Topic: Why I believe In God. | |
---|---|
Fact # 1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."{14} According to the New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions. 23. Fact # 2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the prominent, skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann, "It may be taken as historically certain that...the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{15} These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies. 24. Fact # 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Jews had no belief in a dying, much less a rising, Messiah, and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead prior to the end of the world. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, "Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was..."{16} N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him."{17} 25. Therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists. Krimsa, am I justified in my belief that Christ Rose from the dead. |
|
|
|
Nubby- Those are not facts. Just because they were written in the bible, doesn't make them facts. They are indeed, beliefs. There's nothing wrong with your beliefs UNTIL you start showing them to others as FACT. Fact- Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. -You can not verify or prove any of those things actually happened. Belief- Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true Those facts are agreed upon by liberal scholarship. Can we know anything about history? |
|
|
|
Even if that were true, then they are probably Christians. Using the bible to substantiate the bible is not very impressive.
|
|
|
|
Those facts are agreed upon by liberal scholarship. Can we know anything about history? Nubby, We can prove things in history with evidence of it occurring. The bible isn't "evidence". And just because scholars believe things to be true, doesn't make it FACT. |
|
|
|
Those facts are agreed upon by liberal scholarship. Can we know anything about history? Nubby, We can prove things in history with evidence of it occurring. The bible isn't "evidence". And just because scholars believe things to be true, doesn't make it FACT. It is agreed upon by scholarship today that the gospels are actual attempts by the disciples and followers of Jesus to write biographies concerning the life of Jesus. |
|
|
|
Those facts are agreed upon by liberal scholarship. Can we know anything about history? Nubby, We can prove things in history with evidence of it occurring. The bible isn't "evidence". And just because scholars believe things to be true, doesn't make it FACT. It is agreed upon by scholarship today that the gospels are actual attempts by the disciples and followers of Jesus to write biographies concerning the life of Jesus. Everybody Lies
|
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists.
|
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. |
|
|
|
Those facts are agreed upon by liberal scholarship. Can we know anything about history? Nubby, We can prove things in history with evidence of it occurring. The bible isn't "evidence". And just because scholars believe things to be true, doesn't make it FACT. It is agreed upon by scholarship today that the gospels are actual attempts by the disciples and followers of Jesus to write biographies concerning the life of Jesus. You're talking about a book that's been translated into different languages by people who weren't even there when all this "happened". It's written by their opinions. Their own biases are in there everywhere. It's not fact. You're also basing your beliefs on biased "scholars". And who are these "scholars" you speak of anyway?? |
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. Theologians are not objective. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sun 01/25/09 06:01 PM
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. Theologians are not objective. That is ignorance. |
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. Theologians are not objective. That is ignorance. |
|
|
|
Theology is the study of a God or the Gods from a religious perspective.
Hardly objective. |
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. Theologians are not objective. That is ignorance. Would a historian be better? |
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. Theologians are not objective. That is ignorance. Would a historian be better? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 01/25/09 06:04 PM
|
|
Why do you have to convince us of this anyway? If you are crazy and you want to believe in this. That’s on you.
|
|
|
|
theology - the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth
theology - a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings; "Jewish theology"; "Roman Catholic theology" theology - the learned profession acquired by specialized courses in religion (usually taught at a college or seminary); "he studied theology at Oxford" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes a historian or a scientist who holds a degree would be better. Not a theologian or a Christian. Otherwise it doesn’t really carry any weight at all.
|
|
|
|
Christian scholars maybe. Not any credible archeologist or cultural or physical anthropologists. Again, you dont know what your talking about. Theologians liberal or conservative weigh all the evidence. Do you want me to qoute historians who's specialty is during this time. Theologians are not objective. That is ignorance. Would a historian be better? Read my 4 facts. Look everyone up. |
|
|