oh! now we're getting somewhere. BUT considering the only evidence were the eye-witness accounts at the time, and their stories have been passed on verbally, then eventually through text, wouldn't there be a possibility of exaggeration, and they in fact, witnessed a near-death experience? no doubt there are evidences that may show the existence of Christ as a human being, but what about the existence of Christ as a God? altho i will agree the Bible can be a primary source for teachings, i dont believe it should be a primary evidence of existence of something or someone. in order to show existence (in our case, Christ as a God), one will need to show more convincing evidence than merely text. BUT i do fully believe it can be used as a vehicle for teachings. no doubt.
For the accounts of the eye-witness for Jesus Christ's death and resurrection -- were NOT passed on verbally and then written down over a period of time. It was written down specifically by the eye-witnesses themselves at the time of events (within a few years of the event). for the point of exaggeration -- any historical reference can be taken under such scrutiny. since, if evidence were based only upon themselves ... there is a chance that it could be falsified and/or "exaggerated". however, external reference will either complement or counter the "questioned" documents -- and for accounts written by the early Christian, external sources tells that they were truthful witnesses and dare not to testified with false tongues (for they fear God more than men). Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, writes on the accounts of the early Christians - If you do not believe in the text, whether it be written secularly or non-secularly, then what evidences are you looking for? With history, only the books, can be the source of evidence for any event to have taken place. There is no way, you can go back to the past to prove otherwise. So, our only source of defense are the book written and used at that time. True, there is a chance the history books can be written with a bias nature -- however, that can be rebuked based on the people that writes it. Only by today standard would anyone think that it is okay to lie for one's belief. I am positive that most people of the first generations of Christians, would not hold this ideology to heart. Since, whether a lie is beneficial or not -- it is still a lie and that is sin. Even us, that did not walk with Christ Jesus could see that -- the disciples whom did walk with Christ would stop such false doctrines and methods of conversion. as the sources of Christ being God -- what are you looking for as proof? Since, if i prove that history books/references cites His Godliness -- would you believe that? or if i calculated for you the mathematical probability of His life and the prophesies spoken (hundreds of years before His birth) to be exactly true, all of them, would you believe me then? or are you simply asking for physical/one-on-one proof from God, Himself, to show you Christ is God?
Not much dissimilar to a court of law and the Oath then.. on the other hand, in a court of law, witnesses who are brought up to the stands do occasionally have mistaken memories. human beings hardly recall things accurately within a few months, set aside years. i can understand why they would fear to lie, but what if they believe in something so much, they think its true? thats not exactly uncommon in human characteristics. well said with your analogy of history books (no sarcasm). but being a history freak like myself, history books are a collection and anthology of reports and discoveries made throughout time. say a book on dinosaurs. we cant say the books on dinosaurs are wrong, because we have discovered fossils. books on pharaohs, we know pharaohs existed because they had pyramids and evidence within it, and so on. so we know that those books were written based on concrete evidence, based on archaeological discoveries. wrongful history books are misinterpretations of those discoveries. you have to understand, by all means i am not doubting at all the possibility of the existence of Jesus, but nor do i have enough evidence to dismiss it. in fact, most of us are like that. im sure now you see my comparison between the Bible and a history book.
i don't understand your comparison between the Bible and history book? are you stating that the Bible cannot be consider the same value as history books -- since it does not have concrete evidence or archaeological basis? and your beginning point -- is true within a specific amount of people. if it was only me or you that were to account for the validity of an event -- we can brought into question the probability of truth in the perceptive account. however, if a large (we are talking thousands of people here) were to confess the existence of the event of a particular instances then it would be much harder to prove them wrong. especially, if you want to debate on a legal sense -- if a lawyer can prove to the jury that a group of people with no similar geographical or demographical traits were all stating the same accounts of the event -- the probability of the event accurately and actually happened become evident and possible. there is fine line between someone believing in something so much that it become true to themselves and verses a person that is simply believing in the truth. however, an individual that simply believes in something (that was originally false) to be true would have to lie to themselves in order for something that is false to become truthful in their eyes -- since by the views of others it is simply not correct and would eventually be proven to be false. do you see my logic there? something to be false will always be false and something to be the truth will always be the truth. so, for the case of Christ being God. the disciples would have know whether something is the truth or simply a lie. Also, we are debating on the authenticity of Jesus Christ being God - He displayed that power with his resurrection. So, it is not a theory and doctrines we are debating here on whether Christ is God -- but whether it was REAL events that took place with Christ Jesus. So, it cannot be viewed a subjective, but in a objective nature. Remember, dann. when Christ Jesus died -- most to almost of all his disciples dispersed and thought it was over. None remained by Jesus Christ -- and it was until Jesus visited them again -- did they believe that Jesus Christ was able to defeat and overcome death. why would the disciples, whom did believe that Christ Jesus died and left it at that, still claim that Jesus Christ lives again? they've already become content with the death of Jesus Christ and were ready to return to their own lifestyle with his teachings -- therefore there would be no motive for them to create a lie of Jesus Christ resurrecting from the dead -- UNLESS it truly happened. for example, if i got a "F" on an exam. You and I both saw the "F" written my exam; which forces me to apply for another next term of the same course again. then after a week, I tell you that my test was graded wrong and the professor changed my grade to an "A". Would you believe me? Do I have any motive to lie to you?
alright, thousands of people.. do pardon my ignorance of Christianity. hmm... i do have another hypothesis, but since i am not well versed in Christianity, i cant express it.. anyways, thanks for the little "practice" lol
only if you pardon my ignorance on other topics, as well. lol. -^_^ have fun with your philosophy course, dann.
Proof 1,2,3... Stop Watching Zeitgeist!... Lol Using Physics As An Argument Against God?! Who On Earth Has Studied The Area Of "god" To Know What Is Impossible Or Not?! Nerd Much?
will post after exams. exam schedule too hectic. its back to back pain. but anyways we need more people to debate with us, because we will just keep using our same arguments over and over again. no1 else has really addressed what ive said. so thats the reason i only thanked u .
your arguments arent sound cause all of it is based off physics and chemistry lol i'm an atheist but even to me its not convincing
i now feel sorry for OP, if he comes back he is gona have a lot of explaining to do if he wants to be taken seriously in this thread...
hahaha -- indeed. this is the first time, i've noticed that the atheists, christians, and other religious individuals alike all joined together in-sync to invalidate his point-of-view. he's probably quite proud of himself. lol. -lol
^ actually, youre quite right. now this is what i call the beginning of peace =) i actually dont feel sorry for the OP. he intentionally or unintentionally brought all groups together, which is quite a beautiful thing hahahaha
lol two random ladies came to my door just now to talk about the Bible, the teachings in the Bible, and how to make the world a better place... they read out some interesting teachings, and im cool with that. but what i dont understand is, why are people from Christianity the only people to go door to door and talk to other people from different religions? im not offending any Christians, but to some other people, they may feel as tho they are trying to be converted.. anyways, on a side note, the docs that those ladies gave me just further emphasizes my own beliefs, that all religions teach the same teachings. to quote Psalms and i have no idea what verse, Psalms mentioned the world is full of people who are fueled by the love of money and materialistic wants. before ever hearing that, i told those ladies the reason the world is in such a shitty state is due to human nature, human tendencies, greed of materials. in Buddhism, to reach enlightenment is to have the ability to let go of materialism, gaining pleasure from things which we want, and having the maturity to not create conflicts but peace. tell me, is that so different from Christianity, or any other religions (excluding extremist branches of religions) for that matter? i dont care about what happens if we dont believe in one religion or the other. i think, in order to be a better person, we must embrace the teachings of all those religions, set aside our human tendencies to want to defend our own religion. i think the important thing is not where God or Alah, or the Buddhist God, or Zeus or whatnot came from, but the teachings and lessons we can gain from not one, but many religions, and use it to improve ourselves on this Earth. the important thing is that once we all pass away, we look back and see what good things we did when we were alive, not who was right about God and whatnot. anyways, just my little rant. discussions?
^ the bible says the laws of God are written in every man's heart. everyone knows right from wrong (killing, stealing, coveting) through their conscience. because of this all religions will have these aspects of right and wrong. but the big difference with Christianity is the need for Jesus. i cant get to into it now though, im doing my coursework and checking PA now an then.
agreed. the laws of God are imprinted into our hearts. and naturally everyone should abide by the same laws, because they are given by God. and as much as religious extremists want to deny it, i believe it is the same God. Alah, the Buddhist God, and all other representations of God is God himself. and as for Jesus and Christianity, that's not much different.. its like Islam and Prophet Mohammed or Buddhist and Buddha.. they may not be the same people, but they are parallels, counterparts sort to say. and they all express similar teachings if not the same. but my whole point since the beginning is that, it is not who you should praise, it is what you should praise. and what you should praise are the teachings of those greater than us, and those people include Jesus, the Prophet, and Buddha, and others. actually thats not quite true.. in some scripts, which i cannot find unfortunately, there is a short mention of a God-like being above Buddha.. but we as Buddhist do not praise that God-being the same way other religions do.. so we look up to Buddha just like Christians do to Jesus, or Islamics do to the Prophet
