Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: loco on December 06, 2016, 06:07:39 AM
-
Howard A. Smith is a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
"We seem to be cosmically special, perhaps even unique — at least as far as we are likely to know for eons."
"The universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life. The strengths of the four forces that operate in the universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions (the latter two dominate only at the level of atoms) — for example, have values critically suited for life, and were they even a few percent different, we would not be here."
"The bottom line for extraterrestrial intelligence is that it is probably rarer than previously imagined, a conclusion called the misanthropic principle. For all intents and purposes, we could be alone in our cosmic neighborhood"
"Some of my colleagues strongly reject this notion. They would echo Hawking: “I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” Yes, we all have beliefs — but beliefs are not proof. Hawking’s belief presumes that we are nothing but ordinary, a “chemical scum.” All the observations so far, however, are consistent with the idea that humanity is not mediocre at all and that we won’t know otherwise for a long time. It seems we might even serve some cosmic role"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.cac032467a4c
-
Howard A. Smith is a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
"We seem to be cosmically special, perhaps even unique — at least as far as we are likely to know for eons."
"The universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life. The strengths of the four forces that operate in the universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions (the latter two dominate only at the level of atoms) — for example, have values critically suited for life, and were they even a few percent different, we would not be here."
"The bottom line for extraterrestrial intelligence is that it is probably rarer than previously imagined, a conclusion called the misanthropic principle. For all intents and purposes, we could be alone in our cosmic neighborhood"
"Some of my colleagues strongly reject this notion. They would echo Hawking: “I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” Yes, we all have beliefs — but beliefs are not proof. Hawking’s belief presumes that we are nothing but ordinary, a “chemical scum.” All the observations so far, however, are consistent with the idea that humanity is not mediocre at all and that we won’t know otherwise for a long time. It seems we might even serve some cosmic role"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.cac032467a4c
Thanks for the post!!
Eventually science (knowledge) will include what believers already know.....they're getting there....slowly LOL. Hopefully they get there before the rude awakening.
-
Thanks for the post!!
Eventually science (knowledge) will include what believers already know.....they're getting there....slowly LOL. Hopefully they get there before the rude awakening.
You ain't lying, brotha! :)
-
Howard A. Smith is a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
"We seem to be cosmically special, perhaps even unique — at least as far as we are likely to know for eons."
"The universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life. The strengths of the four forces that operate in the universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions (the latter two dominate only at the level of atoms) — for example, have values critically suited for life, and were they even a few percent different, we would not be here."
"The bottom line for extraterrestrial intelligence is that it is probably rarer than previously imagined, a conclusion called the misanthropic principle. For all intents and purposes, we could be alone in our cosmic neighborhood"
"Some of my colleagues strongly reject this notion. They would echo Hawking: “I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” Yes, we all have beliefs — but beliefs are not proof. Hawking’s belief presumes that we are nothing but ordinary, a “chemical scum.” All the observations so far, however, are consistent with the idea that humanity is not mediocre at all and that we won’t know otherwise for a long time. It seems we might even serve some cosmic role"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.cac032467a4c
Hello loco, I am not an atheist but the arguments he is presenting are not rationally sound. If a puddle of water could contemplate it's life it would perhaps come to the conclusion that the hole it finds itself in is perfect for it, it holds it perfectly, it must have been created for the puddle or at least with the puddle in mind. The universe is devoid of life more so than it is full, that's obvious. We have no other universe to compare it to thus the fine-tuning is impossible to quantify.
I certainly believe in a god, a Spinoza type substance that is transcendent and immanent. Spinoza did say Jesus had the closest line to god every articulated, his concept of love and being god (everything is god) is correct in my estimation.
-
Howard A. Smith is a lecturer in the Harvard University Department of Astronomy and a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
"We seem to be cosmically special, perhaps even unique — at least as far as we are likely to know for eons."
"The universe, far from being a collection of random accidents, appears to be stupendously perfect and fine-tuned for life. The strengths of the four forces that operate in the universe — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear interactions (the latter two dominate only at the level of atoms) — for example, have values critically suited for life, and were they even a few percent different, we would not be here."
"The bottom line for extraterrestrial intelligence is that it is probably rarer than previously imagined, a conclusion called the misanthropic principle. For all intents and purposes, we could be alone in our cosmic neighborhood"
"Some of my colleagues strongly reject this notion. They would echo Hawking: “I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.” Yes, we all have beliefs — but beliefs are not proof. Hawking’s belief presumes that we are nothing but ordinary, a “chemical scum.” All the observations so far, however, are consistent with the idea that humanity is not mediocre at all and that we won’t know otherwise for a long time. It seems we might even serve some cosmic role"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.cac032467a4c
Religion has been trying to argue this for millennia. First they thought the earth was in the center of the universe. Then, risking lives, it was finally accepted that the sun was. Then it was determined that our position in the galaxy was at no special place, and our sun is an ordinary star in the main sequence. Then it was determined that our galaxy is one of billions, in no special place or classification in the universe. This is a more modern version of the same unsubstantiated argument.
-
Which comes to mind,
Did the apostles ever bother to ask such questions? :P
-
Which comes to mind,
Did the apostles ever bother to ask such questions? :P
Well since they were in the company of God himself and witnessed his abilities firsthand the majority probably didn't feel the need to question further.
You know, because God was walking among them teaching, preaching, leading, performing miracles, etc....
-
Well since they were in the company of God himself and witnessed his abilities firsthand the majority probably didn't feel the need to question further.
You know, because God was walking among them teaching, preaching, leading, performing miracles, etc....
It's very odd how there wasn't anything unprecedented in invention or scientifically knowledgeable in gain during that period. Just saying.
I would've asked if there was intelligent life on other worlds, but that's just me.
Oh but wait, you guys converse with him all the the time.
-
It's very odd how there wasn't anything unprecedented in invention or scientifically knowledgeable in gain during that period. Just saying.
I would've asked if there was intelligent life on other worlds, but that's just me.
Oh but wait, you guys converse with him all the the time.
What do you define as a "significant gain"? A better chariot? A toaster? An iphone?
Well, they had the question answered about whether there was life on other worlds and the answer was "yes". Christ left the divine and entered humanity on earth from another world.
We pray and we fellowship via the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that indwelt the apostles once Christ returned to glory is the same Holy Spirit that indwells believers today.
-
What do you define as a "significant gain"? A better chariot? A toaster? An iphone?
Well, they had the question answered about whether there was life on other worlds and the answer was "yes". Christ left the divine and entered humanity on earth from another world.
We pray and we fellowship via the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that indwelt the apostles once Christ returned to glory is the same Holy Spirit that indwells believers today.
MoS, I imagine most are unfamiliar with this idea. Please go into it a bit if you wouldn't mind.
-
What do you define as a "significant gain"? A better chariot? A toaster? An iphone?
Well, they had the question answered about whether there was life on other worlds and the answer was "yes". Christ left the divine and entered humanity on earth from another world.
We pray and we fellowship via the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that indwelt the apostles once Christ returned to glory is the same Holy Spirit that indwells believers today.
Well you have somewhat of a point. Diseases were completely misunderstood, it was just demon possession. It was common knowledge that the Earth was flat and universe centered, although a few cohorts ahead of their time did know better. Literacy was an aristocratic privilege and stuff like stoning and crucifixion was performed for petty crimes. The Romans didn't even have a concept for zero in mathematics.
We weren't exactly dealing with scholars.
-
Well you have somewhat of a point. Diseases were completely misunderstood, it was just demon possession. It was common knowledge that the Earth was flat and universe centered, although a few cohorts ahead of their time did know better. Literacy was an aristocratic privilege and stuff like stoning and crucifixion was performed for petty crimes. The Romans didn't even have a concept for zero in mathematics.
We weren't exactly dealing with scholars.
You're right the apostles weren't scholars or scientists....they were ordinary men.....laborers, fisherman and a tax collector....we don't know all their professions. Only a few of them under inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned any of the NT books.
-
MoS, I imagine most are unfamiliar with this idea. Please go into it a bit if you wouldn't mind.
I gotcha.
Believers in Christ are going to exist on God’s new earth that he will create and establish. He will destroy the current earth and heavens. God’s new earth will be a new “heaven”. Currently God dwells in his heaven (the divine) which transcends our physical universe. Our eternity won’t be an existence in his current heaven.
So, in essence, Christ came from another world to join humanity.
-
I gotcha.
Believers in Christ are going to exist on God’s new earth that he will create and establish. He will destroy the current earth and heavens. God’s new earth will be a new “heaven”. Currently God dwells in his heaven (the divine) which transcends our physical universe. Our eternity won’t be an existence in his current heaven.
So, in essence, Christ came from another world to join humanity.
I've noticed that one of the more insistent-type things someone might question toward, say, is for the "exact location" of Heaven (probably GB inspired to ask) and that perhaps its dimensionality is what could lead someone to deny everything.
-
You're right the apostles weren't scholars or scientists....they were ordinary men.....laborers, fisherman and a tax collector....we don't know all their professions. Only a few of them under inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned any of the NT books.
The original 12 denied Jesus and lacked faith, they were closed hearted. It took seeing Jesus after the resurrection to finally be convinced.
Image trying to convince them today with just an ancient collection of books.
-
The original 12 denied Jesus and lacked faith, they were closed hearted. It took seeing Jesus after the resurrection to finally be convinced.
Image trying to convince them today with just an ancient collection of books.
Can you direct me to the verses of scripture that support this?
-
Can you direct me to the verses of scripture that support this?
Matthew 26:56, it's probably mentioned in the other 3 books too.
Peter denied him 3 times, if you don't know that one I'm not bothering looking it up
They also needed visual proof of the resurrection, again if you don't know that I really question your study.
-
Matthew 26:56, it's probably mentioned in the other 3 books too.
Peter denied him 3 times, if you don't know that one I'm not bothering looking it up
They also needed visual proof of the resurrection, again if you don't know that I really question your study.
Ah I see what you're referring to and yes I'm quite familiar with all three passages of scripture.
So what we need here is context because a text without context is a pretext.
The difficulty I sometimes have is how to very succinctly unravel arguments such as these. Oh I can certainly unravel them, but doing so in a way that is succinct yet thorough enough is hard because GB readers (including myself) have a limited capacity for what they're willing to read and digest. It's super easy to lay down an argument or objection without doing your homework and walk away. It's an altogether different circumstance to defend against that argument/objection in quick and concise manner. It's still extremely possible to do so.
That said, we go back to the original premise which was that the 12 disciples hearts were closed (or hardened) and they lost faith.
The chain of logic is essentially the following: because Peter denied Christ 3 times, because Thomas required visual proof of the resurrection and because the apostles fled when Christ was captured by the Romans (on behalf of the Sanhedrin) that their hearts were closed/hardened and they lost faith.
So first things first, this logic is both an example of special pleading and a nonsequitur. Why? Because context is king and missing completely.
Second, what is meant by a hardened or closed heart? The Koine Greek defines the hardening of the heart as a callousing of the heart in which permanent denial of God has occurred. The most notable example of that being the pharaoh of Egypt.
That said, you simply can't justify your premise with the examples provided as valid justification because the apostles all went to their deaths evangelizing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to many nations (Judas excluded). Many of the apostles suffering brutal deaths for the cause of Christ.
Now, what's significant about historical context in this situation?
The Israelites/Jews had prophecy established hundreds of years prior to the birth of Christ. Their expectation of the coming Messiah was that of a conquering king that would destroy the enemy nations of Israel. Many expected the Messiah to arrive and destroy the Roman government. Unfortunately the Jews errored in interpretation of prophetic scripture and ignored the portions of scripture noting the gentleness by which the Messiah would arrive. Instead they focused on the conquering, vanquishing king to come and had difficulty accepting the meekness and humility of Christ.
Why did Peter deny Christ and why did the apostles flee when Christ was captured by Roman soldiers (on behalf of the Sanhedrin)? Well, despite all the miraculous situations they experienced while in the company of Christ and the divine revelations and teachings they received they were still overcome by fear when "things got real". They are human beings after all and fear can cause any of us to shrink at times.
Remember, believers today have the luxury of looking back at established history and drawing upon centuries of theological teaching and the ability to study fully canonized scripture. Believers today also have the definite guidance of the Holy Spirit that indwells them. The apostles were experiencing all of this unprecedented activity live and in vivid color. The Holy Spirit was not in them yet and they were afraid in those difficult moments and they errored in their ways.
Now, the infamous "doubting Thomas" story has NOTHING to do with a hardened/closed heart, but certainly does illustrate a lack of faith. God has promised that our faith will be repeatedly tested and as we become stronger and stronger believers that rate of success with increase. Again, everything that was being experienced live at that time was unprecedented and documented only via prophetic scripture which not all Jews had access to. The Pharisees and Sadducees of the Sanhedrin were the keepers and interpreters of this scripture.
So there were definitely moments in which the apostles faith was tested and in some instances they failed, but that has nothing to do with a closed/hardened heart. And it certainly doesn't make your argument work in anyway whatsoever.....unless you ignore context. I can't overcome that.
-
Ah I see what you're referring to and yes I'm quite familiar with all three passages of scripture.
So what we need here is context because a text without context is a pretext.
The difficulty I sometimes have is how to very succinctly unravel arguments such as these. Oh I can certainly unravel them, but doing so in a way that is succinct yet thorough enough is hard because GB readers (including myself) have a limited capacity for what they're willing to read and digest. It's super easy to lay down an argument or objection without doing your homework and walk away. It's an altogether different circumstance to defend against that argument/objection in quick and concise manner. It's still extremely possible to do so.
That said, we go back to the original premise which was that the 12 disciples hearts were closed (or hardened) and they lost faith.
The chain of logic is essentially the following: because Peter denied Christ 3 times, because Thomas required visual proof of the resurrection and because the apostles fled when Christ was captured by the Romans (on behalf of the Sanhedrin) that their hearts were closed/hardened and they lost faith.
So first things first, this logic is both an example of special pleading and a nonsequitur. Why? Because context is king and missing completely.
Second, what is meant by a hardened or closed heart? The Koine Greek defines the hardening of the heart as a callousing of the heart in which permanent denial of God has occurred. The most notable example of that being the pharaoh of Egypt.
That said, you simply can't justify your premise with the examples provided as valid justification because the apostles all went to their deaths evangelizing the gospel message of Jesus Christ to many nations (Judas excluded). Many of the apostles suffering brutal deaths for the cause of Christ.
Now, what's significant about historical context in this situation?
The Israelites/Jews had prophecy established hundreds of years prior to the birth of Christ. Their expectation of the coming Messiah was that of a conquering king that would destroy the enemy nations of Israel. Many expected the Messiah to arrive and destroy the Roman government. Unfortunately the Jews errored in interpretation of prophetic scripture and ignored the portions of scripture noting the gentleness by which the Messiah would arrive. Instead they focused on the conquering, vanquishing king to come and had difficulty accepting the meekness and humility of Christ.
Why did Peter deny Christ and why did the apostles flee when Christ was captured by Roman soldiers (on behalf of the Sanhedrin)? Well, despite all the miraculous situations they experienced while in the company of Christ and the divine revelations and teachings they received they were still overcome by fear when "things got real". They are human beings after all and fear can cause any of us to shrink at times.
Remember, believers today have the luxury of looking back at established history and drawing upon centuries of theological teaching and the ability to study fully canonized scripture. Believers today also have the definite guidance of the Holy Spirit that indwells them. The apostles were experiencing all of this unprecedented activity live and in vivid color. The Holy Spirit was not in them yet and they were afraid in those difficult moments and they errored in their ways.
Now, the infamous "doubting Thomas" story has NOTHING to do with a hardened/closed heart, but certainly does illustrate a lack of faith. God has promised that our faith will be repeatedly tested and as we become stronger and stronger believers that rate of success with increase. Again, everything that was being experienced live at that time was unprecedented and documented only via prophetic scripture which not all Jews had access to. The Pharisees and Sadducees of the Sanhedrin were the keepers and interpreters of this scripture.
So there were definitely moments in which the apostles faith was tested and in some instances they failed, but that has nothing to do with a closed/hardened heart. And it certainly doesn't make your argument work in anyway whatsoever.....unless you ignore context. I can't overcome that.
Never in a million years.
-
Never in a million years.
It sometimes sucks that I take time out to provide an explanation and know full well it won't typically be read. BUT at least I now have yet another pre-written answer to draw upon. Today's effort for future use is fine.
-
It sometimes sucks that I take time out to provide an explanation and know full well it won't typically be read. BUT at least I now have yet another pre-written answer to draw upon. Today's effort for future use is fine.
I read it. They also needed visual proof of the resurrection, you disagree with that as well?
-
I read it. They also needed visual proof of the resurrection, you disagree with that as well?
Unfortunately still special pleading and a nonsequitur due to full lack of context.
So, the apostles were told by the women in their company that discovered the empty tomb first that Christ was gone. So historical context comes in play yet again and in this case Israelite women were not give the same consideration as that of men. The words of women simply didn't hold the same weight that a man's words did. Further the tomb was sealed and guarded by the Romans. Guarded by some of the best experts in killing people in the known world. Safe to say the tomb of Jesus was fairly secure. Yet, the women witnessed the empty tomb and reported back to the apostles who then went to see for themselves. If they (the apostles) lacked faith they lacked faith in the words and testimony of the women. They wanted to ensure that the body was not stolen since it was guarded by Roman soldiers. They had to make sure, but again we're talking about an unprecedented event that had never occurred before. If I was ever blessed with a prophetic vision of God I would absolutely believe it, but when it came to pass if I didn't witness it firsthand I'd wanna go and confirm it for myself. Is that a lack of faith in God? No, I'm not required to have absolute faith in the testimony of others. God tells us to seek him and test the truth of his word.
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.
-
interesting watching a debate about a resurrection that is alleged to have happened 2000 years ago based on a collection of stories from a book, and using the words special pleading and nonsequitur. I almost spit out my coffee
-
Unfortunately still special pleading and a nonsequitur due to full lack of context.
So, the apostles were told by the women in their company that discovered the empty tomb first that Christ was gone. So historical context comes in play yet again and in this case Israelite women were not give the same consideration as that of men. The words of women simply didn't hold the same weight that a man's words did. Further the tomb was sealed and guarded by the Romans. Guarded by some of the best experts in killing people in the known world. Safe to say the tomb of Jesus was fairly secure. Yet, the women witnessed the empty tomb and reported back to the apostles who then went to see for themselves. If they (the apostles) lacked faith they lacked faith in the words and testimony of the women. They wanted to ensure that the body was not stolen since it was guarded by Roman soldiers. They had to make sure, but again we're talking about an unprecedented event that had never occurred before. If I was ever blessed with a prophetic vision of God I would absolutely believe it, but when it came to pass if I didn't witness it firsthand I'd wanna go and confirm it for myself. Is that a lack of faith in God? No, I'm not required to have absolute faith in the testimony of others. God tells us to seek him and test the truth of his word.
lol, I didn't mean to suggest sexism or misogyny. (although there is plenty of that)
Let me help you:
To Peter (1 Cor. 15:5; cf. John 20:3-9)
First Corinthians 15:5 declares that Jesus “was seen of Cephas (Peter).” There is no narration of this event, but the text says he was seen (Gk. ophthe) and implies that he was heard as well. Certainly Peter was not speechless. Jesus definitely spoke with Peter in a later appearance when he asked Peter to feed his sheep (John 21:15, 16, 17). Mark confirms that Peter (and the disciples) would “see him, just as he told you” (Mark 16:7). Peter, of course saw the empty tomb and the grave clothes just before this appearance (John 20:6-7). So Peter experienced at least three evidences of the physical resurrection; he saw and heard Jesus, and he observed the empty tomb and grave clothes. These are definite pieces of evidence that the body that rose is the same, visible, tangible, material body he had before the resurrection.
On the Emmaus Road (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13-35)
During this appearance three evidences of the physical resurrection were presented. They not only saw and heard Jesus but they also ate with Jesus. Combined they provide clear proof of the tangible, physical nature of the resurrection body.
There were two disciples, one of which was named Cleopas (vs. 18). As they were walking toward Emmaus, “Jesus himself came up and walked along with them” (vs. 16). At first they did not recognize who he was; they nevertheless clearly saw him. When they finally realized who it was, the text says “he disappeared out of their sight” (vs. 31). Jesus’ resurrection body was as visible as any other material object.
They heard Jesus with their physical ears (vss. 17,19, 25-26). In fact, Jesus carried on a lengthy conversation with them. For “beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (vs. 27). Of course, they were not the only ones Jesus taught after the resurrection. Luke informs us elsewhere that “he appeared to them [the apostles] over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). During these times he “gave many convincing proofs that he was alive” (vs. 3).
They ate with him. Luke says, “when he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them” (vs. 30).
Although the text does not say specifically that Jesus also ate, it is implied by being “at table with them.” And later in the chapter it is explicitly stated that he ate with the ten apostles (vs. 43). In two other places Luke states that Jesus did eat with the disciples (Acts 1:4; 10:41). So on this appearance of Christ the eyewitnesses saw him, heard him, and ate with him over a considerable period of time one evening. It is difficult to image how Jesus could have done anything more to demonstrate the physical nature of the resurrection body.
To the Ten (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23)
When Jesus appeared to ten disciples, Thomas being absent, he was seen, heard, touched, and they saw him eat fish. Thus four major evidences of the visible, physical nature of the resurrection body were present on this occasion.
“While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.”’ In fact, Jesus carried on a conversation with them also about how “everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (vs. 44). So Jesus was obviously heard by the disciples.
The disciples also saw Jesus on this occasion. In fact, they thought at first that he was a “spirit” (vs. 37). But Jesus “showed them his hands and his feet.” So they clearly saw him as well as heard him. In the parallel account, John records that “the disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord” (John 20:20; cf. vs. 25).
It may be inferred from the fact that they were at first unconvinced of his tangible materiality when Jesus presented his wounds to them that they touched him as well. In fact, Jesus clearly said to them, “Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (vs. 39). Jesus’ use of “I” and “me” in connection with his physical resurrection body expresses his claim that he is numerically identical with his pre-resurrection body. Jesus also “showed them his hands and feet,” confirming to his disciples that his resurrection body was the very same nail-scarred body of flesh and bones that was crucified.
On this occasion Jesus ate physical food to convince the disciples that he was resurrected in a literal, physical body. “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence” (vs. 43). What makes this passage such a powerful proof is that Jesus offered his ability to eat physical food as a proof of the material nature of his body of flesh and bones. Jesus literally exhausted the ways in which he could prove the corporeal, material nature of his resurrection body. Thus, if Jesus’ resurrection body was not the same material body of flesh and bones in which he died, he was being deceptive.
To the Eleven (John 20:24-31)
Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to his disciples (John 20:24). Even after his fellow apostles reported who they had seen, Jesus, Thomas refused to believe unless he could see and touch Christ for himself. A week later his wish was granted: “A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!”’ (John 20:26). When Jesus appeared to Thomas he saw, heard, and touched the resurrected Lord.
Thomas saw the Lord. Jesus was clearly visible to Thomas who later said to him, “you have seen me” (vs. 29).
Thomas also heard the Lord say, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe” (vs. 27). To this unquestionably convincing display of physical evidence Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” (vs. 28).
It can be inferred that Thomas also touched the Lord. Certainly this is what Thomas said he wanted to do (vs. 25). And Jesus told him to (vs. 27). Although the text only says Thomas saw and believed (vs. 29), it is natural to infer that he also touched Jesus. Jesus was touched on at least two other occasions (John 20:9, 17). So it may very well be that Thomas also touched him on this occasion also. At any rate, Thomas certainly encountered a visible, physical resurrection body with his natural senses. Whether Thomas touched Christ, he certainly saw his crucifixion wounds (John 20:27-29). The fact that Jesus still had these physical wounds from his crucifixion is an unmistakable proof that he was resurrected in the material body in which he was crucified. This was the second time that Jesus exhibited his wounds. It is difficult to imagine that he could have offered greater proof that the resurrection body is the same body of flesh that was crucified and now glorified.
To the Seven Disciples (John 21)
John records Jesus’ appearance to the seven disciples who went fishing in Galilee. During this appearance the disciples saw Jesus, heard him, and ate breakfast with him.
The Bible says that “Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias” (John 21:1). Early in the morning they saw him standing on the shore (vs. 4). After he talked and ate with them, the text says, “this is now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead” (vs. 14).
The disciples also heard Jesus speak (vss. 5, 6, 10, 12). Jesus carried on an extended conversation with Peter in which he was asked three times whether he loved Jesus (vss. 15, 16, 17). Since Peter had denied Jesus three times, not only did Peter hear Jesus speak but Jesus’ words no doubt rang in his ears. Jesus also told Peter how he would die (vss. 18, 19).
Jesus apparently also ate with the disciples during this appearance. He asked them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” (vs. 5). After telling them where to catch some (vs. 6), Jesus told them to “Bring some of the fish you have just caught” (vs. 10). Then he said to the disciples, “Come and have breakfast” (vs. 12). As they did, “Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish” (vs. 13). Although the text does not explicitly state that Jesus ate, nevertheless, as host of the meal it would have been noteworthy had he not. It is safe to say that, in addition to seeing and hearing Jesus, the disciples shared a physical meal with him.
To Commission Apostles (Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18)
The next appearance of Christ was at the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20). As Jesus commissioned them to disciple all nations, he was both seen and clearly heard by all the apostles.
The text says that the disciples went to Galilee where Jesus had told them to go (vs. 16). And “when they saw him, they worshiped him” (vs. 17). Mark adds that they were eating (Mark 16:14), although this version is in the questionably authentic final section of Mark. However, it was not simply what they saw but what they heard that left a lasting impression.
Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18-19). The fact that this small band shortly became the world’s greatest missionary society is ample testimony for how powerfully what the apostles heard Jesus speak impressed them.
To Five Hundred (1 Cor. 15:6)
There is no narration of this appearance. It is simply noted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where he says: “After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive.”
Since Jesus was seen on this occasion and since he left such a lasting impression on them, it can be assumed that they heard him speak. Why else would Paul imply their readiness to testify on behalf of the resurrection, saying in essence, “If you do not believe me, just go and ask them?”
Despite its brevity this one verse is a powerful testimony to the bodily resurrection of Christ. It has the ring of truth about it. Paul is writing in 55 or 56, only twenty-two or twenty-three years after the resurrection (33). Most of these eye witnesses were still alive. And Paul challenges his reader to check out what he is saying with this multitude of witness who saw and probably heard Christ after his resurrection.
To James (1 Cor. 15:7)
Jesus’ brothers were unbelievers before his resurrection. The Gospel of John informs us that “even his own brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5). But after his resurrection at least James and Jude, the half-brothers of Jesus, became believers (cf. Mark 6:3). However, the Scriptures say explicitly that Jesus “appeared to James” (1 Cor. 15:7). No doubt Jesus also spoke to James. At least as a result of his experience James became a pillar of the early church and played a prominent part in the first church council (Acts 15:13).
James also wrote one of the books of the New Testament in which he spoke of “the crown of life” (James 1:12) and of the “Lord’s coming” (5:8) which was made possible only through the resurrection of Christ (2 Tim 1:10). So whatever James saw or heard during this resurrection appearance of Christ not only converted him but made him into a prominent figure in the apostolic church.
At the Ascension (Acts 1:4-8)
Jesus’ last appearance before his ascension was again to all the apostles. During this time they saw him, heard him, and ate with him. These three lines of evidence are the final confirmation of the literal, material nature of his resurrection body.
Jesus was seen by his apostles on this occasion. Luke says, “after his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive” (Acts 1:3). He adds, Jesus “appeared to them over a period of forty days.”
They also heard Jesus, since on this occasion he “spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). And during this specific appearance Jesus commanded them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about” (vs. 4). So it was not only a familiar voice but a familiar teaching that confirmed that this was the Jesus who had taught them before the crucifixion.
Luke also says in this passage that Jesus ate with the disciples, as he had done on many occasions. For this last appearance before the ascension was “on one occasion, while he was eating with them” (Acts 1:4). This is the fourth recorded instance of Jesus eating after the resurrection. It was apparently something he did rather often, since even the short summary of his ministry by Peter in Acts 10 declares that the apostles “ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (vs. 41). Surely, both the intimate fellowship and the physical ability to eat food was more than sufficient proof that Jesus was appearing in the same tangible, physical body he possessed before his resurrection.
https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-norman-geisler-2/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-from-the-dead/#Direct_Evidence
-
lol, I didn't mean to suggest sexism or misogyny. (although there is plenty of that)
Let me help you:
To Peter (1 Cor. 15:5; cf. John 20:3-9)
First Corinthians 15:5 declares that Jesus “was seen of Cephas (Peter).” There is no narration of this event, but the text says he was seen (Gk. ophthe) and implies that he was heard as well. Certainly Peter was not speechless. Jesus definitely spoke with Peter in a later appearance when he asked Peter to feed his sheep (John 21:15, 16, 17). Mark confirms that Peter (and the disciples) would “see him, just as he told you” (Mark 16:7). Peter, of course saw the empty tomb and the grave clothes just before this appearance (John 20:6-7). So Peter experienced at least three evidences of the physical resurrection; he saw and heard Jesus, and he observed the empty tomb and grave clothes. These are definite pieces of evidence that the body that rose is the same, visible, tangible, material body he had before the resurrection.
On the Emmaus Road (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13-35)
During this appearance three evidences of the physical resurrection were presented. They not only saw and heard Jesus but they also ate with Jesus. Combined they provide clear proof of the tangible, physical nature of the resurrection body.
There were two disciples, one of which was named Cleopas (vs. 18). As they were walking toward Emmaus, “Jesus himself came up and walked along with them” (vs. 16). At first they did not recognize who he was; they nevertheless clearly saw him. When they finally realized who it was, the text says “he disappeared out of their sight” (vs. 31). Jesus’ resurrection body was as visible as any other material object.
They heard Jesus with their physical ears (vss. 17,19, 25-26). In fact, Jesus carried on a lengthy conversation with them. For “beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (vs. 27). Of course, they were not the only ones Jesus taught after the resurrection. Luke informs us elsewhere that “he appeared to them [the apostles] over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). During these times he “gave many convincing proofs that he was alive” (vs. 3).
They ate with him. Luke says, “when he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them” (vs. 30).
Although the text does not say specifically that Jesus also ate, it is implied by being “at table with them.” And later in the chapter it is explicitly stated that he ate with the ten apostles (vs. 43). In two other places Luke states that Jesus did eat with the disciples (Acts 1:4; 10:41). So on this appearance of Christ the eyewitnesses saw him, heard him, and ate with him over a considerable period of time one evening. It is difficult to image how Jesus could have done anything more to demonstrate the physical nature of the resurrection body.
To the Ten (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23)
When Jesus appeared to ten disciples, Thomas being absent, he was seen, heard, touched, and they saw him eat fish. Thus four major evidences of the visible, physical nature of the resurrection body were present on this occasion.
“While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.”’ In fact, Jesus carried on a conversation with them also about how “everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (vs. 44). So Jesus was obviously heard by the disciples.
The disciples also saw Jesus on this occasion. In fact, they thought at first that he was a “spirit” (vs. 37). But Jesus “showed them his hands and his feet.” So they clearly saw him as well as heard him. In the parallel account, John records that “the disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord” (John 20:20; cf. vs. 25).
It may be inferred from the fact that they were at first unconvinced of his tangible materiality when Jesus presented his wounds to them that they touched him as well. In fact, Jesus clearly said to them, “Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (vs. 39). Jesus’ use of “I” and “me” in connection with his physical resurrection body expresses his claim that he is numerically identical with his pre-resurrection body. Jesus also “showed them his hands and feet,” confirming to his disciples that his resurrection body was the very same nail-scarred body of flesh and bones that was crucified.
On this occasion Jesus ate physical food to convince the disciples that he was resurrected in a literal, physical body. “They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence” (vs. 43). What makes this passage such a powerful proof is that Jesus offered his ability to eat physical food as a proof of the material nature of his body of flesh and bones. Jesus literally exhausted the ways in which he could prove the corporeal, material nature of his resurrection body. Thus, if Jesus’ resurrection body was not the same material body of flesh and bones in which he died, he was being deceptive.
To the Eleven (John 20:24-31)
Thomas was not present when Jesus appeared to his disciples (John 20:24). Even after his fellow apostles reported who they had seen, Jesus, Thomas refused to believe unless he could see and touch Christ for himself. A week later his wish was granted: “A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!”’ (John 20:26). When Jesus appeared to Thomas he saw, heard, and touched the resurrected Lord.
Thomas saw the Lord. Jesus was clearly visible to Thomas who later said to him, “you have seen me” (vs. 29).
Thomas also heard the Lord say, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe” (vs. 27). To this unquestionably convincing display of physical evidence Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!” (vs. 28).
It can be inferred that Thomas also touched the Lord. Certainly this is what Thomas said he wanted to do (vs. 25). And Jesus told him to (vs. 27). Although the text only says Thomas saw and believed (vs. 29), it is natural to infer that he also touched Jesus. Jesus was touched on at least two other occasions (John 20:9, 17). So it may very well be that Thomas also touched him on this occasion also. At any rate, Thomas certainly encountered a visible, physical resurrection body with his natural senses. Whether Thomas touched Christ, he certainly saw his crucifixion wounds (John 20:27-29). The fact that Jesus still had these physical wounds from his crucifixion is an unmistakable proof that he was resurrected in the material body in which he was crucified. This was the second time that Jesus exhibited his wounds. It is difficult to imagine that he could have offered greater proof that the resurrection body is the same body of flesh that was crucified and now glorified.
To the Seven Disciples (John 21)
John records Jesus’ appearance to the seven disciples who went fishing in Galilee. During this appearance the disciples saw Jesus, heard him, and ate breakfast with him.
The Bible says that “Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias” (John 21:1). Early in the morning they saw him standing on the shore (vs. 4). After he talked and ate with them, the text says, “this is now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead” (vs. 14).
The disciples also heard Jesus speak (vss. 5, 6, 10, 12). Jesus carried on an extended conversation with Peter in which he was asked three times whether he loved Jesus (vss. 15, 16, 17). Since Peter had denied Jesus three times, not only did Peter hear Jesus speak but Jesus’ words no doubt rang in his ears. Jesus also told Peter how he would die (vss. 18, 19).
Jesus apparently also ate with the disciples during this appearance. He asked them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?” (vs. 5). After telling them where to catch some (vs. 6), Jesus told them to “Bring some of the fish you have just caught” (vs. 10). Then he said to the disciples, “Come and have breakfast” (vs. 12). As they did, “Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish” (vs. 13). Although the text does not explicitly state that Jesus ate, nevertheless, as host of the meal it would have been noteworthy had he not. It is safe to say that, in addition to seeing and hearing Jesus, the disciples shared a physical meal with him.
To Commission Apostles (Matt. 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18)
The next appearance of Christ was at the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20). As Jesus commissioned them to disciple all nations, he was both seen and clearly heard by all the apostles.
The text says that the disciples went to Galilee where Jesus had told them to go (vs. 16). And “when they saw him, they worshiped him” (vs. 17). Mark adds that they were eating (Mark 16:14), although this version is in the questionably authentic final section of Mark. However, it was not simply what they saw but what they heard that left a lasting impression.
Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18-19). The fact that this small band shortly became the world’s greatest missionary society is ample testimony for how powerfully what the apostles heard Jesus speak impressed them.
To Five Hundred (1 Cor. 15:6)
There is no narration of this appearance. It is simply noted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6 where he says: “After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive.”
Since Jesus was seen on this occasion and since he left such a lasting impression on them, it can be assumed that they heard him speak. Why else would Paul imply their readiness to testify on behalf of the resurrection, saying in essence, “If you do not believe me, just go and ask them?”
Despite its brevity this one verse is a powerful testimony to the bodily resurrection of Christ. It has the ring of truth about it. Paul is writing in 55 or 56, only twenty-two or twenty-three years after the resurrection (33). Most of these eye witnesses were still alive. And Paul challenges his reader to check out what he is saying with this multitude of witness who saw and probably heard Christ after his resurrection.
To James (1 Cor. 15:7)
Jesus’ brothers were unbelievers before his resurrection. The Gospel of John informs us that “even his own brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5). But after his resurrection at least James and Jude, the half-brothers of Jesus, became believers (cf. Mark 6:3). However, the Scriptures say explicitly that Jesus “appeared to James” (1 Cor. 15:7). No doubt Jesus also spoke to James. At least as a result of his experience James became a pillar of the early church and played a prominent part in the first church council (Acts 15:13).
James also wrote one of the books of the New Testament in which he spoke of “the crown of life” (James 1:12) and of the “Lord’s coming” (5:8) which was made possible only through the resurrection of Christ (2 Tim 1:10). So whatever James saw or heard during this resurrection appearance of Christ not only converted him but made him into a prominent figure in the apostolic church.
At the Ascension (Acts 1:4-8)
Jesus’ last appearance before his ascension was again to all the apostles. During this time they saw him, heard him, and ate with him. These three lines of evidence are the final confirmation of the literal, material nature of his resurrection body.
Jesus was seen by his apostles on this occasion. Luke says, “after his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive” (Acts 1:3). He adds, Jesus “appeared to them over a period of forty days.”
They also heard Jesus, since on this occasion he “spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). And during this specific appearance Jesus commanded them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about” (vs. 4). So it was not only a familiar voice but a familiar teaching that confirmed that this was the Jesus who had taught them before the crucifixion.
Luke also says in this passage that Jesus ate with the disciples, as he had done on many occasions. For this last appearance before the ascension was “on one occasion, while he was eating with them” (Acts 1:4). This is the fourth recorded instance of Jesus eating after the resurrection. It was apparently something he did rather often, since even the short summary of his ministry by Peter in Acts 10 declares that the apostles “ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (vs. 41). Surely, both the intimate fellowship and the physical ability to eat food was more than sufficient proof that Jesus was appearing in the same tangible, physical body he possessed before his resurrection.
https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-norman-geisler-2/evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-from-the-dead/#Direct_Evidence
I've read Geisler's commentary, read his book on Islam, watched him debate, watched him preach....I've read many other books and commentaries from other authors/theologians.
So please forgive me, but what exactly is your point with the copy and paste? What did you learn from the commentary? Ready to give your life to Christ?
Or is this your support for hardened hearts and lack of faith of the apostles? Or are you changing topics?
With your comment on sexism are you now changing topics in that direction? I'm fully prepared to speak to that topic if you prefer.
I assume with this you're redirecting and raising the standard God and his believers are "lying, sexist, hypocritical bigots" argument? Women submitting to men, women being the helpers to men, women being lead by men, not speaking aloud in church, not being leaders in a church, OT instances of polygamy and men having concubines? Or is it something else?
-
interesting watching a debate about a resurrection that is alleged to have happened 2000 years ago based on a collection of stories from a book, and using the words special pleading and nonsequitur. I almost spit out my coffee
Well share the joke with the rest of us Carrot Top! ;D
-
I've read Geisler's commentary, read his book on Islam, watched him debate, watched him preach....I've read many other books and commentaries from other authors/theologians.
So please forgive me, but what exactly is your point with the copy and paste? What did you learn from the commentary? Ready to give your life to Christ?
Or is this your support for hardened hearts and lack of faith of the apostles? Or are you changing topics?
With your comment on sexism are you now changing topics in that direction? I'm fully prepared to speak to that topic if you prefer.
I assume with this you're redirecting and raising the standard God and his believers are "lying, sexist, hypocritical bigots" argument? Women submitting to men, women being the helpers to men, women being lead by men, not speaking aloud in church, not being leaders in a church, OT instances of polygamy and men having concubines? Or is it something else?
my point is, it's doubtful that most of these people (some of them classified as saints too) would be believers of the gospel today given such firsthand proof they needed.
-
my point is, it's doubtful that most of these people (some of them classified as saints too) would be believers of the gospel today given such firsthand proof they needed.
Understood. Good thing God came as the incarnate Son of God in Jesus Christ on earth for approx 33 years so his ministry, teaching, miracles and lifestyle could be witnessed and documented and the majority of that doubt put to rest. Unfortunately not everyone wanted to believe even with Jesus in their face LOL.
Would the saints of scripture be believers today if they didn't experience what they did while alive on earth? I suspect some might not believe if we didn't have all this evidence as you've noted.
-
Understood. Good thing God came as the incarnate Son of God in Jesus Christ on earth for approx 33 years so his ministry, teaching, miracles and lifestyle could be witnessed and documented and the majority of that doubt put to rest. Unfortunately not everyone wanted to believe even with Jesus in their face LOL.
Would the saints of scripture be believers today if they didn't experience what they did while alive on earth? I suspect some might not believe if we didn't have all this evidence as you've noted.
all this evidence?
-
all this evidence?
Of course, there's a ton of evidence to support the existence of God and the events/people of the bible.
The problem is if objectors refuse to follow the evidence or abide by scripture they remain ignorant and mocking....that simple really.
-
my point is, it's doubtful that most of these people (some of them classified as saints too) would be believers of the gospel today given such firsthand proof they needed.
The whole doubting issues in the bible make the stories unlikely imo. You just spent time personally observing God doing all manner of miracles, you watched in person, god, upon moses request, part the seas to allow escape... but because Moses takes too long in the mountains getting the 10 commandments you decide to build golden statues and worship them? Come on...
-
The whole doubting issues in the bible make the stories unlikely imo. You just spent time personally observing God doing all manner of miracles, you watched in person, god, upon moses request, part the seas to allow escape... but because Moses takes too long in the mountains getting the 10 commandments you decide to build golden statues and worship them? Come on...
and the books telling of these tales are more than sufficient for the generations to come
-
and the books telling of these tales are more than sufficient for the generations to come
Makes you wonder..
-
The whole doubting issues in the bible make the stories unlikely imo. You just spent time personally observing God doing all manner of miracles, you watched in person, god, upon moses request, part the seas to allow escape... but because Moses takes too long in the mountains getting the 10 commandments you decide to build golden statues and worship them? Come on...
and the books telling of these tales are more than sufficient for the generations to come
Makes you wonder..
So the complaint is that God was there with the nation of Israel performing miracles and yet they still act a fool and deny him, remain ignorant, learn nothing and opt for the pleasure of their sin therefore the story in scripture is far fetched or ridiculous?
That is an interesting point.
It's kinda like today when nonbelievers put forth objections about God and someone like myself comes along and resolves many of them and helps them understand how exactly to know God and instead they cling to their resolved objections, remain in ignorance, learn nothing, continue to deny God and opt for the pleasure of their sin.
I agree it does make you wonder.
-
So the complaint is that God was there with the nation of Israel performing miracles and yet they still act a fool and deny him, remain ignorant, learn nothing and opt for the pleasure of their sin therefore the story in scripture is far fetched or ridiculous?
That is an interesting point.
It's kinda like today when nonbelievers put forth objections about God and someone like myself comes along and resolves many of them and helps them understand how exactly to know God and instead they cling to their resolved objections, remain in ignorance, learn nothing, continue to deny God and opt for the pleasure of their sin.
I agree it does make you wonder.
No, it's nothing like that really..
-
No, it's nothing like that really..
Really? Well what is it like then?
-
Really? Well what is it like then?
That humans don't work that way. Humans will believe a religious con artist like Tillerson even after journalistic investigators discover thousands of unread prayer requests, con artists that pretend to heal even AFTER it is proven they used wireless communication to let the "preacher" know what ailments the subject had... so, if they actually witnessed the sea parting, there is just no friggin way they are going to stop following simply because Moses took an extra day or two to get back. Just ain't happening
-
That humans don't work that way. Humans will believe a religious con artist like Tillerson even after journalistic investigators discover thousands of unread prayer requests, con artists that pretend to heal even AFTER it is proven they used wireless communication to let the "preacher" know what ailments the subject had... so, if they actually witnessed the sea parting, there is just no friggin way they are going to stop following simply because Moses took an extra day or two to get back. Just ain't happening
Why did the Israelites make the golden calf?
What did the calf represent for the Israelites?
How long was Moses gone?
-
Why did the Israelites make the golden calf?
What did the calf represent for the Israelites?
How long was Moses gone?
all irrelevant questions, rabbit trails...
-
It's kinda like today when nonbelievers put forth objections about God and someone like myself comes along and resolves many of them and helps them understand how exactly to know God and instead they cling to their resolved objections, remain in ignorance, learn nothing, continue to deny God and opt for the pleasure of their sin.
You don't accept any objections, it's not in your comprehension.
You had an experience in your life that was physically threatening, you got better due to the odds against you, and attribute this to god and your past dealings with Christianity. Nothing will convince you otherwise, so it's pointless to argue.
-
all irrelevant questions, rabbit trails...
I understand how it would appear that way to someone that doesn't understand context or the purpose of the questions and I don't mean that to be insulting either....plenty of topics I don't understand either.
I choose my words carefully and don't use red herrings similar to those CONSTANTLY used by others when arguing with me.
If you don't know, you don't know...that's fine. Although, I honestly don't think you'd care even if I gave you an explanation LOL and today I don't have the time for detailed replies.
-
You don't accept any objections, it's not in your comprehension.
You had an experience in your life that was physically threatening, you got better due to the odds against you, and attribute this to god and your past dealings with Christianity. Nothing will convince you otherwise, so it's pointless to argue.
Your assessment of my situation is absolutely incorrect and no amount of me telling you otherwise will change your opinion.....you know what you think you know and that's good enough for you. My testimony remains my testimony and the details therein remain unchanged even if you choose to gloss over or ignore some of the more poignant ones. This isn't about you "figuring me out" LOL.....I've been an open book for years. Either you get it or you don't.
-
Your assessment of my situation is absolutely incorrect and no amount of me telling you otherwise will change your opinion.....you know what you think you know and that's good enough for you.
so you do accept objections to your god?
-
so you do accept objections to your god?
Of course provided the objection raised doesn't have a definite explanation that resolves it or at the very least casts doubt upon it.
Whether or not someone is willing to digest that explanation and potentially change their mindset is an altogether different story.
I've had more experienced believers explain things to me and correct my understanding of passages of scripture in the past. I'm sure I'll have more of those situations in the future.
Do I have answers to every objection raised? Of course not. I answer where I can and seek out an answer if I don't know it already.
When it comes to the majority of objections raised on GB I typically have pre-written, canned answers at the ready because I've typically gone over the same objections dozens of times in the past. It's rare today when something new is raised that I haven't answered directly, read about or overheard.
It's typically when someone takes a passage of scripture, ignores context and history and perverts it to conform to their desired outcome that I'll encounter something new or unusual...can't predict a lot of those things.
-
Of course provided the objection raised doesn't have a definite explanation that resolves it or at the very least casts doubt upon it.
lol.
I do find humor in you, MOS. And I know you're being dead serious. ;D
-
lol.
I do find humor in you, MOS. And I know you're being dead serious. ;D
I get it. You're most likely laughing at the "casts doubt upon it" because that's the atheist foundation....casting doubt on theism and believing atheism has done so successfully.
As I've made clear to so many atheists/agnostics before you I'm not here to change your mind or the next atheist's mind or the atheist after that. As far as I'm concerned the atheists' opinions are set in stone and unfortunately those folks have sealed their own fate.
My purpose is to share the gospel of Christ and challenge - at every turn possible - cliched objections, twisted scripture, logical fallacies, etc...for the benefit of the reader that has not made up their mind about God. I want people to see that atheist/agnostic objections can be resolved and sometimes easily. Typically the atheist does the majority of question asking, but I refuse to allow atheism to corner the market on asking questions. So I both defend my position (exhaustively at times) and force atheists to answers questions as well.
I thank God he's sustained me as long as he has and when it's time for me to leave GB the community of atheists and agnostics can rejoice!! That time ain't come yet though....sorry.
-
MOS, what do you imagine would happen if tomorrow, the earth stopped it's rotation around the sun?
-
Why did the Israelites make the golden calf?
What did the calf represent for the Israelites?
How long was Moses gone?
1. Because they were concerned Moses had been gone too long, his absence as a representative of God, left them feeling God/Moses may have abandoned them, so they created or had Aaron create a golden calf out of the jewelry these slaves had brought with them (red flag)
2. a God, as they were used to worshipping idols prior to their deliverance from bondage. Their religion had plural gods at the time
3. 40 days (red flag)
10 plagues were brought down upon Egypt, the sea was parted, and yet 40 days later they are ready to build a golden calf. Again, one needs to ask themselves this simple question. Is this story more likely true... or a fable or allegory passed down through generations.
-
1. Because they were concerned Moses had been gone too long, his absence as a representative of God, left them feeling God/Moses may have abandoned them, so they created or had Aaron create a golden calf out of the jewelry these slaves had brought with them (red flag)
2. a God, as they were used to worshipping idols prior to their deliverance from bondage. Their religion had plural gods at the time
3. 40 days (red flag)
10 plagues were brought down upon Egypt, the sea was parted, and yet 40 days later they are ready to build a golden calf. Again, one needs to ask themselves this simple question. Is this story more likely true... or a fable or allegory passed down through generations.
Correct, they thought Moses may have died and they were left almost leaderless (with the exception of Aaron).
Now back to original premise you put forth which was (and I'm paraphrasing) "how could the Israelites after witnessing all those miracles suddenly abandon God and act a fool cause Moses was gone a couple extra days? Because people just don't do that."
Hence my questions. Moses was gone for 40 days not just a few. They constructed the calf as an idol to God and as you mentioned they were accustomed to many gods being worshiped in the ancient near east....especially in Egypt in which they were enslaved.
Further, Moses had not yet returned with the commandments which included the commandment to not make and worship false idols.
When people are involved in situations of uncertainty coupled with stress and anxiety they sometimes panic, they sometimes riot, they sometimes act a fool. When order or the appearance of order is stripped from people some freak out, lash out, cry out, etc..... The Israelites were God's chosen people, but they were still regular, fallible people and they made a mistake.
So despite their miraculous deliverance from captivity they panicked in that moment and erorred in judgment. It happens to people all the time when stress is high. These folks were not staying at the Ritz Carlton. They really didn't know where they were, what Moses was doing, when/if he was coming back, etc......they were scared and they made an idol to represent the God that delivered them from captivity, but they shouldn't have.
-
MOS, what do you imagine would happen if tomorrow, the earth stopped it's rotation around the sun?
I don't know exactly, but it would be bad situation. Crops, seasons, tides, weather, etc....would all be impacted. A sudden, natural stop of the earth's movement would potentially shift continents. Again, don't really know.
-
I don't know exactly, but it would be bad situation. Crops, seasons, tides, weather, etc....would all be impacted. A sudden, natural stop of the earth's movement would potentially shift continents. Again, don't really know.
Yet when the bible has a story in it where God stopped it so one tribe could wipe out another, it's totally believable? I know you saw this question coming
-
Yet when the bible has a story in it where God stopped it so one tribe could wipe out another, it's totally believable? I know you saw this question coming
LOL! Without being arrogant, yes, from a mile away.
I almost quoted from Joshua and then decided to play along.
If by natural causes the earth were to stop it would be catastrophic. That's not what you're referring to though in scripture...a natural event. Much like the flood, parting of the sea, sun stopping in the sky, etc....all events were sovereignly guided and controlled by God. Remove God and the impossible (or supernatural) is no longer possible. Scripture is the inspired word and story of God and his creation so God remains permanently involved.
Remove God and convert the history to purely natural causation and you have a customized position to defend against. It's a straw man argument and special pleading fallacy as well. Hope you didn't spit out your coffee laughing!
-
As I've made clear to so many atheists/agnostics before you I'm not here to change your mind or the next atheist's mind or the atheist after that. As far as I'm concerned the atheists' opinions are set in stone and unfortunately those folks have sealed their own fate.
I would be a believer in god if the evidence was there. I never understood the theists' argument of the need to deny or refuse god.
It would be like a devout Jew, Muslim, or any other creed trying to convince you that their beliefs are correct.
If you could look at it objectively, you'd see their philosophy is no more valid than yours.
-
I would be a believer in god if the evidence was there. I never understood the theists' argument of the need to deny or refuse god.
It would be like a devout Jew, Muslim, or any other creed trying to convince you that their beliefs are correct.
If you could look at it objectively, you'd see their philosophy is no more valid than yours.
Plenty of evidence available. Gotta be willing to follow it. Just adhere to the scientific method atheists claim to hold to.
What don't you understand about that?
Main difference being other faith systems don't have Christ, fulfilled prophecy, resurrection, Holy Spirit, etc....they lack an anchor to hold their position.
My position is unyielding and challenged only by subjectivity. Perhaps there's more to what I stand for than you realize? ;)
-
Plenty of evidence available. Gotta be willing to follow it. Just adhere to the scientific method atheists claim to hold to.
What don't you understand about that?
And show us this adherence. This should be good.
-
And show us this adherence. This should be good.
The scientific method evaluates a premise or thesis statement by asking questions, collecting data/evidence, testing that data/evidence and following it to a logical conclusion. There are many definitions of the scientific method so I leave it to the atheist community to determine which methodology should be used to follow evidence for God.
But all you really need to do is read the bible and do what it says to do.
Lee Strobel, Christian apologist/author/former atheist/former journalist utilized the scientific method and journalistic evidence gathering techniques to discover the reality of God. He left atheism and entered theism as a Christian. Has a good half dozen books on the topic....I've read 3 of them.
Was it good for you?
-
The scientific method evaluates a premise or thesis statement by asking questions, collecting data/evidence, testing that data/evidence and following it to a logical conclusion. There are many definitions of the scientific method so I leave it to the atheist community to determine which methodology should be used to follow evidence for God.
But all you really need to do is read the bible and do what it says to do.
Lee Strobel, Christian apologist/author/former atheist/former journalist utilized the scientific method and journalistic evidence gathering techniques to discover the reality of God. He left atheism and entered theism as a Christian. Has a good half dozen books on the topic....I've read 3 of them.
Was it good for you?
Your real answer is "all you need to do is read the bible and do what it says to do" -hardly scientific my friend.
You'll probably be surprised at me saying that science can neither prove or disprove the existince of god.
However, all the proposals on who and what god is throughout humanity, ie that has been put forth on the table, can easily be concluded as irrational or unsubstantiated. That's the edge of agnosticism.
And this is why religions are called “faiths” collectively. Because you believe something in the absence of evidence. That’s what it is! That’s why it’s called “faith”! Otherwise we would call all religions “evidence,” but we don’t, for exactly that reason.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
-
Your real answer is "all you need to do is read the bible and do what it says to do" -hardly scientific my friend.
You'll probably be surprised at me saying that science can neither prove or disprove the existince of god.
However, all the proposals on who and what god is throughout humanity, ie that has been put forth on the table, can easily be concluded as irrational or unsubstantiated. That's the edge of agnosticism.
And this is why religions are called “faiths” collectively. Because you believe something in the absence of evidence. That’s what it is! That’s why it’s called “faith”! Otherwise we would call all religions “evidence,” but we don’t, for exactly that reason.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Absolutely correct that is my simple position.
Science is simply knowledge....knowledge of the natural.
My point about atheists simply adhering to the scientific method they purport to abide by still stands unanswered.
Tyson is woefully ignorant concerning matters of God and simply ignores any and all evidence via platitudes and cliches that his faithful mistake for wisdom. This further supporting my point.
-
LOL! Without being arrogant, yes, from a mile away.
I almost quoted from Joshua and then decided to play along.
If by natural causes the earth were to stop it would be catastrophic. That's not what you're referring to though in scripture...a natural event. Much like the flood, parting of the sea, sun stopping in the sky, etc....all events were sovereignly guided and controlled by God. Remove God and the impossible (or supernatural) is no longer possible. Scripture is the inspired word and story of God and his creation so God remains permanently involved.
Remove God and convert the history to purely natural causation and you have a customized position to defend against. It's a straw man argument and special pleading fallacy as well. Hope you didn't spit out your coffee laughing!
Hey, if you can believe that, more power to you :)