by Awakened at Gilead 103 Replies latest members adult
I'm not trying to win, Caliber. I'm just after the truth, as we all are.
But it seems that the truth about Jesus is quite hazy, so why be dogmatic as some are about his existence, miracles, or divinity, as some posters are? If someone is dogmatic about Jesus, I will call them on it. If someone recognizes that there is doubt associated with who Jesus really was, they will be tolerant of non-Christian viewpoints.
If you are tolerant of my viewpoint as I am tolerant of yours, then I have won.
Billy, well put. Christianity should be subjected to the same test that we subjected the WTS too. It seems to me that many Christians have not subjected their beliefs objectively to such a test. If any have, and still believe, more power to them. But those who have not tested their beliefs in a rational way, yet insist that non-believers are doomed, I take offense with that.
As I stated to Caliber, I win once believers and non-believers tolerate each other. Til then, I will call out any believers that are intolerant. This thread is just one example of that.
AAG,what do you think of what i have said on page 2
A&G,
You are right.. I do respect your right and free choice to decide peace be with you ! ~Cal
We both win then, Cal!
@ Badboy, I have not heard of this argument. Can you elaborate? Although the OP is not about the historicity of the apostles, but rather about Jesus. But please explain!
You are right.. I do respect your right and free choice to decide peace be with you !
Agreed, there can be no merit, morality, or virtue where there is no free choice, and faith is a free choice.
Pax.
BTS
With his preaching of the uncovering of secrets, illumination, the stones crying out, you would expect that he would have abundant external proof of his historical existance, miracles, and teaching.
Where would you say such proof should be? The documents we have from that era are rather sparse. Are you not setting up a standard that could dismantle most of our received history of antiquity?
Why didn't the generations that lived soon after Jesus debate his existence?
Some links worth reading:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/GodWhoLiconaReview.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm
Why didn't the generations that lived soon after Jesus debate his existence?
They did. It's in the Bible:
(1 John 4:2-3) 2 YOU gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, 3 but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
(2 John 7) . . .For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
So there was already significant debate in the first century about whether Jesus was historical. It's in print in the Bible.
Now, Lance, according to your rules we couldn't cite the Bible. :)
Was this disputing the historical existence of Jesus or whether he had come in the flesh (as opposed to being a spirit being materialized on earth)?
You got me on that one, casabilas... I broke my own rules... I opened a can of worms didn't I...
I don't believe in the Bible, so don't ask me what it means. All I am saying is that it is not so clear and dry that no one doubted his existence.
