynamic of how our media works, word of mouth, or how reputation may spread concerning a group then I would have to agree with you on this. This is exactly why I am so vigilant to clarify against stereotyping any group of people.

However, I am sensing that you are trying to refer to the actual group of Christians being as week as their weakest link. In this case it doesn’t work. Try team sports and you might have something, but Christians are not weakened by non-Christians acting in their name although yes it gives them a bad image and may inhibit others from listening to them. A true follower has God as his fortress and cannot be weakened by men as God is greater than man. Although here’s something to think about: True strength, in this world, is weakness. - Getting back - I for one would have no associate with someone who threatened another, regardless of what they called themselves, or their relation to me. These are not Christians no matter how often they go to church, pray or give to charity.

Now in my opinion it only takes one idiot to mislead himself if he is going to base what he believes concerning an entire group solely upon one man, or even merely because of his own circumstances. Let’s say from day one I built my house on the Oregon Vortex, which is very close to me, and that I never moved or went anywhere. Given certain native optical distortions and visual illusions to the area, I might assume that anyone approaching me from magnetic North would appear to be getting smaller as they neared, not larger as is normally the case. I would be deceived to believe this was how it was for everyone or everywhere based only upon my experiences.

Obviously this falls short to illustrate group dynamics but it does show how perceptions, even our own – even mine – can be misleading. This is why stereotyping is so harmful and as our government has found to be so helpful – in controlling people. This is how Hitler started his crusade against the Jews and countless were killed because of skewed perceptions. – Around 6 million Jews were murdered – However there are those, regardless of the surmounting evidence produced throughout history, which do not believe in the Holocaust.

. It matters not how fair, how just it is, that’s just how it is. lol
If you yourself infer the injustice of this then why excuse its use even for yourself. You go on to say:

. Concerning stereo typing, I have had my life threatened, I have been told "you are going to hell" I have been informed that I am going to hell. I have been told that I am wrong, and stupid for what I think is true. And this is with most of the people of the Christian group that I have met, believe it or not. Where I am from, panama, if you where not Christian you where Jewish, close to no atheist, and let me tell you they where treated like shit.
So this is a continued justification of your stereotyping based on your experiences – which I wish had been different for both you and me.

. I can tell you, you are not the majority and using you as an example of Christians for me would be stereotyping. But I do not know all the Christians on earth and thus can not truly state that with certainty, but neither can you.
Using me as an example would not be stereotyping because I am not the majority. You have already stereotyped, to which I am not part of, and that is fine. You are entitled to your perceptions, and although of what we cannot be certain I am unclear – oh that I am not the majority – I would have to agree with you on that. But none of that justifies stereotyping and the damage that comes from irresponsibly blaming others to justify your slant on an entire group of people. If you want to be mad at something blame human nature or further some of our more lively creations – religion. But do not justify hurting individuals, some of whom are concerned for your well being – myself included.

.I am not being a hypocrite by saying the idea of the Christian religion offends me, the fact that I offend them by existing would probably make it seem that way, but no it is not. I tend to give good thought into what I say.
No, this alone does not make you a hypocrite - we are all hypocrites. However the rest of what you say is a total collapse in logic as much as threatening people to believe what they believe when preaching love and peace is – which yes this would then prove offensive. But an idea is only offensive in the hands of its disciple’s actions towards others. Atheism is similar to Christianity in the fact that it is a belief which requires faith, and to which I find no offense. It’s just a postulate standing in the void and unless someone wants to use it to hurt me I am by no means offended merely at its existence or the idea of it.

. And just so you know, there is not enough proof on earth to say with a certain mind that Jesus was real, I am one who does not believe he was.
Just so you know, there is not enough proof on this earth to say with a certain mind that a cheeze puff is real…but I eat it, and it sure tastes good. And like I said earlier there are many that believe the Holocaust was not real, however, history tells a different story of both it and Christ.

.So from my point of view he is just as fictional as harry potter. You can try and prove me wrong, but I will point out my facts easily, I have researched it in the past.
Okay, here is my not trying, but proving you wrong, Harry Potter is known to be created in a book that is known to be an imaginary tale (fiction) and nobody save the insane posit him to be real beyond the realm of their own imaginations. Jesus Christ on the other hand has been verified on so many innumerable accounts that to believe Him to be unreal and not a part of our history would mandate either a total lack of knowledge concerning the evidence – or just plain stupidity. That being said – I understand this does not prove what, or necessarily who Jesus Christ was, that requires faith, but that there was a man named Jesus whom walked the earth some 2000 years ago and stirred the nations is insanely difficult to refute.

There have been several people that have come to search for the truth, not believing, and have been made to be believers merely upon the historical authority of such events. I am talking people whose job is solely the study of historical accuracy: the methods, the various tests, cross referencing, dating, etc. - trained solely for this purpose whom knew a great deal more about authenticating history than you or I shall ever reach and now believe. Mind you these individuals, on detached accounts, were approaching this from an unbelieving standpoint – they wanted to disprove it. So in other words they would be naturally inclined to find and conclude those things which disproved Christ - spare the curious and probing mind that sought out the truth regardless; and the undeniable evidence at hand which in the end persuaded them.

.And to clear anything up, in the Christian bible, it does clearly state that a person who believes in no god will burn in hell. Lol.
Hell is very real my friend and it works just like gravity or any other natural law, not because God is mean, but because God is God and we abide by His rules. I cannot as much change gravity as I can vanquish Hell, yet even these things are temporary and will fade as scripture prophesies.

.-mark 3:29 If you have a bible, you should know that what is written there clearly states that if you blaspheme against the holy spirit, and simply stating that you do not believe IS blaspheme according to Christianity, you can never be forgiven for your sins thus will go to hell.
Here you are mistaken and not knowing what is meant of the scriptures. There is only one unforgivable sin, and that is the denial of God’s Spirit, His authority and existence when you blatantly know otherwise. Any man can understand this but the wise will believe and live to it: we are all created in the image of God and all live to His Spirit, without which we would have no life – so the denial of that origin of life means you are choosing what leads to death and cannot be forgiven because it is a choice unwilling of repentance and made in understanding – that you will to side against God. He will not force you like some preprogrammed robot, God has more respect for His creation than that and it is your conclusion to arrive at and come to terms with, not His. So the only unforgivable sin is that which man will not allow himself to be forgiven because he chooses the dissention from his own hand. As for God’s mercy, esb, it is always there and He is always waiting should we turn to Him.
 

Jackal

You can change this now in User CP... or Die Tryin
Reaction score
40
if Jesus was alive I would find this bad because it would embarrass him. But he is dead so yeah
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
if Jesus was alive I would find this bad because it would embarrass him. But he is dead so yeah
You have no more burden of proof that Christ is dead than for others to prove he walks. Just because you don't see Him doesn't mean He isn't alive. That kind of logic truly would baffle the mind. However, those who believe including myself can attest to Him as alive and living, as He lives in us and as we have seen His miracles, healing, etc. It is our testimony and His desire that we should have a living relationship with Him and proclaim this boldly to others. If you expect Jesus to live amongst us in the flesh as flesh then you are mistaken...This happened 2000 years ago, now He ascends to God, and comes to us now as One with the Father in the Holy Spirit. I don't require you to believe my testimony as the truth stands alone and will not halter an inch should the whole world be in disbelief, but just know that Christ was not sent to set up His kingdom on this earth nor to show us a sign to believe for who then wouldn't. To those who have the care to search Him out they will find Him.
 

King TonGoll

ORLY?*DDR*
Reaction score
87
I hope you don’t mind but for clarification sake and ease of read, I am going to fix your spelling, grammar, and punctuation when citing from your post.



Erm - “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link”, I don’t know who it was that first said this, but I believe this is the analogy you are referring to. This however is only an analogy and is appropriate to illustrate certain dynamics. If you are referring to the dynamic of how our media works, word of mouth, or how reputation may spread concerning a group then I would have to agree with you on this. This is exactly why I am so vigilant to clarify against stereotyping any group of people.

However, I am sensing that you are trying to refer to the actual group of Christians being as week as their weakest link. In this case it doesn’t work. Try team sports and you might have something, but Christians are not weakened by non-Christians acting in their name although yes it gives them a bad image and may inhibit others from listening to them. A true follower has God as his fortress and cannot be weakened by men as God is greater than man. Although here’s something to think about: True strength, in this world, is weakness. - Getting back - I for one would have no associate with someone who threatened another, regardless of what they called themselves, or their relation to me. These are not Christians no matter how often they go to church, pray or give to charity.

Now in my opinion it only takes one idiot to mislead himself if he is going to base what he believes concerning an entire group solely upon one man, or even merely because of his own circumstances. Let’s say from day one I built my house on the Oregon Vortex, which is very close to me, and that I never moved or went anywhere. Given certain native optical distortions and visual illusions to the area, I might assume that anyone approaching me from magnetic North would appear to be getting smaller as the neared, not larger as is normally the case. I would be deceived to believe this was how it was for everyone or everywhere based only upon my experiences.

Obviously this falls short to illustrate group dynamics but it does show how perceptions, even our own – even mine – can be misleading. This is why stereotyping is so harmful and as our government has found to be so helpful – in controlling people. This is how Hitler started his crusade against the Jews and countless were killed because of skewed perceptions. – Around 6 million Jews were murdered – However there are those, regardless of the surmounting evidence produced throughout history, which do not believe in the Holocaust.



If you yourself infer the injustice of this then why excuse its use even for yourself. You go on to say:



So this is a continued justification of your stereotyping based on your experiences – which I wish had been different for both you and me.



Using me as an example would not be stereotyping because I am not the majority. You have already stereotyped, to which I am not part of, and that is fine. You are entitled to your perceptions, and although of what we cannot be certain I am unclear – oh that I am not the majority – I would have to agree with you on that. But none of that justifies stereotyping and the damage that comes from irresponsibly blaming others to justify your slant on an entire group of people. If you want to be mad at something blame human nature or further some of our more lively creations – religion. But do not justify hurting individuals, some of whom are concerned for your well being – myself included.



No, this alone does not make you a hypocrite - we are all hypocrites. However the rest of what you say is a total collapse in logic as much as threatening people to believe what they believe when preaching love and peace is – which yes this would then prove offensive. But an idea is only offensive in the hands of its disciple’s actions towards others. Atheism is similar to Christianity in the fact that it is a belief which requires faith, and to which I find no offense. It’s just a postulate standing in the void and unless someone wants to use it to hurt me I am by no means offended merely at its existence or the idea of it.



Just so you know, there is not enough proof on this earth to say with a certain mind that a cheeze puff is real…but I eat it, and it sure tastes good. And like I said earlier there are many that believe the Holocaust was not real, however, history tells a different story of both it and Christ.



Okay, here is my not trying, but proving you wrong, Harry Potter is known to be created in a book that is known to be an imaginary tale (fiction) and nobody save the insane posit him to be real beyond the realm of their own imaginations. Jesus Christ on the other hand has been verified on so many innumerable accounts that to believe Him to be unreal and not a part of our history would mandate either a total lack of knowledge concerning the evidence – or just plain stupidity. That being said – I understand this does not prove what, or necessarily who Jesus Christ was, that requires faith, but that there was a man named Jesus whom walked the earth some 2000 years ago and stirred the nations is insanely difficult to refute.

There have been several people that have come to search for the truth, not believing, and have been made to be believers merely upon the historical authority of such events. I am talking people whose job is solely the study of historical accuracy: the methods, the various tests, cross referencing, dating, etc. - trained solely for this purpose whom knew a great deal more about authenticating history than you or I shall ever reach and now believe. Mind you these individuals, on detached accounts, were approaching this from an unbelieving standpoint – they wanted to disprove it. So in other words they would be naturally inclined to find and conclude those things which disproved Christ - spare the curious and probing mind that sought out the truth regardless; and the undeniable evidence at hand which in the end persuaded them.



Hell is very real my friend and it works just like gravity or any other natural law, not because God is mean, but because God is God and we abide by His rules. I cannot as much change gravity as I can vanquish Hell, yet even these things are temporary and will fade as scripture prophesies.



Here you are mistaken and not knowing what is meant of the scriptures. There is only one unforgivable sin, and that is the denial of God’s Spirit, His authority and existence when you blatantly know otherwise. Any man can understand this but the wise will believe and live to it: we are all created in the image of God and all live to His Spirit, without which we would have no life – so the denial of that origin of life means you are choosing what leads to death and cannot be forgiven because it is a choice unwilling of repentance and made in understanding – that you will to side against God. He will not force you like some preprogrammed robot, God has more respect for His creation than that and it is your conclusion to arrive at and come to terms with, not His. So the only unforgivable sin is that which man will not allow himself to be forgiven because he chooses the dissention from his own hand. As for God’s mercy, esb, it is always there and He is always waiting should we turn to Him.

thanks for a good reply lol. ok, yes i am stereo typing, and yes i do justify it. I am not trying to cover that up, the arguement you make seems to attack stereo typing and i openly admit to doing so. and to the weakest link, i was not reffereing to myself, but to the media and widely accepted outside view of christianity from atheist. You are not a Atheist so you don't know this view point lol. just as a non christian, although former does not matter i never REALLY was into it to start with, i just followed along, can never understand the atheist view point, and well the views of your own belief.

I am sorry if i offended you, it is true that a man can most definitly be offended by the bashing of what he devotes his life to, but i don't think i was bashing your religion, as more the kind of people i have encountered in the past who followed it.

using you as a example of christianity, a actually nice person, some one who has studied there belief, and has gone on to be kind to others would be out of my world.you would not be the stereo type, you would be the freak in the group. lol, i say this due to the fact, i can only stereo type from what i have seen, it is true, what i see may not be what is, but let me tell you if you walk up to me, tell me something horrible, even if it is just one person, that sure as hell makes things a bit hard to not think of him as a jerk, even if the one time you had seen him was the one time he was like that. you appear how you want to be seen, and thats how they have wanted to seem to me over the years. so i see a mojority of them as that. i do not think they all are, i found a amazing christian on the internet yesterday. a link to one of his videos would be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FznbwmCmTOQ&feature=related

i would love to stereo type like that, but i REALLY can't. It would be a entirely in accurate stereo type. this is not justification of my stereo typing, just the kind of stereo typing i do. I'm a Nihilist, stereo typing to me is of no importance.
I'm stereo typed all the time, and i stereo type, i don't mind that, i stero type all the time, as i am sure you have, your friends, everyone at one point in there lives, or will at one point. Why should we need justification, and sense it is a very human thing why is it wrong? not that i believe in wrong or right.

and there are no historicle records of jesus crist for your information, that is outside the bible and any references to the bible. there where about 20 infamous historicle records in the time, not a single one recorded a man by that name or any of his tales. that is why i bring that up. there was only one recr,ord, and that was proven to be a fake years ago. so if you are to dispute that claim, hit me with facts and i will counter them with my own, if i lose then no harm done, right? I learned something new and i gain some knowledg. Thus in that case, seeing as i view the bible as fictional, he is just like harry potter to me.

that may offend you, but thats how i see it, so please try not to take it offensively.
 

Ninva

Анна Ахматова
Reaction score
376
The only thing I find sad from atheists' statements are when they compare religion with fiction. It just tells all those who are religious (Christian or non) that that person did not read/hear a word from any Holy Bible, Monk, Priest, Pastor, or Teacher.
I'm not saying you're a knuckle head, I'm just saying that people shouldn't shoot down any religion before studying it. Islam, Mormonism, and many other religions are very interesting, and if you can't believe in any god, at least learn something from the religions themselves.
I suggest you pick up a book about Christianity first because that's the most well surrounded belief in our world. Then pick up Islam for it tells us what the "bad guys" think (they're not bad at all, we Americans are the "bad guys").
Please don't reply to this comment if you haven't studied any religion. I don't want to read your rant about how arrogant/ignorant I am.
 

King TonGoll

ORLY?*DDR*
Reaction score
87
The only thing I find sad from atheists' statements are when they compare religion with fiction. It just tells all those who are religious (Christian or non) that that person did not read/hear a word from any Holy Bible, Monk, Priest, Pastor, or Teacher.
I'm not saying you're a knuckle head, I'm just saying that people shouldn't shoot down any religion before studying it. Islam, Mormonism, and many other religions are very interesting, and if you can't believe in any god, at least learn something from the religions themselves.
I suggest you pick up a book about Christianity first because that's the most well surrounded belief in our world. Then pick up Islam for it tells us what the "bad guys" think (they're not bad at all, we Americans are the "bad guys").
Please don't reply to this comment if you haven't studied any religion. I don't want to read your rant about how arrogant/ignorant I am.
i have a bible in my room -_-, how do you think i knew the location of the eternal sin? I am not saying i have read every page, oh trust me, i have not. but i have read enough to analize it as in my mind, fiction. Just reading Genises to me is fiction, atheist are not ATTACKING you. but stating what we think. is saying i think the bible is fiction atacking you? no it's saying what i think! lol. i mean i would understand it as a attack if i said "the bible is fiction and everyone who reads it is ignorant" that is a attack, but i have yet to say that.... that was a example and is not true. people are ignorant, not groups of people. lol
and it is very much so a atheist "claim". but is it not a "claim" that the big bang is a farse according to the theist points of view *unless they believe that the big bang was part of how there god made it*. Again i do not need to justify my claims, lol.

but yes i have done some research on religions, but i find philosophi to be more interesting. after all I am more of a human wisdom type guy myself.

----------------------EDIT

when did this become a crusade of beliefs? lol, i just remembered this was a news thread...... i don't think the helper would like this debate...... >.<
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
325
I've read the whole bible, during church sermons (they were always the same, but in different words) and that is the main reason I turned atheist, I found the bible to be, IMO, contradictory. I've been going to church since before kinder, and still do (ironically).

But we all have the right to believe, and I know without a doubt, there are people that honestly do believe in their God, and try to 'save' those around him/her. But then again, there are the others that are hypocrites and do the opposite.
 

Matemeo

New Member
Reaction score
20
The only thing I find sad from atheists' statements are when they compare religion with fiction. It just tells all those who are religious (Christian or non) that that person did not read/hear a word from any Holy Bible, Monk, Priest, Pastor, or Teacher.
I'm not saying you're a knuckle head, I'm just saying that people shouldn't shoot down any religion before studying it. Islam, Mormonism, and many other religions are very interesting, and if you can't believe in any god, at least learn something from the religions themselves.
I suggest you pick up a book about Christianity first because that's the most well surrounded belief in our world. Then pick up Islam for it tells us what the "bad guys" think (they're not bad at all, we Americans are the "bad guys").
Please don't reply to this comment if you haven't studied any religion. I don't want to read your rant about how arrogant/ignorant I am.
I went to church for 7 years, and read the commonly used passages/sections in the bible. I'd say it was the main reason I even considered Atheism, if I were to be ignorant of such things, I'd probably stay the course.

That's just me though :cool:
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
Just so you know King TonGoll, you probably don’t need to be quoting the entire dialect that has or may occur here, its sufficient to say that I think people will know you are addressing my post simply by the content therein. If you need to specifically address one point or another then quoting that point and any pertaining information will suffice. It’s fair to say that there is more than enough content here for everyone to read.
Also you assume much in thinking that I have taken offense from you, as I have not. I’m not nimbly bimbly sitting back here aghast at your point of view or your inability to offer any concrete evidence to what you believe. You seem to care only to state that you disagree, however you offer no insight into your own way of thinking, suffice to say that you are “more of a human wisdom type of guy”, which is really saying nothing as knowledge, philosophy, and wisdom are the same constructs we ourselves, and all humans beings will posit in rational thinking regardless of beliefs.
I enjoy philosophy as well, probably more than most, but what I enjoy above all is seeking after the truth, regardless of what it shows me. If you could offer me concrete proof that God doesn’t exist then I would believe. In fact you don’t even need to offer me concrete proof just offer me more proof then the current burden of proof that has led me to believe God and His Christ are real. If you can show me this, then I will be moved to reconsider.
One man put it nicely this way concerning atheist thinking and it is a little lengthy but a good read and nicely composed:

Solid Evidence About Christ for a Skeptical World

by Dr. John Ankerberg

We’re talking about solid evidence about Jesus Christ for a skeptical world. And if you’re reading this and you want to know what the evidence is, let me just take a five minute paragraph and then I’m going to get right to it. I’d like to clear up a couple of other matters.
When you start talking about Jesus Christ or religion, there are some people that say, “I don’t care. I’m an atheist. I’m an agnostic.” And I have to address those of you that might be in that category. And I’d like to try to get your attention, at least try to entice you, to motivate you, to come on over and look at the evidence. And I believe there’s a lot of evidence that I’m going to present to you in just a moment.
What do you say to the person that says, “John, I don’t want to listen? I don’t want to even look at stuff about religion or Jesus Christ because I’m an atheist.”
Very frankly, here’s what I would say to you. Please prove to me your point of view. What’s the evidence for being an atheist? I don’t think that you can be smart enough to be an atheist. Einstein said he had an I.Q. score probably of 204 or 206 and he thought there was a God. Why do I say that you can’t be smart enough to be an atheist? Well, what would you have to have in terms of evidence to be an atheist? An atheist says there is no God by definition. What do you need to know in order to prove there is no God? You’d have to have all knowledge. What is having all knowledge? Let me show you how little knowledge we have.
Right now, if I were to say to you, “You know what? You don’t know what’s happening behind you.” In other words, the person behind you, can you tell me what they’re thinking? They might be looking at the back of your head and thinking what kind of a hairdo you’ve got. You don’t know what they’re thinking or the person ten rows in back of you or the person that’s in the building across the street. Or how about people that are over in Hong Kong or in Britain right now?
Put that in terms of God. What if God is behind you? What if God’s in the next building? What if God’s somewhere where you’re not? Do you have the information to say that He’s not there? Do you have all knowledge? If you say, “I don’t think He’s on planet Earth.” How about outside of planet Earth? How about our galaxy? Maybe God is hiding behind some planet. Do you have information that He’s not there?
And then scientists tell us that, in our galaxy right now, traveling at the speed that our astronauts do, if you go about 16 to 20 thousand miles per second, that’s not fast enough. You would not be able to get out of our galaxy in a space ship traveling that fast if you were born at zero and you went all the way to 90 years of age, there’s not enough time for you to get out of our galaxy. It’s too far. So the galaxy is big. Do you know if God is out there? No, you haven’t got that information. And then scientists tell me this, that outside of our galaxy there are trillions and trillions of other galaxies in this thing called the universe. And do you know, maybe God might be out there. Do you have the information about that? No. You don’t have that kind of information. You don’t have all knowledge so you can’t say there is no God. And most of the intellectuals on campus today realize that.
When a person says to me, “I’m an atheist,” usually I think of them in terms of a village 2 atheist. You don’t know enough to come from that position someplace else. But then, after a person says he’s an atheist and he says, “Well, I don’t have enough knowledge,” the best you can be is you can be an agnostic.
Now, what is an agnostic? An agnostic is a person that is brilliant in the area of not knowing anything. Thomas Huxley coined the term. It simply means you don’t know. You don’t know if there is a God. And that’s where the intellectuals are at. They say, “We don’t have enough information to say we’re an atheist but the fact is, we don’t know if there is a God. If there’s the evidence, we haven’t seen it yet.”
Now, there’s two kinds of agnostics that I’ve met on campus. There is the ordinary agnostic. The ordinary agnostic says, “I don’t know if there is a God, but if you’ve got the evidence, I’m open to seeing it.” I love those kind of people. I just love them. If you are an agnostic and you are an ordinary agnostic that says, “I just haven’t seen the evidence yet, but I’m open to it,” you’ve come to the right place.
But there’s the second kind of agnostic and that’s the ornery agnostic. Now, what’s an ornery agnostic? The ornery agnostic is the one who says, “Look, I don’t know if there is a God but I know that you don’t know there’s a God.”
And I say, “How do you know?”
He says, “I know.” That’s the ornery agnostic. In other words, this is the person that says, “Whatever evidence you show me, my mind is already made up. You can’t persuade me.” That’s the ornery agnostic. Now, I’ve got a little story for you if you’re like that.
Did you hear about the man that thought he was dead? There was this young fellow that went around saying to everybody, “Hi, my name is” and then he would say, “By the way, I’m dead.” Of course, that bothered his parents a little bit, you know. And so they took him to a psychiatrist.
The guy gave his name and then he went on to say, “Well, doctor, I want you to know this. By the way, I’m dead.”
The doctor said, “I see what the problem is.”
And so he thought this fellow had this world view, namely that he was dead. And he thought, I need to have one fact from the real world that’ll burst that false world view. So he thought, “I wonder what it could be?” He came up with the fact that dead men do not bleed. And he thought, “I’ve got to persuade this young fellow who thinks he’s dead that dead men don’t bleed and then I can do a little experiment with him and show him that he’s not dead.”
So he gave him pathology textbooks. He took him down to morgue and cut dead bodies and showed him that they didn’t bleed. And after months and months of research, finally the young fellow said to the doctor, “Okay, doctor, you have persuaded me of the fact that dead men do not bleed.” And the doctor thought, “I’ve got him, I’ve got him, I’ve got him.” He said, “Stick out your hand.” The kid stuck out his hand. The doctor took one of those little deals that you have in the doctor’s office, pricked his finger, and out spurted the blood.
The kid looked at that and he says, “Well, doctor, dead men bleed after all.”
Now, that’s just to show you that if you hold on to something, a view, strong enough that facts do not bother you, nobody can help you. Nobody can help you but you’re in kind of a silly position. You’re the ornery agnostic. Now, I hope that if you are an agnostic, if you have not put your faith in Jesus Christ, that you would be open to the evidence. That you would be like the ordinary agnostic that says, “Hey, if you’ve got something, show me.”
All right, so let’s get down to the evidence. What is the case for Jesus? Why do you we believe in Him? Let’s define terms first of all.
What is Christianity? Christianity is not a philosophy, although it can be made into one. Christianity is not a system of ethics, although it certainly talks about what is right and wrong. Christianity is a relationship with a person that actually lived and Christianity stands or falls on whether this person did live, whether He said the things that He said, and did the things that He claimed. That person is Jesus Christ.

….He goes on, but I think this is enough to illustrate. As is I stand strong on my faith and have the reassurance of a risen savior on my side. Do you think, that after I have witnessed miracles, seen people healed from cancer and many other terminating and fatal illnesses/diseases, seen demons cast out, been filled with the Holy Spirit, felt Gods presence, heard God speak, seen rooms filled with His Light and glory, etc. that I am going to be offended, shaken or moved by human words?
No, but I do tell you that I am not closed minded to the truth or to hearing what others have to say. If you have a case the show me and I will listen, I do not assume to know everything. I challenge you to show me some burden of proof to your beliefs, not merely stating your disbelief or that you believe me to be mistaken. I have given you my testimony, what do you offer? Or do you seek only to argue?
From what I can gather is that you are not at all interested in hearing anything new or open to re-examination, apparently you already know it all and seem to position yourself as having superiorly examined all facts. That’s fine with me if that is your take, though out of my concern for you I wish it were different. Is that me judging you, or looking down on you, not at all.
Look at what’s at stake if I’m wrong; I lose nothing, I die just as you and life does not go on, but I have lost nothing and all becomes irrelevant. Even had you lived a better life than I all is irrelevant. If you are dead and cannot remember then what was the point. But if you’re wrong; you risk losing everything, and my troubles have not been in vain spare to those who refused to listen.
But to your point that there is no evidence outside the Bible that speaks of Christ, you are misguided, and I suggest you do a little more research.
oh wait you already have and…
will point out my facts easily, I have researched it in the past.
But you really haven’t and you fall way short of offering anything to support your beliefs, I seek not to disprove what you believe, but share with you the truth that I have found in this life. Truth mind you that stands alone and doesn’t need to disprove any other beliefs to have its strength. It stands in its own right.
For your peace of mind I have arrived at and been an atheist in my search for truth. So I do understand what you believe, but to be honest it is more of disbelief than a belief in anything. It is the insurmountable evidence that has led me to my belief in Christ. As well you are incorrect to believe I cannot understand what your beliefs are because I myself am not atheist. I challenge you to put evidence out for your beliefs, however, this logic mentioned above falls short.
Though I may not be able to experience what an atheist feels, granted I were not one, though I have been one, but hypothetically speaking, I lack no inability to wrap my mind around concepts should they be presented. I don’t need to know what biting into a steel can will feel and taste like to make a rational decision as to whether or not I should do it. You don’t need to experience everything to understand it or make a decision regarding it.
As for there being nothing outside the Bible to account for Christ, this is not the case. Look at Tacitus’s accounts for example. He was a Roman historian who is regarded as one of the finest classical Latin writers. Publius Cornelius Tacitus was an aristocrat from provincial Gaul who rose to prominence as an orator & writer in Rome after the death of Domitian. He was a well known member of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, and wrote a history of Rome covering A.D. 14-68 called Annals; Here is a clip:

“Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called "Christians" [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. The author of this name, Christ, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated.

Here are some key things to consider;

(1) It is the one reference to Pilate in a non-Jewish and non-Christian document.

(2) Christ is described as a Jew slain in Judea under the authority of Pilate, a point made in the biblical material as well.

(3) The use of the name Christ, which means "annointed one," indicates that the claim of being annointed is the key to this figure.

(4) This Christ is the founder of a movement that made its way to Judea to Rome.

(5) Tacitus makes clear that the Romans viewed the Christians with some hostility.

But to that point, what proof do you have to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible? Those that spread its teaching were persecuted and killed, why they would perpetrate a lie is against their own livelihood if they are sought after and destroyed in doing so. This is against everything we know of human logic and rational. The mere fact that it does have its place in our history is a testimony in its own right. It was not advantageous by the majority to be spread and was something that great effort was sought after to destroy those spreading it.
As far as Historical accuracy goes the Bible is considered extremely accurate. Many critics have challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible and have been proven wrong. Here's one example. Historians questioned the accuracy of the accounts surrounding Pontius Pilate's crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate found nothing wrong with him and was reluctant to crucify an innocent man. The Jews put pressure on Pilate saying if you refuse this "you're no friend of Caesar" (John 19:12). At which point Pilate gave in to the Jews. This did not fit historical records we had of Pilate who was a cruel and dominating man, not likely to give in to a group of Jews whom he hated. Many believed that this account was historically inaccurate because of the way in which it portrayed Pilate.
Later it was discovered that Pilate had been appointed by a man named Sejanus who was plotting to overthrow Caesar. Sejanus was executed with many of his appointees (Delashmutt, Sejanus, p. 55, 56). This demonstrated that Pilate was in no position to get in trouble with Rome. The Jews had him in a corner. If word returned to Rome that Jerusalem was in rebellion, Pilate would be the first to go. The gospel account was confirmed as accurate.

To illustrate another way I found this:

How do we know anything historically?

There is no "scientific" proof that Lincoln was the president. We cannot recreate him, bring him back to life or reproduce the experiment. We cannot calculate an equation that tells us that he was. But we can assert with a high degree of probability that Lincoln was indeed president and was assassinated in 1865. We do this by appealing to historical evidence. Many people saw Lincoln. We have some of his writings and even his picture, not to mention his face on our pennies. But none of this "proves", scientifically that Lincoln ever lived or was the president.
The kind of evidence used in historical research is the same used in a court of law. In a courtroom case certain kinds of evidences are appealed to in order to determine what exactly happened, eyewitnesses are questioned, motives are examined, and physical evidence is scrutinized such as fingerprints or journal writings.
The evidence we have for Christ's life, death, and resurrection is not as great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent But it is better than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical figures that we take for granted.
 

Father_Yetti

New Member
Reaction score
45
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

If those claims seems absurd, please see this link: Evidence for the Resurrection

or read it here:
Evidence for the Resurrection
by Josh McDowell

For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history--the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?


A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.


LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."


IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke's credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University


BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:

FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."

Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.

Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."


FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.

There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.


Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?


FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition be explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one would be punished with death for the guard unit's failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."


FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty--because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes--undisturbed in form and position.


FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to be a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.


OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors are often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.


HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.


F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."

Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.


THE WRONG TOMB?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.


HALLUCINATIONS?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?


DID JESUS SWOON?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

THE BODY STOLEN?
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn't rise from the grave"?

And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity--not in the cradle, but in the womb!


THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."


REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.


WHERE DO YOU STAND?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?

When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted--Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).

On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.

The prayer I prayed is: "Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You."

Josh McDowell, according to a recent survey, is one of the most popular speakers among university students today. He has spoken on more than 650 university and college campuses to more than seven million people in 74 countries during the last 21 years.
 

MasterOfABCs

Unacceptable!
Reaction score
55
"Please prove to me your point of view"

No.

"What proof do you have to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible?"

The lack of an author.


"The evidence we have for Christ's life, death, and resurrection is not as great as that for Lincoln, nor as recent But it is better than we have that Plato ever lived, or Homer, or many historical figures that we take for granted."

Good point.
 

Ninva

Анна Ахматова
Reaction score
376
"What proof do you have to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible?"

The lack of an author.
The Holy Bible is very accurate history wise (and all other wise). Many researchers of our time uses the Holy Bible as a reference to that certain time in history.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Friday Night!
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Going out of a town for the weekend will be back sunday night! Hope everyone has a great weekend!
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Monday!
  • Ghan Ghan:
    Monday? Speak for yourself. :p
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Taco Tuesday!
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Tacos! :)
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Check out the discord for taco pictures :) You cannot put pictures in this chat
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Damn here come the bots again - 193 online but they are totally invisible to any stats - bunch of bots!'
  • C cubanismo:
    Re: Taco Tuesday, if there were some way to share edible tacos over the internet, technology would be complete.
    +2
  • The Helper The Helper:
    One can only wish!
  • tom_mai78101 tom_mai78101:
    I'm back from Taiwan
    +1
  • The Helper The Helper:
    I am reorganizing the site I know nobody will notice but I am not done quite yet but the main forums order has been changed and there is a new news category in Other News which is all the remaining headline news stuff not categorized - Headline News is just the stuff that shows on the main page now and the news archive is off the main forums page
  • The Helper The Helper:
    and the real archive lives off of headline news
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Monday!
  • V-SNES V-SNES:
    Happy Saturday!
  • The Helper The Helper:
    Happy Saturday Night!
    +1

    The Helper Discord

    Members online

    No members online now.

    Affiliates

    Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

    Network Sponsors

    Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
    Top