In Orthodox theology, at least, it is very important. We refer to it as the Harrowing of Hell. Christ descended into Hades to preach the Gospel to the dead there which includes the OT saints, for no one had entered heaven before then. Christ then had Satan bound, the gates were broken and the way to heaven was openned up. This is depicted in our iconography with the first to be led out being Adam and Eve followed by the OT saints.Didn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell
Didn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?
I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?The Jewish view of Sheol (the place of the dead) was that it is divided into two sections, The upper half of Sheol was the place where the righteous dead went awaiting their release into God's immediate presence. (In Christian thinking this was possible once Christ had paid the true price for atonement of sins).
Dear Jack,They died before Christ came so the theory says they must have been put in Hell.QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
Our Lord says in the Gospel some time before he descended into Hades "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven".So if Elijah ascended into heaven how does that fit in with what JC said? Or where did Elijah go then?
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
The Saints never went to hell.
As you can see from Dives and Lazarus. One ends up in hell and the other at the bosom of Abraham with the divide.
So from hell, Dives could see Lazarus and Abraham and they could see him.
We know that at the point of Christ's death the graves of Saints opened and they were restored to life.
King James Bible
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christs power over life and death is show by the immediate affect his dying had on the saints already dead.
Eternal life and the Kingdom of God are for the believer.
The Saints would not have been in hell. For they would be like the others resting in sleep awaiting the coming of the Messiah and now the return.
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
The Saints never went to hell.
As you can see from Dives and Lazarus. One ends up in hell and the other at the bosom of Abraham with the divide.
So from hell, Dives could see Lazarus and Abraham and they could see him.
We know that at the point of Christ's death the graves of Saints opened and they were restored to life.
King James Bible
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christs power over life and death is show by the immediate affect his dying had on the saints already dead.
Eternal life and the Kingdom of God are for the believer.
The Saints would not have been in hell. For they would be like the others resting in sleep awaiting the coming of the Messiah and now the return.
No, not hell as we use the term today. As ad-o said they went to Sheol, the place of the dead. In their instance it would have been the upper have of Sheol, a pleasant place of conscious existence where the souls of the righteous dead went while they awaited the sacrificial death of Christ.Dear Jack,They died before Christ came so the theory says they must have been put in Hell.QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
No, not hell as we use the term today. As ad-o said they went to Sheol, the place of the dead. In their instance it would have been the upper have of Sheol, a pleasant place of conscious existence where the souls of the righteous dead went while they awaited the sacrificial death of Christ.
Oh goody! ::) Thanks for your valuable opinion. It really added alot to the discussion. Now could you go away.
Oh goody! ::) Thanks for your valuable opinion. It really added alot to the discussion. Now could you go away.
But without evidence to support what is a very fanciful idea, it is right to challenge it.
Oh goody! ::) Thanks for your valuable opinion. It really added alot to the discussion. Now could you go away.
But without evidence to support what is a very fanciful idea, it is right to challenge it.
You don't have to believe it to make a useful contribution to the discusion. The question was why Christ descrnded into Hades. Stop trying to derail the thread.
Thank you for that. You don't often get a decent answer on this forum but that was more than what I expected.I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?The Jewish view of Sheol (the place of the dead) was that it is divided into two sections, The upper half of Sheol was the place where the righteous dead went awaiting their release into God's immediate presence. (In Christian thinking this was possible once Christ had paid the true price for atonement of sins).
The lower half of Sheol was the abode of the unrighteous dead awaiting their final judgement. From the text in Peter we would also conclude that it was likewise the abode of a number of evil spirits or demons, who had been locked up and prohibited from roaming the earth. They were the agents of evil who had been responsible, at the time of the flood, for seducing mankind away from God until the stage was reached (with the exception of Noah) where the earth become such a wicked place that 'every inclination of man's heart was only evil all the time (Gen 6:5).
When Jesus descended into Sheol He accomplished two things. First those in the upper half of Sheol were released from their period of waiting and ascended with Jesus to glory. As we find in Ephesians 4:8, 'When He ascended on high He led a host of captives -i.e those in captivity in the upper half of Sheol. The upper half of Sheol is now empty as all the righteous dead subsequent to Calvary are taken straight to glory.
Secondly Jesus addressed the evil spirits mentioned above. Many translations (including the KJV) state that Jesus 'preached' to them but I do not think this to be a very good translation. The word can also mean to proclaim and I think the preferred translation, as used by the ESV, is that He, 'made proclamation to the spirits in prison'. An analogy would be a victorious Roman general entering a captured city and proclaiming his victory, their defeat and the consequences thereof. So Jesus would have proclaimed to the forces of evil His total victory over sin, death and evil and that their final demise was now certain. All that was left was some mopping up operations.
I do not subscribe to the view that Jesus preached to the souls of the unrighteous dead to allow them a second opportunity to find salvation. Much as this might sound an attractive idea it would be inconsistent with the overall thrust of Scripture.
Thank you for that. You don't often get a decent answer on this forum but that was more than what I expected.Thank you for those comments. I do appreciate them.
My perspective on things is a Jungianesque one, that is an archetypal psychology approach. What you said fits in with this in symbolic terms and I would agree, again in a symbolic perspective, that Christ would have stated how things were going to be or how they will be arranged and set-up to the ones in the lower chamber. In psychological terms preaching to them to try and get them to 'repent' would be an absurd position to take.
Do you know how the Catholic's purgatory fits in with all this?
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.Are you related to Lord Nelson by any chance? Try putting the telescope to your other eye. :) :)
I am not sure what that means in reality? As a kid and a believer, at no time did I have any sense of the presence of Jesus, even though I wanted it then. As one of the 'unrighteous' these days, whatever that actually means, I have absolutely no sense of separation as I believe him to be long dead.
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.Are you related to Lord Nelson by any chance? Try putting the telescope to your other eye. :) :)
I am not sure what that means in reality? As a kid and a believer, at no time did I have any sense of the presence of Jesus, even though I wanted it then. As one of the 'unrighteous' these days, whatever that actually means, I have absolutely no sense of separation as I believe him to be long dead.
DaveM,My post was in response to what I perceived as a genuine question from JK and I think his response justified that belief. I do not 'dream up' answers or explanations. I believe, as do all Christians, that the Scriptures of the Old & New Testaments, as originally received, are the inspired Word of God. As such I simply give an honest answer based on my understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Other Christians will not always agree with me and my interpretation and that is always a welcome point of debate and discussion.QuoteNo, not hell as we use the term today. As ad-o said they went to Sheol, the place of the dead. In their instance it would have been the upper have of Sheol, a pleasant place of conscious existence where the souls of the righteous dead went while they awaited the sacrificial death of Christ.
I love this casuistic retro-fitting of explanations after the fact - it happens a lot in folklore and myth I think. Having decided not only that there is a god but that "He" decided on a brutal blood sacrifice for his son, presumably someone somewhere thought, "Oh hang on a mo, what are we going to do with all those nice folks who pre-deceased him? I know, we'll dream up a kind of waiting room for the undead, chuck in a few battered copies of National Geographic and Robert's yer Aunty's husband!"
It can get messy though because each time a new explanation has to be dreamed up it tends to lead to further problems with the story, and thus to ever-more convoluted explanations to get out of them. Interesting though for students of this kind of thing.
Just to note Alan Burns is RC, so could give that perspective.Good point. Thanks for that.
You cannot 'see' what I am talking about? Oh dear, you must surely be related.From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.Are you related to Lord Nelson by any chance? Try putting the telescope to your other eye. :) :)
I am not sure what that means in reality? As a kid and a believer, at no time did I have any sense of the presence of Jesus, even though I wanted it then. As one of the 'unrighteous' these days, whatever that actually means, I have absolutely no sense of separation as I believe him to be long dead.
What are you talking about?
Thank you for that. You don't often get a decent answer on this forum but that was more than what I expected.Thank you for those comments. I do appreciate them.
My perspective on things is a Jungianesque one, that is an archetypal psychology approach. What you said fits in with this in symbolic terms and I would agree, again in a symbolic perspective, that Christ would have stated how things were going to be or how they will be arranged and set-up to the ones in the lower chamber. In psychological terms preaching to them to try and get them to 'repent' would be an absurd position to take.
Do you know how the Catholic's purgatory fits in with all this?
I do not really have any serious argument in adopting a symbolic approach to many Scripture passages, particularly those dealing with matters which lie beyond the grave. Life beyond this present one is also one which is outside time and the restrictions of the present physical world that we live in. But our understanding and thinking is very much limited by the environment in which we find ourselves. So the Scriptures need to use physical examples to help us get some insights into these spiritual realities. But we are on dangerous grounds when we start insisting on imposing literal interpretations. Rather we need to focus on understanding the important ‘truths’ which are being conveyed by the passage.
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.
Being a good (bad AM might say) Presbyterian I do not agree with the Catholic teaching on purgatory but am not really in a position to comment on it. Perhaps ad_o, who probably has a better understanding of Catholic doctrine, may have some useful insights here from his Orthodox perspective.
My post was in response to what I perceived as a genuine question from JK and I think his response justified that belief. I do not 'dream up' answers or explanations. I believe, as do all Christians, that the Scriptures of the Old & New Testaments, as originally received, are the inspired Word of God. As such I simply give an honest answer based on my understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Other Christians will not always agree with me and my interpretation and that is always a welcome point of debate and discussion.
Your view would be along the lines that the same Scriptures represent the biased ramblings of a bunch of wandering nomads, with very limited education, who happened to live in the Middle East some two or three millennia ago. You are welcome to your view but I see no benefit in engaging in another of those sterile perpetual debates on the issue.
Just a point in question, with reference to the bit I have highlighted. Isn't the Christian explanation a literal one with regards to souls, evil spirits and Christ himself, and other aspects, but not all of them. As you say from the perspective of your limited and restrictive earthly life you have no bases for such details, at least not for most of them, and even the ones you may have something these are usually not totally clear and a little fussy....? Putting aside the claims of belief and faith as these put one on dangerous grounds when assessing these with our understanding.Thank you for that. You don't often get a decent answer on this forum but that was more than what I expected.Thank you for those comments. I do appreciate them.
My perspective on things is a Jungianesque one, that is an archetypal psychology approach. What you said fits in with this in symbolic terms and I would agree, again in a symbolic perspective, that Christ would have stated how things were going to be or how they will be arranged and set-up to the ones in the lower chamber. In psychological terms preaching to them to try and get them to 'repent' would be an absurd position to take.
Do you know how the Catholic's purgatory fits in with all this?
I do not really have any serious argument in adopting a symbolic approach to many Scripture passages, particularly those dealing with matters which lie beyond the grave. Life beyond this present one is also one which is outside time and the restrictions of the present physical world that we live in. But our understanding and thinking is very much limited by the environment in which we find ourselves. So the Scriptures need to use physical examples to help us get some insights into these spiritual realities. But we are on dangerous grounds when we start insisting on imposing literal interpretations. Rather we need to focus on understanding the important ‘truths’ which are being conveyed by the passage.
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.
Being a good (bad AM might say) Presbyterian I do not agree with the Catholic teaching on purgatory but am not really in a position to comment on it. Perhaps ad_o, who probably has a better understanding of Catholic doctrine, may have some useful insights here from his Orthodox perspective.
I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did. "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died. From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die. To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.Are you related to Lord Nelson by any chance? Try putting the telescope to your other eye. :) :)
I am not sure what that means in reality? As a kid and a believer, at no time did I have any sense of the presence of Jesus, even though I wanted it then. As one of the 'unrighteous' these days, whatever that actually means, I have absolutely no sense of separation as I believe him to be long dead.
What are you talking about?
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.Are you related to Lord Nelson by any chance? Try putting the telescope to your other eye. :) :)
I am not sure what that means in reality? As a kid and a believer, at no time did I have any sense of the presence of Jesus, even though I wanted it then. As one of the 'unrighteous' these days, whatever that actually means, I have absolutely no sense of separation as I believe him to be long dead.
What are you talking about?
Nelson had a blind right eye ;)
But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did. "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died. From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die. To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.
Or the reason why JC seems so far away from them is because they don't know how to use a telescope.... ;)From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.Are you related to Lord Nelson by any chance? Try putting the telescope to your other eye. :) :)
I am not sure what that means in reality? As a kid and a believer, at no time did I have any sense of the presence of Jesus, even though I wanted it then. As one of the 'unrighteous' these days, whatever that actually means, I have absolutely no sense of separation as I believe him to be long dead.
What are you talking about?
Nelson had a blind right eye ;)
That is a valid question and I have spent a bit of time considering how best to respond.Just a point in question, with reference to the bit I have highlighted. Isn't the Christian explanation a literal one with regards to souls, evil spirits and Christ himself, and other aspects, but not all of them. As you say from the perspective of your limited and restrictive earthly life you have no bases for such details, at least not for most of them, and even the ones you may have something these are usually not totally clear and a little fussy....? Putting aside the claims of belief and faith as these put one on dangerous grounds when assessing these with our understanding.Thank you for that. You don't often get a decent answer on this forum but that was more than what I expected.Thank you for those comments. I do appreciate them.
My perspective on things is a Jungianesque one, that is an archetypal psychology approach. What you said fits in with this in symbolic terms and I would agree, again in a symbolic perspective, that Christ would have stated how things were going to be or how they will be arranged and set-up to the ones in the lower chamber. In psychological terms preaching to them to try and get them to 'repent' would be an absurd position to take.
Do you know how the Catholic's purgatory fits in with all this?
I do not really have any serious argument in adopting a symbolic approach to many Scripture passages, particularly those dealing with matters which lie beyond the grave. Life beyond this present one is also one which is outside time and the restrictions of the present physical world that we live in. But our understanding and thinking is very much limited by the environment in which we find ourselves. So the Scriptures need to use physical examples to help us get some insights into these spiritual realities. But we are on dangerous grounds when we start insisting on imposing literal interpretations. Rather we need to focus on understanding the important ‘truths’ which are being conveyed by the passage.
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.
Being a good (bad AM might say) Presbyterian I do not agree with the Catholic teaching on purgatory but am not really in a position to comment on it. Perhaps ad_o, who probably has a better understanding of Catholic doctrine, may have some useful insights here from his Orthodox perspective.
I love this casuistic retro-fitting of explanations after the fact - it happens a lot in folklore and myth I think.And you have any evidence for this otherwise unsupported claim, bhs?
It can get messy though because each time a new explanation has to be dreamed up it tends to lead to further problems with the story, and thus to ever-more convoluted explanations to get out of them. Interesting though for students of this kind of thing.I'd agree with you here, because your dreamt up explanation definitely certainly doesn't fit any of the versions of the story
But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?Where's 'heaven', JK?
Having decided on an atoning Jesus for example, you then have to create as a necessity a waiting room for the deserving undead who came before him.The problem with this, bh, is that wasn't a retrofit as you suggest, but the Jewish understanding at the time of Jesus' life.
I find that process of back-fitting stories interesting, but as you say if you want to confine the discussion to those who actually believe in the content of these stories then I'll leave you to it.The problem is that it is you who are trying to make-out that the concept didn't already exist before Jesus came to earth. Something that you would understand if you were to study Judaism.
Just a point in question, with reference to the bit I have highlighted. Isn't the Christian explanation a literal one with regards to souls, evil spirits and Christ himself, and other aspects, but not all of them.JK, I tyhink that you could claim that it is a literal explanation - but only in terms of the understanding that existed at the time that Jesus was alive. As he often did, he used ideas, understandings and situations that existed at the time to illustrate his teaching. Whether the Jewish understanding was literal or allegorical is open to debate, but that it was the thinking of the Jews of the time is not.
But he had to be resurrected in his new glorified spiritual body before he could go to heaven. Heaven was perfect, there was no place in it for dead people. Death is earthly. And it was important that Jesus died like everybody else. You weren't allowed to say he was an immortal who had assumed human form like Zeus or an angel, or you wouldn't have a proper Resurrection. Actually I suppose the return from Hades was the Resurrection.But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did. "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died. From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die. To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.
Actually I suppose the return from Hades was the Resurrection.I believe that that has been the mainstream Christain understanding since day1, RG.
The problem with this, bh, is that wasn't a retrofit as you suggest, but the Jewish understanding at the time of Jesus' life.
I promised to DaveM to leave this thread to those who believe the content of these texts to be true.Why? I thought this was a debating forum. Are you worried that your arguments don't hold water?
If you seriously think though that the "Jewish understanding" was to anticipate the arrival of an atoning man/god by creating a special waiting room for the undead so as not to get the wrong deal when he finally got there by all means start a thread on it.Not only have we recently had just a thread, bhs; what you query is something that existed in Judaism for many centuries before the idea of Messiah was turned in to a political-military saviour in the 2nd or 3rd century BC. It was covered on the thread mentioned above.
We already know what you think. You rabbit the same stuff over and over again. Piss off!People who hold nonsensical beliefs and know it (the knowing it is the important bit for this point) are always the ones who get touchy when challenged/criticised, aren't they?
We already know what you think. You rabbit the same stuff over and over again. Piss off!People who hold nonsensical beliefs and know it (the knowing it is the important bit for this point) are always the ones who get touchy when challenged/criticised, aren't they?
Why? I thought this was a debating forum. Are you worried that your arguments don't hold water?
Not only have we recently had just a thread, bhs; what you query is something that existed in Judaism for many centuries before the idea of Messiah was turned in to a political-military saviour in the 2nd or 3rd century BC. It was covered on the thread mentioned above.
My first point, and last post, was to do with the Christian faith and the contents of the Bible. I can't tell if you are a Christian or are just putting that possible viewpoint across as part of the argument in an academic way(?).That is a valid question and I have spent a bit of time considering how best to respond.Just a point in question, with reference to the bit I have highlighted. Isn't the Christian explanation a literal one with regards to souls, evil spirits and Christ himself, and other aspects, but not all of them. As you say from the perspective of your limited and restrictive earthly life you have no bases for such details, at least not for most of them, and even the ones you may have something these are usually not totally clear and a little fussy....? Putting aside the claims of belief and faith as these put one on dangerous grounds when assessing these with our understanding.Thank you for that. You don't often get a decent answer on this forum but that was more than what I expected.Thank you for those comments. I do appreciate them.
My perspective on things is a Jungianesque one, that is an archetypal psychology approach. What you said fits in with this in symbolic terms and I would agree, again in a symbolic perspective, that Christ would have stated how things were going to be or how they will be arranged and set-up to the ones in the lower chamber. In psychological terms preaching to them to try and get them to 'repent' would be an absurd position to take.
Do you know how the Catholic's purgatory fits in with all this?
I do not really have any serious argument in adopting a symbolic approach to many Scripture passages, particularly those dealing with matters which lie beyond the grave. Life beyond this present one is also one which is outside time and the restrictions of the present physical world that we live in. But our understanding and thinking is very much limited by the environment in which we find ourselves. So the Scriptures need to use physical examples to help us get some insights into these spiritual realities. But we are on dangerous grounds when we start insisting on imposing literal interpretations. Rather we need to focus on understanding the important ‘truths’ which are being conveyed by the passage.
From a Christian perspective some of the truths which can perhaps be gleaned from this passage in Peter (and some others) include that there is on-going spiritual awareness after death. For the believer this includes a far heightened awareness of being in the nearer presence of Christ while for the unrighteous (and I use this term deliberately rather than unbeliever) there is a far heightened awareness of separation from Christ. Also that there is an ultimate judgement on the latter.
Being a good (bad AM might say) Presbyterian I do not agree with the Catholic teaching on purgatory but am not really in a position to comment on it. Perhaps ad_o, who probably has a better understanding of Catholic doctrine, may have some useful insights here from his Orthodox perspective.
I suppose the short answer is ‘yes’ I do understand them in a literal sense. But then I need to qualify that statement.
On any given day my outlook on life will be influenced by a number of different emotions that I experience. I could be feeling happy, content, at peace with the world. Or I could be feeling sad, concerned, dissatisfied etc. My emotions are very much part of the essential me and are literally very real. But they are not a physical reality, rather part of my essential nature.
Soul and spirit represent another very real part of me and once again I view them literally as very much part of the essential me. But again they are not a physical reality but part of my spiritual dimension. And they represent that very real dimension of the essential me that continues beyond this physical life.
So I interpret concepts found in the Scriptures such as soul or spirit or evil spirits as being representations of reality, which are very much associated with our earthly life and which need to be understood in a literal way, but in spiritual terms rather than physical.
A major problem is that in trying to describe these non-physical realities I only have the vocabulary of the physical world of which I presently part to do this, And there lies the rub and source of so much difficulty in getting a true handle on these realities.
Just a final thought. I am an African, born and bred in Africa and it is a continent which, for better or for worse, very much has a habit of getting into your blood. I also grew up in a very rural part where tribal customs were still very strong and provided the glue which governed much of the way of life.
Now, as a general rule, the western mind sees a very clear distinction between the ‘reality’ of the physical realm and what is viewed as the ‘unreality’ of the supernatural or spiritual world. There are no points of overlap. In contrast to this western view the tribal mind sees no discontinuity. The physical and the spiritual are both part of the same continuum which merge seamlessly into one another. And so they are continuously rubbing shoulders and interacting with one another in everyday life. Both have equal, but separate, reality. Perhaps some sort of analogy can be gleaned from this.
I do not feel that I have addressed your query very adequately but that is the best I can do for the moment.
Why ask me? We aren't talking literally here we are referring to how the OT thought. Red Giant (#31) said that JC went to Hades because everybody did in the Jewish system (I guess). This would infer that what JC did in Sheol created Heaven as Christians refer to it.But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?Where's 'heaven', JK?
I was also referring to Christ as being allegorical, as well. Where do you, Christians, draw the line in the Bible of what is just metaphor, and all that, and what is taken as being fact, events in history, and what proof do you have for your positions?Just a point in question, with reference to the bit I have highlighted. Isn't the Christian explanation a literal one with regards to souls, evil spirits and Christ himself, and other aspects, but not all of them.JK, I tyhink that you could claim that it is a literal explanation - but only in terms of the understanding that existed at the time that Jesus was alive. As he often did, he used ideas, understandings and situations that existed at the time to illustrate his teaching. Whether the Jewish understanding was literal or allegorical is open to debate, but that it was the thinking of the Jews of the time is not.
That doesn't hold water. He went down there to sort Sheol out and free the captivates. The average dead person just went down there and was captive. If he was dead like them then he couldn't have done what he did; as claimed. So he must have been different and as you say immortal and transformed when he went down there, else he would have got caught up in it and chained up in sheol like the rest of them.But he had to be resurrected in his new glorified spiritual body before he could go to heaven. Heaven was perfect, there was no place in it for dead people. Death is earthly. And it was important that Jesus died like everybody else. You weren't allowed to say he was an immortal who had assumed human form like Zeus or an angel, or you wouldn't have a proper Resurrection. Actually I suppose the return from Hades was the Resurrection.But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did. "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died. From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die. To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
How can you be sure it killed everyone else?
Other people may have had boats.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
How can you be sure it killed everyone else?
Other people may have had boats.
That's not what the scriptures say.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.
I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the literal interpretation of Noah and the flood as the story is not credible on any level, imo.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
How can you be sure it killed everyone else?
Other people may have had boats.
That's not what the scriptures say.
But how would they know.
These could be people on the other side of the world.
Boats were around, they had not just been invented.
So people with boats may have survived.
You have to accept the possibility.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
How can you be sure it killed everyone else?
Other people may have had boats.
That's not what the scriptures say.
But how would they know.
These could be people on the other side of the world.
Boats were around, they had not just been invented.
So people with boats may have survived.
You have to accept the possibility.
No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
How can you be sure it killed everyone else?
Other people may have had boats.
That's not what the scriptures say.
But how would they know.
These could be people on the other side of the world.
Boats were around, they had not just been invented.
So people with boats may have survived.
You have to accept the possibility.
No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures say that only those on the ark survived.
No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures say that only those on the ark survived.
"In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also".
People who hold nonsensical beliefs and know it (the knowing it is the important bit for this point) are always the ones who get touchy when challenged/criticised, aren't they?Oh, that's why you get touchy so often, Shakes ;)
No. I could of course ask for examples, but given that I'm still waiting after what now must be four or five months for you to substantiate at least two earlier bald assertions of yours, what would be the point?People who hold nonsensical beliefs and know it (the knowing it is the important bit for this point) are always the ones who get touchy when challenged/criticised, aren't they?Oh, that's why you get touchy so often, Shakes ;)
I think for the most part the Christians have always taken the scriptures literally first. There are some parts, such as the Apocalypse, which are clearly allegorical. Literal and allegorical also overlap, so for instance one can believe Noah and the flood as not only literal but also an allegory of the Church and baptism.The problem with this position is that few leaders of the early church believed it was literal. Most Jews didn't either because of the literary genre in which it was written in the original language. As I think I pointed earlier on this thread, it wasn't read literally until the 15th or 16th centuries. I'm not an expert on Orthodox doctrine, but I've always been led to believe that the Orthodox reading was non-literal - ie that it was allegory. In fact, I understood that the Orthodox view of Genesis 1-11 was that it was a theological document - as many Jews believed it to be.
No. I could of course ask for examples, but given that I'm still waiting after what now must be four or five months for you to substantiate at least two earlier bald assertions of yours, what would be the point?So that makes 2 of us awaiting such substantiation, Shakes.
a_o,bhs, it is widely known that the Flood story was allegorical - so what is your point? What's the allegory included in your Harry Potter quote? By the way, did you quote that from memory? ;)Quote"In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also".
“Harry was speeding toward the ground when the crowd saw him clap his hand to his mouth as though he was going to be sick-he hit the field on all fours-coughed-and something gold fell into his hand.
'I've got the snitch!' he shouted, waving it above his head, and the game ended in complete confusion."
Your turn.
The substantiation of what are you supposed to be waiting for?No. I could of course ask for examples, but given that I'm still waiting after what now must be four or five months for you to substantiate at least two earlier bald assertions of yours, what would be the point?So that makes 2 of us awaiting such substantiation, Shakes.
bhs, it is widely known that the Flood story was allegorical - so what is your point? What's the allegory included in your Harry Potter quote? By the way, did you quote that from memory? ;)
No I don't for the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures say that only those on the ark survived.
The problem with this position is that few leaders of the early church believed it was literal. Most Jews didn't either because of the literary genre in which it was written in the original language.
I think that a very simple explanation of why Christ descended into hell has largely been missed (I seem to remember one or two posts making passing reference to this). In order for the resurrection to have any value, Christ had to die first. For the Jew, he therefore passed into Hades - from which he rose again on the 3rd day - not something that was a normal occurrence, thus showing that he had 'defeated' death. Without descending to Hell (and note that the original word for descended didn't necessarily refer to physically downward action), he couldn't show this victory.
On this we can agree. Christ defeated death, sin and the devil; the proof of which is the resurrection, therefore those in Christ are no longer captive to them for the gates of hell are broken and Satan has been bound.
They were only captive until the end time. Then the messiah would come etc and the righteous dead would be raised to live in the Kingdom for 1,000 years. The Christians thought the end time had already started. The interesting new twist was that the messiah himself had turned out to be the first of the righteous dead to be raised.That doesn't hold water. He went down there to sort Sheol out and free the captivates. The average dead person just went down there and was captive. If he was dead like them then he couldn't have done what he did; as claimed. So he must have been different and as you say immortal and transformed when he went down there, else he would have got caught up in it and chained up in sheol like the rest of them.But he had to be resurrected in his new glorified spiritual body before he could go to heaven. Heaven was perfect, there was no place in it for dead people. Death is earthly. And it was important that Jesus died like everybody else. You weren't allowed to say he was an immortal who had assumed human form like Zeus or an angel, or you wouldn't have a proper Resurrection. Actually I suppose the return from Hades was the Resurrection.But wasn't JC son of God? Where did God live except in heaven...?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did. "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died. From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die. To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.
The resurrection is of course NOT a fact.BR, so glad that you have finally accepted that it is 'a faith based in evidenced belief'.
It is a faith based in evidenced belief.
It most likely did not happen.
The resurrection is of course NOT a fact.BR, so glad that you have finally accepted that it is 'a faith based in evidenced belief'.
It is a faith based in evidenced belief.
It most likely did not happen.
a_o,Thanks for that heads-up, bhs. The definition I found when I googled it seems to have no relevance to this issue.QuoteOn this we can agree. Christ defeated death, sin and the devil; the proof of which is the resurrection, therefore those in Christ are no longer captive to them for the gates of hell are broken and Satan has been bound.
You and Hope might want to think about looking up "reification fallacy" about now.
An Unevidenced belief.And your evidence for its being unevidenced? Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur? The suggestion that you and others make that it wasn't a normal event doesn't mean that it didn't happen After all, there are plenty of events that are one-offs which we take for granted.
I think you knew that!
An Unevidenced belief.And your evidence for its being unevidenced?
I think you knew that!
The lack of any evidence.So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals? After all, they are simply words in 'books' too. Similarly, are you suggesting that - because it only exists on paper, that something like the Magna Carta isn't evidence of monarchy's duty to its subjects?
Words in a book do not count.
Thanks for that heads-up, bhs. The definition I found when I googled it seems to have no relevance to this issue.
I always find it amusing when you and others throw up these 'fallacy' titles which, when investigated, seem streets away from what we talking about. Are they a sort of avoidance method that you think will exonerate you from explaining your disagreement with us for yourself?
So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals? After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.
So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals? After all, they are simply words in 'books' too. Similarly, are you suggesting that - because it only exists on paper, that something like the Magna Carta isn't evidence of monarchy's duty to its subjects?
Do you genuinely not understand the epistemic difference between, say, a Hayne's car repair manual and the collected works of the Brothers Grimm?And what has that got to do with the price of fish, bhs. I realise that you believe that the Biblical record is no more than fable - but you have never produced any evidence to support that belief. To quote from one of your own posts, 'It is a faith based in evidenced belief.'
Wow!
And of course there is plenty of real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times that disproves the claims of Jesus, aren't there, Shaker. And no, when someone like you or bhs categorically claim certain things for the Bible, it us not up to others to disprove you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals? After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.
Based on real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times.
And what has that got to do with the price of fish, bhs.
I realise that you believe that the Biblical record is no more than fable - but you have never produced any evidence to support that belief.
To quote from one of your own posts, 'It is a faith based in evidenced belief.'
This thread was started by an unbeliever who wanted to know why Christians believe Christ descended into Hades and some are still intent on deliberately derailing this thread.
Fuck the lot of you, you cunts!
And of course there is plenty of real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times that disproves the claims of Jesus, aren't there, Shaker. And no, when someone like you or bhs categorically claim certain things for the Bible, it us not up to others to disprove you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
You don't have to fickng believe it to discuss it within the context of the original post. Get that into your fucking thick skull!
And your evidence for its being unevidenced?
Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
The suggestion that you and others make that it wasn't a normal event doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
After all, there are plenty of events that are one-offs which we take for granted.
1. That was BeRational, not bluey, in post #79.Do you genuinely not understand the epistemic difference between, say, a Hayne's car repair manual and the collected works of the Brothers Grimm?And what has that got to do with the price of fish, bhs. I realise that you believe that the Biblical record is no more than fable - but you have never produced any evidence to support that belief. To quote from one of your own posts, 'It is a faith based in evidenced belief.'
Wow!
The lack of any evidence.So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals? After all, they are simply words in 'books' too. Similarly, are you suggesting that - because it only exists on paper, that something like the Magna Carta isn't evidence of monarchy's duty to its subjects?
Words in a book do not count.
Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Hope,QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
Hope,Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there. There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
Oh look there is a man not on a cross. Three days later - oh look the same man not on a cross has not re-appeared. Obviously.Yes, Trent; I appreciate that your sense of contradictory evidence is less than fully developed in such a case.
Oh look there is a man not on a cross. Three days later - oh look the same man not on a cross has not re-appeared. Obviously.Yes, Trent; I appreciate that your sense of contradictory evidence is less than fully developed in such a case.
What an old sourpuss you are.No, not really - though I'll admit that I am currently somewhat below my usual level of enthusism. All I was doing was to point out the childishness of your comment.
Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there. There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.
What an old sourpuss you are.No, not really - though I'll admit that I am currently somewhat below my usual level of enthusism. All I was doing was to point out the childishness of your comment.
Hope,Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there. There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
Hope,Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there. There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
Surely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.There were lots of gnostic gospels. Do they count?
QuoteSurely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.There were lots of gnostic gospels. Do they count?
Hope,QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
QuoteSurely, we can rely on there being many accounts of this happening from many sources.There were lots of gnostic gospels. Do they count?
This thread was started by an unbeliever who wanted to know why Christians believe Christ descended into Hades and some are still intent on deliberately derailing this thread.
Fuck the lot of you, you cunts! You don't have to fickng believe it to discuss it within the context of the original post. Get that into your fucking thick skull!
Eh? The thousand years was never a literal earthly kingdom. Our Lord confirms this when he says to Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world", which is why Chiliasm was condemned by the Constantinopolitan fathers. The thousand years is figurative of the time between Christ's first and second advent. Christ rules his kingdom at the right hand of the Father as the scriptures testify.
Are you ever going to stop wheeling out the negative proof fallacy? Ever?And of course there is plenty of real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times that disproves the claims of Jesus, aren't there, Shaker. And no, when someone like you or bhs categorically claim certain things for the Bible, it us not up to others to disprove you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.So, does that apply to scientific papers and journals? After all, they are simply words in 'books' too.
Based on real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times.
I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?I suppose the simple answer is that Jesus went to Hades because everybody did. "Descended into Hades" was just another way of saying he died. From the perspective of the time, there was nothing surprising about it, because they'd never heard any nonsense about people going to heaven when they die. To have said Jesus went anywhere else at the point of death might have been tantamount to saying he wasn't really dead then.
Dicky,
Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.
Dicky,
Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.
Dicky,
Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.
When you say 'guided by the Holy Spirit', does he send you a coin to flip to decide if a given passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively or do you literally just pick and choose to suit your preconception?
O.
Dicky,
Obviously you have to look at the scriptures as a whole. Anyone fool can proof text but that's not the same as understanding them, which only happens within the life of the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit, that same Holy Spirit through which the scriptures were written.
When you say 'guided by the Holy Spirit', does he send you a coin to flip to decide if a given passage is meant to be taken literally or figuratively or do you literally just pick and choose to suit your preconception?
O.
The life of the Church, that is not only the sacred scriptures but the ancient liturgies, the holy councils, the fathers, the lives of the saints etc.
It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.
It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.
To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.
Essentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)
That opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.I've never known ippy to misrepresent anyone, whereas your last example of it was earlier today.
To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.
QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)
QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
I think that a very simple explanation of why Christ descended into hell has largely been missed (I seem to remember one or two posts making passing reference to this). In order for the resurrection to have any value, Christ had to die first. For the Jew, he therefore passed into Hades - from which he rose again on the 3rd day - not something that was a normal occurrence, thus showing that he had 'defeated' death. Without descending to Hell (and note that the original word for descended didn't necessarily refer to physically downward action), he couldn't show this victory.How does a God die?
It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
But they couldn't do that if the event never took place in the first place. And you have no way of knowing if it did or not; being stuck in this part of history.Hope,Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there. There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
Hope,
In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.
The fact that the whole resurrection thing is based on a total misunderstanding of death does seem to undermine it more than somewhat.I think that a very simple explanation of why Christ descended into hell has largely been missed (I seem to remember one or two posts making passing reference to this). In order for the resurrection to have any value, Christ had to die first. For the Jew, he therefore passed into Hades - from which he rose again on the 3rd day - not something that was a normal occurrence, thus showing that he had 'defeated' death. Without descending to Hell (and note that the original word for descended didn't necessarily refer to physically downward action), he couldn't show this victory.How does a God die?
If he defeated death then he didn't die?
And of course there is plenty of real empirical evidence of experimentation from multiple sources multiple times that disproves the claims of Jesus, aren't there, Shaker.That's somewhat dishonest of you.
And no, when someone like you or bhs categorically claim certain things for the Bible, it us not up to others to disprove you. The burden of proof is on the claimant.It's a medically proven fact that dead people do not come alive again.
And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
Hope,
In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.
Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports;That assumes there were significant claims of a resurrection to deal with. If there had been no resurrection and the stores we have are legends from 30 years later, there would have been no incentive to produce a body at the time.
it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there.What tomb? It's most unlikely that Jesus was buried in anything so grand.
There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.
A body wouldn't prove anything. Obviously when you died and went to Hades, you didn't take your body with you, you left it behind for the maggots. Nobody thought you were going to reclaim it when you came back, so nobody would be at all surprised if it were still rotting in the grave.Hope,Well, it could be a record produced the Jewish leaders and or 3rd party individuals'groups that the body had been shown to the public after the claims of Jesus' resurrection and corroborated by other 3rd party reports; it could be eye-witness accounts that the tomb in which he had been buried had not been opened but that a check had shown the body was actually still there. There are plenty of things that the Jewish and Roman (if they'd been bothered) authorities could have done/produced to show that the resurrection hadn't happened.QuoteDo you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
Just out of interest, what would eye-witness evidence of something not happening look like exactly?
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
The Saints never went to hell.
As you can see from Dives and Lazarus. One ends up in hell and the other at the bosom of Abraham with the divide.
So from hell, Dives could see Lazarus and Abraham and they could see him.
We know that at the point of Christ's death the graves of Saints opened and they were restored to life.
King James Bible
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christs power over life and death is show by the immediate affect his dying had on the saints already dead.
Eternal life and the Kingdom of God are for the believer.
The Saints would not have been in hell. For they would be like the others resting in sleep awaiting the coming of the Messiah and now the return.
Sass you have no evidence for your ::) statement! You might believe it to be true, but that is a million light years from it being so.
You have no proof it never happened and the witnesses never saw it.
The witnesses are the evidence.
You have no proof it never happened and the witnesses never saw it.
We deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
The Saints never went to hell.
As you can see from Dives and Lazarus. One ends up in hell and the other at the bosom of Abraham with the divide.
So from hell, Dives could see Lazarus and Abraham and they could see him.
We know that at the point of Christ's death the graves of Saints opened and they were restored to life.
King James Bible
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christs power over life and death is show by the immediate affect his dying had on the saints already dead.
Eternal life and the Kingdom of God are for the believer.
The Saints would not have been in hell. For they would be like the others resting in sleep awaiting the coming of the Messiah and now the return.
Sass you have no evidence for your ::) statement! You might believe it to be true, but that is a million light years from it being so.
The witnesses are the evidence. You have no proof it never happened and the witnesses never saw it.
Maybe you can show us some. Thought not. So why present a comment which even you have no logical reasoning for.
We deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
How does a God die?JK, one needs to go back a stage in the Christian calendar to answer this question. Christians believe that God became human in the form of Jesus. As such, he was able to experience all that humans experience - including death - which is why there is no suggestion that he raised himself from death but was raised from death (the difference between the active and passive modes of the verb). In case you aren't aware, this coming to earth as a humnan being is what Christians celebrate towards the end/beginning of each year - the timing depending largely on the calendar one uses.
Sassy,QuoteYou have no proof it never happened and the witnesses never saw it.
First, how would you propose that someone prove that anything never happened?
Second, how would you propose to establish that the accounts written down decades after these witness accounts are accurate, and for that matter that these witnesses actually saw what they reportedly thought they saw?
We deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
The Saints never went to hell.
As you can see from Dives and Lazarus. One ends up in hell and the other at the bosom of Abraham with the divide.
So from hell, Dives could see Lazarus and Abraham and they could see him.
We know that at the point of Christ's death the graves of Saints opened and they were restored to life.
King James Bible
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christs power over life and death is show by the immediate affect his dying had on the saints already dead.
Eternal life and the Kingdom of God are for the believer.
The Saints would not have been in hell. For they would be like the others resting in sleep awaiting the coming of the Messiah and now the return.
Sass you have no evidence for your ::) statement! You might believe it to be true, but that is a million light years from it being so.
The witnesses are the evidence. You have no proof it never happened and the witnesses never saw it.
Maybe you can show us some. Thought not. So why present a comment which even you have no logical reasoning for.
We deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
What people claimed to have witnessed is NOT evidence if what they say they witnessed is not in the slightest bit credible. Besides which, what they claim to have witnessed was not written down until many years after Jesus was dead.
We deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
, it is widely known that the Flood story was allegorical -
Dear Jack,QuoteDidn't someone rise up into heaven in the OT? Ezekiel?
Elijah, which makes me wonder about Jesus freeing OT saints from hell, are Elijah and Moses OT saints?
Gonnagle.
The Saints never went to hell.
As you can see from Dives and Lazarus. One ends up in hell and the other at the bosom of Abraham with the divide.
So from hell, Dives could see Lazarus and Abraham and they could see him.
We know that at the point of Christ's death the graves of Saints opened and they were restored to life.
King James Bible
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Christs power over life and death is show by the immediate affect his dying had on the saints already dead.
Eternal life and the Kingdom of God are for the believer.
The Saints would not have been in hell. For they would be like the others resting in sleep awaiting the coming of the Messiah and now the return.
Sass you have no evidence for your ::) statement! You might believe it to be true, but that is a million light years from it being so.
The witnesses are the evidence. You have no proof it never happened and the witnesses never saw it.
Maybe you can show us some. Thought not. So why present a comment which even you have no logical reasoning for.
We deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
What people claimed to have witnessed is NOT evidence if what they say they witnessed is not in the slightest bit credible. Besides which, what they claim to have witnessed was not written down until many years after Jesus was dead.
Which confirms my point...QuoteWe deal with the bible the same as anything from history. It is all presented from people at the time. You can decide what you believe but you cannot disbelieve one thing by choosing without disbelieving the other... but there is selective reasoning so you choose what you believe.
Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.
In a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.
You cannot have it both ways. You have selective reasoning and acceptance of what people witnessed in history and recorded/
So you choose what you believe.
Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.
In a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.
Selective reasoning and cherry picking isn't my bag.
Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?The fact that the whole resurrection thing is based on a total misunderstanding of death does seem to undermine it more than somewhat.I think that a very simple explanation of why Christ descended into hell has largely been missed (I seem to remember one or two posts making passing reference to this). In order for the resurrection to have any value, Christ had to die first. For the Jew, he therefore passed into Hades - from which he rose again on the 3rd day - not something that was a normal occurrence, thus showing that he had 'defeated' death. Without descending to Hell (and note that the original word for descended didn't necessarily refer to physically downward action), he couldn't show this victory.How does a God die?
If he defeated death then he didn't die?
BUT, not inspired by the HS either, just the luck of the draw. Very heathen!!!And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
Hope,
In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.
Indeed! Not one man's whim!
Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?Don't think RG is a Christian
Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?
This experiencing of his doesn't count because if you are strong or superhuman then it is a piece of piss. If I only experience the stresses of a child then life is going to be a joy ride. He was not human and therefore can't present mankind.How does a God die?JK, one needs to go back a stage in the Christian calendar to answer this question. Christians believe that God became human in the form of Jesus. As such, he was able to experience all that humans experience - including death - which is why there is no suggestion that he raised himself from death but was raised from death (the difference between the active and passive modes of the verb). In case you aren't aware, this coming to earth as a humnan being is what Christians celebrate towards the end/beginning of each year - the timing depending largely on the calendar one uses.
Just read some of his posts and that is the way it seems. He/she hasn't posted much over the years so had very little info on him/her.Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?Don't think RG is a Christian
Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?
which posts? All the ones on here that cover religion, including ones which refer to 'the Christians' put him outside of such.Just read some of his posts and that is the way it seems. He/she hasn't posted much over the years so had very little info on him/her.Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?Don't think RG is a Christian
Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?
I'm talking about the overall feel and idea you get from someone over a long period of time. I can't remember what everyone's position is for those who only occasionally post on here, even if I've only read their posts recently.which posts? All the ones on here that cover religion, including ones which refer to 'the Christians' put him outside of such.Just read some of his posts and that is the way it seems. He/she hasn't posted much over the years so had very little info on him/her.Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that worry you a bit?Don't think RG is a Christian
Also, iirc, JC was suppose to represent mankind, and take on all their foibles etc., and yet he only did what he did, as claimed, because he was more than just a mere human...? A bit of a paradox, yes?
BUT, not inspired by the HS either, just the luck of the draw. Very heathen!!!And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
Hope,
In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.
Indeed! Not one man's whim!
And that's the power of God, is it, pure luck!!! Come on, what a cop out.BUT, not inspired by the HS either, just the luck of the draw. Very heathen!!!And yet when they came to replace Judas they drew lots....very inspired!!!It's not down to personal judgment. You have to look at the whole, that is, you have to think with the mind of the Church. That is how you know it is of the Holy Spirit. Don't listen what the Protestants say.ad_o, where did Jesus say that one would know if something was from the Holy Spirit if you thought with the mind of the Church? I've always understood that one was to test everything (which of course includes the thinking of the church) by the Holy Spirit - not the other way round.To be fair, ... - or they revert to the cultural expertise of the Jewish traditions, ...Most of what Jesus taught (and Paul) is based on Jewish thinking. It therefore makes sense to look at that body of thinking for an explanation of the background that Jesus and Paul was working from.QuoteEssentially, then, there is no definitive - everyone can 'feel' for which bits they want to be literal and which figurative, and no-one can tell them they're wrong.That sounds very similar to the approach taken by some non-Christians here, O. ;-)QuoteThat opens the opportunities for people to pick the hate-riddled nonsense in there - the homophobia, the slavery-apologism, the racism, the tribalism, the misogyny - and claim it as God's will. That's really the best system an all-knowing, all-loving deity could come up with?Isn't misrepresentation a human trait, O? I'd suggest you have a word with ippy - he's a past-master of the skill.
Hope,
In his dicourse with the Apostles after the Last Supper our Lord said he would send the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Test we must but it is not a private thing. How were the holy councils judged to have been ecumenical? Because they were accepted by the whole Church and by the fruits there of. Not because a person said so but by the acts of the Church itself. Likewie we must have the same mind set. In the same way we do not look to the Fathers merely because they say so, but because they too think with the mind of the Church. Same with the ancient liturgies, because they have been approved by continuous use and the saint through the holiness of their lives.
Indeed! Not one man's whim!
On the contrary. By drawing lots they were trusting in the Holy Spirit.
And that's the power of God, is it, pure luck!!! Come on, what a cop out.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.
Much of it, yes, and there are well-documented studies showing that it's not nearly as reliable as people think it, yet we still have a culture that values it.QuoteIn a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.
And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.
It's hearsay. At best.
O.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.
Much of it, yes, and there are well-documented studies showing that it's not nearly as reliable as people think it, yet we still have a culture that values it.QuoteIn a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.
And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.
It's hearsay. At best.
O.
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
Floo,Sounds just like special pleading ... nothing to do with being 'better' for having seen them, which is a state incapable of measurement.
Apart from dancing, what did the fairies do that helped your neighbor? Is he/she a better person having seen them?
Floo,
Apart from dancing, what did the fairies do that helped your neighbor? Is he/she a better person having seen them?
Shaker, if we couldn't measure betterness we wouldn't have words like better. Floo, being saved involves both.
Also, floo, thinking they know jesus will not make someone a better person.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
No, it really doesn't. An allegation within a hearsay document suggesting that it's written by an eyewitness does not somehow elevate it to no longer being hearsay any more than the fact that the Old Testament suggests Moses wrote the some of the books means that Moses either existed or wrote some of the books.
You can't use the claims within the work as evidence that the work is credible, you need something external to validate it. Otherwise criminals would leave notes at the scene saying 'I did it, signed Jeff' and the courts would round up anyone called Jeff.
O
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
Only if you can exclude the possibility of mistake or lies - can you?
I somehow doubt that a UK court today would accept an 'utterance made from heaven' as being credible evidence, and aren't you even a tad suspicious that this apparent corroboration (since you don't know the exact details of when this stuff was written) might be deliberately contrived?
At the very least there are risks of mistakes and/or lies here, so how have you assessed these risks? The burden of proof is yours!
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
Only if you can exclude the possibility of mistake or lies - can you?
I somehow doubt that a UK court today would accept an 'utterance made from heaven' as being credible evidence, and aren't you even a tad suspicious that this apparent corroboration (since you don't know the exact details of when this stuff was written) might be deliberately contrived?
At the very least there are risks of mistakes and/or lies here, so how have you assessed these risks? The burden of proof is yours!
See the bit in bold. "It's not made up".
And we have the testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke as to who the 'we' was. It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John. So all three men make the same claims about Jesus.
As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
No, it really doesn't. An allegation within a hearsay document suggesting that it's written by an eyewitness does not somehow elevate it to no longer being hearsay any more than the fact that the Old Testament suggests Moses wrote the some of the books means that Moses either existed or wrote some of the books.
You can't use the claims within the work as evidence that the work is credible, you need something external to validate it. Otherwise criminals would leave notes at the scene saying 'I did it, signed Jeff' and the courts would round up anyone called Jeff.
O
If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.
If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
If it hadn't been written by Simon Peter, it wouldn't have been included in the New Testament canon because it would be dishonest since it claims to be by him. The issue is the integrity of the church itself.Are you saying all 1st person fiction is dishonest?
It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John.Quite so, in the original version. But of course Mark airbrushed James the Just out of the story and replaced him with James the son of Zebedee, who he invented for the purpose. Interesting that you see through that little stunt.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
But it is almost certainly a forgery.Quote2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
That's somebody saying he heard a voice from heaven. Is it credible testimony (assuming it was Peter)?
I think, if I stood up and claimed that in a court of law, I'd be ripped to shreds under cross examination.
Not that it matters, historical debate is not a court of law. The rules of hearsay do not apply, Hearsay can be used as evidence but it is not as strong as eye witness accounts and when the person writing the hearsay is anonymous and you don't know who his source was and the events in question are clearly impossible, frankly it loses all credibility.
That's as naff as taro cards. How did the HS manage to get the correct longest straw in the right persons hand. Couldn't It speak to them, these men of such renown for such a deep holy faith?And that's the power of God, is it, pure luck!!! Come on, what a cop out.
Not at all. The Holy Spirit was guiding them.
How do you know they were executed?2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
Only if you can exclude the possibility of mistake or lies - can you?
I somehow doubt that a UK court today would accept an 'utterance made from heaven' as being credible evidence, and aren't you even a tad suspicious that this apparent corroboration (since you don't know the exact details of when this stuff was written) might be deliberately contrived?
At the very least there are risks of mistakes and/or lies here, so how have you assessed these risks? The burden of proof is yours!
See the bit in bold. "It's not made up". And we have the testimony of Matthew, Mark and Luke as to who the 'we' was. It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John. So all three men make the same claims about Jesus.
As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
I understand what you mean, but I can't see any evidence for the stunt you mention. Though I did mistakenly assume that the author of the Epistle of James is the same James as in the Transfiguration account.It was Peter, James and John who went up the mountain with Jesus. And the NT contains letters that the early church ascribed to James and John.Quite so, in the original version. But of course Mark airbrushed James the Just out of the story and replaced him with James the son of Zebedee, who he invented for the purpose. Interesting that you see through that little stunt.
Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' word to the test and found the proof for themselves.
Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.
Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.
You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, however you can offer no verifiable proof to substantiate your claim.
Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.
You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, however you can offer no verifiable proof to substantiate your claim.
I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith...oh...and science...and study..if we want what is on offer from Jesus.
Thanks for that Floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.
Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' word to the test and found the proof for themselves.
I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith...oh...and science...and study..if we want what is on offer from Jesus.
It would be a poor world without faith. We need faith in our families...in our doctors and scientists...we need faith in our governments...in our neighbours...in our judicial system...we need faith in the banking system...now though these often let us down they still try to give the impression that they deserve our faith...so it really depends who deserves the greatest faith...as I say...againstall other faithful seeking institutions I prefer the veracity of the Holy Bible...andits spiritual/electric message.
Thanks for that Floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.
Looking forward to some electrifying debate? ;)
Evidence in a court of law is witnesses accounts.
Much of it, yes, and there are well-documented studies showing that it's not nearly as reliable as people think it, yet we still have a culture that values it.
QuoteIn a court witnesses who witness things are producing EVIDENCE.
And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.
It's hearsay. At best.
O.
It would be a poor world without faith. We need faith in our families...in our doctors and scientists...we need faith in our governments...in our neighbours...in our judicial system...we need faith in the banking system...now though these often let us down they still try to give the impression that they deserve our faith...so it really depends who deserves the greatest faith...as I say...against aiil other faithful seeking institutions I prefer the veracity of the Holy Bible...and its spiritual/electric message.
In any case, none of the gospel writers told us his name or made any claim to be an eyewitness. The authorship claims were invented later.
PS Actually that's not true - the gospel of Thomas, for instance, has a name on it. But the Church doesn't accept those.
The other problem with "we have the eyewitnesses" is that Christians never make any attempt to account for all the stuff they choose to ignore.
Sassy,QuoteSelective reasoning and cherry picking isn't my bag.
Any reasoning at all would be helpful though. It's a simple enough question - having committed the negative proof fallacy so beloved of Hope, how would you propose to get out of it? How even in principle do you think it's possible to prove that something didn't happen?
And once you've done that, how then would you propose to go about demonstrating both that the accounts written decades after the claimed event were accurately recorded, and - even if they were - that what the "witnesses" think they saw was actually what they did see?
A jury has to decide whom they believe. Not very different to anything regarding faith and witnesses. Either way the choice is the individuals. You choose whom and what you believe.
It wouldn't... the oath in court says " I swear by Almighty God" it would hypocritical to accept an oath sworn by Almighty God then throw out the belief Jesus was real.
It is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real. So by that fact alone they could not throw out that Christ actually was real.
Was he the Son of God? The question that everyone wants to know the answer to.
But not one everyone would act on.
More importantly... does believing in Christ bring people into a relationship with God?
Maybe you understand not the weight and measure of who Jesus Christ is.
Given what the power of his name still produces throughout the world, you would be a fool to think no truth to it.Quote
The same can be said of Allah, and yet the two are mutually incompatible. Given that at least one group of millions can be wrong, what reason do we have not to think that both groups of millions could be wrong?QuoteThe evidence that people are still healed in his name suggests you are wrong.
Because you never look for evidence do you?
On the contrary, those claims have been extensively researched, and at best the result is that there's no clear evidence. Time and again purported miracles have been revealed to be commonplace events, natural course of diseases or outright fraud.
Why doesn't God heal amputees?
O.
How is God, the Son and Holy Spirit negative proof?The negative proof fallacy - as Hope ought to be the first to tell you, as he employs it nearly every day, but it never, ever sinks in - is the fallacy of believing that the lack of explicit evidence against X counts as evidence for X; that X is worth taking seriously if there's no evidence against. If you're being consistent, rather than simply trying to prop up your favourite hypothesis (usually a god of some sort), this commits one to believing literally anything and indeed everything which so far lacks explicit counter-evidence; so to be consistent one has to believe not only in all gods, not just your chosen one out of thousands, but unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, alien abductions, Nibiru and everything - literally.
Sassy,QuoteSelective reasoning and cherry picking isn't my bag.
Any reasoning at all would be helpful though. It's a simple enough question - having committed the negative proof fallacy so beloved of Hope, how would you propose to get out of it? How even in principle do you think it's possible to prove that something didn't happen?
How is God, the Son and Holy Spirit negative proof?
Well we are waiting for you to explain. You first have to understand the reasoning of God and Christianity to raise even your chocolate sword toward it. So far you have nothing regarding reasoning to hold a chocolate sword to the truth of God.
So instead of words lets have some real understanding and reasoning from you.QuoteAnd once you've done that, how then would you propose to go about demonstrating both that the accounts written decades after the claimed event were accurately recorded, and - even if they were - that what the "witnesses" think they saw was actually what they did see?
Well bring both accounts then show us how the truth of this works...
King James Bible
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
King James Bible
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Read Jeremiah 31:31-34.
You see your very ignorance of the word of God shows why your errors are so great when it comes to your reasoning.
2,000 years on the same Spirit is teaching Gods people. The same Spirit who always brought Gods words to man.
Now if you had proof that wasn't true you would have an argument. Truth is you foolish thought to mock God and in doing so have now shown everyone how useless and silly your reasoning is, in comparison to that which he has already revealed.
The narrow minded cannot see that the science behind the entire universe which defiesour modern scientists is clearly known and understood by the Creator of the Holy Bible and though we may have difficulty understanding it we are still participants in its wonderful fruits that include resurrection and everlasting life...if we follow its rules.
We NEVER need faith.I'd disagree, BR; 'faith' is another name for trust, and I would suggest that, without trust, society couldn't survive.
Faith is a BAD thing.
I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?
No it isn't.We NEVER need faith.I'd disagree, BR; 'faith' is another name for trust, and I would suggest that, without trust, society couldn't survive.
Faith is a BAD thing.
We NEVER need faith.I'd disagree, BR; 'faith' is another name for trust, and I would suggest that, without trust, society couldn't survive.
Faith is a BAD thing.
We NEVER need faith.I'd disagree, BR; 'faith' is another name for trust, and I would suggest that, without trust, society couldn't survive.
Faith is a BAD thing.
Faith is the excuse people give themselves to believe things without sufficient evidence.Sadly, it is the glue that holds society together, BR. Without it, we would for ever be wondering whether someone who has said they'd do something for us was actually going to do so. Relationships are based on faith/trust.
Faith is never a good idea, and no one should ever use faith for anything.
No scientific assessment of any evidence has ever concluded any god of any description.And what scientific assessment has actually ever been done? Since science doesn't deal with the whole of reality, how can it be said that a scientific assessment has ever been carried out?
Trusting in a deity is like trusting in fairies!In your opinion, yes. Not in everyone's opinion, tho'.
Since science doesn't deal with the whole of reality, how can it be said that a scientific assessment has ever been carried out?How do you know it doesn't?
Faith is the excuse people give themselves to believe things without sufficient evidence.Sadly, it is the glue that holds society together, BR. Without it, we would for ever be wondering whether someone who has said they'd do something for us was actually going to do so. Relationships are based on faith/trust.
Faith is never a good idea, and no one should ever use faith for anything.QuoteNo scientific assessment of any evidence has ever concluded any god of any description.And what scientific assessment has actually ever been done? Since science doesn't deal with the whole of reality, how can it be said that a scientific assessment has ever been carried out?
It cannot be a matter of faith and science, they are antithetical approaches. Science is the provisional acceptance of explanations in light of the evidence provided in support of them, whilst faith is the maintenance of a belief in the absence of, or contrary to, the evidence on offer.O, since science and faith address different questions, where is the antithetical-ness you refer to?
O.
Faith is the excuse people give themselves to believe things without sufficient evidence.Sadly, it is the glue that holds society together, BR. Without it, we would for ever be wondering whether someone who has said they'd do something for us was actually going to do so. Relationships are based on faith/trust.
Faith is never a good idea, and no one should ever use faith for anything.QuoteNo scientific assessment of any evidence has ever concluded any god of any description.And what scientific assessment has actually ever been done? Since science doesn't deal with the whole of reality, how can it be said that a scientific assessment has ever been carried out?
How do you know science does not deal with the whole of reality. Do you know what the whole of reality is?Forget it, BR. He won't answer. He's been asked these self-same questions umpteen times and he never answers.
Science is a method, and if you have a better method, please share it.
The narrow minded cannot see that the science behind the entire universe which defiesour modern scientists is clearly known and understood by the Creator of the Holy Bible and though we may have difficulty understanding it we are still participants in its wonderful fruits that include resurrection and everlasting life...if we follow its rules.
And you know that for a fact because...........?
How do you know it doesn't?I know this to a certain extent on the back of what scientists I know have told me. For instance, they say that science can explain how emotions occur - ie what chemical reactions, etc. occur to create them, but that it can't explain the fundamental processes that lead person X to exhibit a given emotion in a certain situation, but lead person Y to exhibit a different emotion in the same situation.
What method do you use for ascertaining this supposed rest of reality?A better question might be "What method do you use for ascertaining that this 'supposed rest of reality'" isn't? In 45-odd years that I've been involved in discussions of this topic, no-one has ever managed to answer this question (and not just 'not to my satisfaction').
I know this for a fact because...science is led by greed.You what, Nic? This is possibly the daftest comment I've ever seen on this board.
For Hope, R&E is his own personal echo chamber in which to enjoy the sound of his own voice, not engage in discussion (which involves answering simple, straightforward questions).Is that why you never engage in discussion, then, Shakes - preferring to assert things with no supporting eveidence attached.
My life contains zero faith. I have varying amounts of trust, but no faith in anything whatsoever.Sentence 1 and sentence 2 are contradictory, BR. Faith and trust are the same thing.
I know this to a certain extent on the back of what scientists I know have told me. For instance, they say that science can explain how emotions occur - ie what chemical reactions, etc. occur to create them, but that it can't explain the fundamental processes that lead person X to exhibit a given emotion in a certain situation, but lead person Y to exhibit a different emotion in the same situation.Who says there's a why?
Similarly, science doesn't attempt to explain why the universe was formed - it only deals with the 'how'.
A better question might be "What method do you use for ascertaining that this 'supposed rest of reality'" isn't? In 45-odd years that I've been involved in discussions of this topic, no-one has ever managed to answer this question (and not just 'not to my satisfaction').No, that's not a better question, that's (a) a dodge and (b) a rewording of your beloved negative proof fallacy which increasingly it seems you can't put fingers to keyboard without.
Any evidence for that assertion? Your assertions just keep on piling up. I can list several off the top of my head and can find many more with the search function, if you like, except that when challenged to provide evidence for them - you know, that thing you always demand of others - you develop a sudden case of Beethoven's ear.For Hope, R&E is his own personal echo chamber in which to enjoy the sound of his own voice, not engage in discussion (which involves answering simple, straightforward questions).Is that why you never engage in discussion, then, Shakes - preferring to assert things with no supporting eveidence attached.
By the way, I trust you are feeling more like your real self this morning.I'm as impatient with bullshit and with lying, misrepresenting, sanctimonious, question-dodging hypocrites like you, if that's what you mean.
O, since science and faith address different questions, where is the antithetical-ness you refer to?
The narrow minded cannot see that the science behind the entire universe which defiesour modern scientists is clearly known and understood by the Creator of the Holy Bible and though we may have difficulty understanding it we are still participants in its wonderful fruits that include resurrection and everlasting life...if we follow its rules.
And you know that for a fact because...........?
I know this for a fact because...science is led by greed. No cash...no science. An all knowing God must know everything there is to know about science and he is saying that everything is energy...just as scientists do but, for no cost at all, Jesus leads us to a nourishing form of that energy which he says will lead us to everlasting life. This must be the epiphany of all science.
I know this to a certain extent on the back of what scientists I know have told me. For instance, they say that science can explain how emotions occur - ie what chemical reactions, etc. occur to create them, but that it can't explain the fundamental processes that lead person X to exhibit a given emotion in a certain situation, but lead person Y to exhibit a different emotion in the same situation.
Similarly, science doesn't attempt to explain why the universe was formed - it only deals with the 'how'.
I know this for a fact because...science is led by greed. No cash...no science.
An all knowing God must know everything there is to know about science and he is saying that everything is energy...just as scientists do but, for no cost at all, Jesus leads us to a nourishing form of that energy which he says will lead us to everlasting life. This must be the epiphany of all science.
Similarly, science doesn't attempt to explain why the universe was formed - it only deals with the 'how'.
Sentence 1 and sentence 2 are contradictory, BR. Faith and trust are the same thing.
My life contains zero faith. I have varying amounts of trust, but no faith in anything whatsoever.Sentence 1 and sentence 2 are contradictory, BR. Faith and trust are the same thing.
In any case, none of the gospel writers told us his name or made any claim to be an eyewitness. The authorship claims were invented later.
PS Actually that's not true - the gospel of Thomas, for instance, has a name on it. But the Church doesn't accept those.
The other problem with "we have the eyewitnesses" is that Christians never make any attempt to account for all the stuff they choose to ignore.
Truth is people like yourself do not have any idea about Christ, and true believers.
If you read the bible you would know believers deal with reality and fact in their lives. Gods presence, the presence of Christ and the knowledge that the truth changes the person and God speaks to them.
What a CHURCH not built on Spirit and Truth says about books is irrelevant.
Christ and the truth about him impacts on the individual. His truth from God changes the persons and Gods presence and Spirit make the person a new creation.
You look to a written word. The believer has the word within them.
Believers want there to be a why because a why implies purposeful and intentional agency by a conscious agent, which is what they want to be in the universe which in turn is why they're believers in the first place.Similarly, science doesn't attempt to explain why the universe was formed - it only deals with the 'how'.
Then, as has been pointed out to you before numerous times, you need to demonstrate that 'why' is a valid question in the first place: that you would really really like there to be a 'why' isn't enough, since without reasonable grounds for asking 'why' to do so is just fallacious nonsense (begging the question and your personal incredulity being the two most obvious fallacies).
I know this for a fact because...science is led by greed.You what, Nic? This is possibly the daftest comment I've ever seen on this board.
I'll say it for you again Hope if you like. Though the general population might be fooled, the entire scientific community is the product of the excesses of the middle classes...
Those with so much free time on their hands to think and ponder on these scientific matters.
Their university training the result of the wealth of their sponsors...usually their wealthy parents, and the entire scientific process manipulated by the same thinking.
Now...If you recall...Jesus Christ wasn't over pleased with these unearned privileges which denied the common people of the same free time whilst the produce of the sciences are cornered by the greedy merchants for the very purpose of high profits and greed...which keeps the cycle going.
I'll say it for you again Hope if you like. Though the general population might be fooled, the entire scientific community is the product of the excesses of the middle classes...Those with so much free time on their hands to think and ponder on these scientific matters. Their university training the result of the wealth of their sponsors...usually their wealthy parents, and the entire scientific process manipulated by the same thinking.
Now...If you recall...Jesus Christ wasn't over pleased with these unearned privileges which denied the common people of the same free time whilst the produce of the sciences are cornered by the greedy merchants for the very purpose of high profits and greed...which keeps the cycle going.
I did the same with the Harry Potter books!!!Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of the Gospels...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have put Jesus' word to the test and found the proof for themselves.
Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of theGospelsQu'ran...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have putJesus'Mohammed's word to the test and found the proof for themselves...
Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of theGospelsBook of Mormon...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have putJesus'Joseph Smith's word to the test and found the proof for themselves...
Millions over the generations have proven the veracity of theGospelsBaghavad Gita...not because they are first hand witnesses of events but because in times of great distress they have putJesus'Krishna's word to the test and found the proof for themselves...
It turns out millions of people can be wrong, particular if those people are desperate, superstitious and uneducated as the majority of these millions over the generations have been.
O.
Now we have established that 'faith' is having trust in things we cannot automatically see the mechanics of and which are hard to understand anyway yet are vital to our existence we can begin seeing that this is the key principle behind the teaching of Almighty God.Trust is based on personal experience blind faith is for children and adult fools.
He is saying that the mechanics behind the universe are almost impossible to understand but offers us all a great future if we can overcome the demands of evil intent which is the overwhelming ruler over our existence unless we follow Jesus accurately.
Now, modern science and modern politics give the veracity to those words because thanks to the scientific weapons of mass destruction we are teetering on the brink of WW3...which, again we are forewarned about and offered an escape route providing we have accurate faith in resurrection.
So JC did all this whilst he was died?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?
The reason Jesus descended into Hades is because he died and this is where all people go after death...unless they have upbuilt within themselves an electric component that has the strength to escape...which, if you recall...is what Jesus did, snatching the keys of life and death from the hands of the keeper of Hades as he did so. Proof that resurrection is possible for us all if we follow the same righteous laws.
You sound a bit like an alchemist.The narrow minded cannot see that the science behind the entire universe which defiesour modern scientists is clearly known and understood by the Creator of the Holy Bible and though we may have difficulty understanding it we are still participants in its wonderful fruits that include resurrection and everlasting life...if we follow its rules.
And you know that for a fact because...........?
I know this for a fact because...science is led by greed. No cash...no science. An all knowing God must know everything there is to know about science and he is saying that everything is energy...just as scientists do but, for no cost at all, Jesus leads us to a nourishing form of that energy which he says will lead us to everlasting life. This must be the epiphany of all science.
Any evidence for that assertion? Your assertions just keep on piling up. I can list several off the top of my head and can find many more with the search function, if you like, except that when challenged to provide evidence for them - you know, that thing you always demand of others - you develop a sudden case of Beethoven's ear.For Hope, R&E is his own personal echo chamber in which to enjoy the sound of his own voice, not engage in discussion (which involves answering simple, straightforward questions).Is that why you never engage in discussion, then, Shakes - preferring to assert things with no supporting eveidence attached.QuoteBy the way, I trust you are feeling more like your real self this morning.I'm as impatient with bullshit and with lying, misrepresenting, sanctimonious, question-dodging hypocrites like you, if that's what you mean.
It sounds awful. I live in fear that one day I'll wake up and find I've been bitten by the bug and become a true believer.In any case, none of the gospel writers told us his name or made any claim to be an eyewitness. The authorship claims were invented later.
PS Actually that's not true - the gospel of Thomas, for instance, has a name on it. But the Church doesn't accept those.
The other problem with "we have the eyewitnesses" is that Christians never make any attempt to account for all the stuff they choose to ignore.
Truth is people like yourself do not have any idea about Christ, and true believers.
If you read the bible you would know believers deal with reality and fact in their lives. Gods presence, the presence of Christ and the knowledge that the truth changes the person and God speaks to them.
What a CHURCH not built on Spirit and Truth says about books is irrelevant.
Christ and the truth about him impacts on the individual. His truth from God changes the persons and Gods presence and Spirit make the person a new creation.
You look to a written word. The believer has the word within them.
So JC did all this whilst he was died?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?
The reason Jesus descended into Hades is because he died and this is where all people go after death...unless they have upbuilt within themselves an electric component that has the strength to escape...which, if you recall...is what Jesus did, snatching the keys of life and death from the hands of the keeper of Hades as he did so. Proof that resurrection is possible for us all if we follow the same righteous laws.
I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith
No need for the vast resources spent on the Hadron Collider...just a few pence spent upon a Holy Bible and a desire to believe what it tells us.
Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
No, it says absolutely nothing. What it does say is that they believed something to be true, not that that something actually was true, given the human propensity for believing untrue things (especially if said humans were a superstitious and in the most literal sense ignorant lot).Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
NM,QuoteNo need for the vast resources spent on the Hadron Collider...just a few pence spent upon a Holy Bible and a desire to believe what it tells us.
Not that I'm doubting you here Sparky, but could you just let us know where exactly the bible tells us about the Higgs-Boson please - you know, just so I can be sure that the investment in the LHC was in fact wasted because we had the answers all along.
What the Holy Bible tells us is that God's 'dynamic energy' is the stuff that made all the stars and atoms and there scientific patterns...and then Jesus shows us how we too can harness this force in our own lives for the purpose of repair and resurrection...ultimately leading to everlasting life.
The Higgs is a bi-product of those sciences but is a little too advanced for you yet...be patient.
bluehillside...If only all those physicists and astronomers and cosmologists knew - look at all the time they've wasted painstakingly trying to work out how reality operates. What a bunch of losers.
The Holy Bible tells us all we need to know about the mechanics of the universe.
The Holy Bible tells us all we need to know about the mechanics of the universe. It would be a much better world if we had all followed Jesus' accurate teaching.
We wouldn't be on the verge of WW3 for a start, which promises to be the war that ends all wars because there will be very few left and the planet a toxic wasteland.
Still, if we try to follow Jesus many will be saved via the mechanics of resurrection whilst many others, who have no interest in a caring, loving God will cut themselves off and their electric remnant locked in the ether of Hades for all eternity...You might mention this to Jack Knave who has a particular interest in Hades.
How does science detect consciousness as opposed to intelligence and stimulus and response which an unself aware mechanism could possess?Thanks for that floo...but the veracity of the Gospels is proven to me...which is why I'm back.
You are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, however you can offer no verifiable proof to substantiate your claim.
I think I can Floo...its just a question of faith...oh...and science...and study..if we want what is on offer from Jesus.
Faith is the excuse people give themselves to believe things without sufficient evidence.
Faith is never a good idea, and no one should ever use faith for anything.
No scientific assessment of any evidence has ever concluded any god of any description.
That's almost English, Nicky.
I know this for a fact because...science is led by greed.You what, Nic? This is possibly the daftest comment I've ever seen on this board.
Though you exalt your sciences and the scientists they are a long way off from identifying the true mechanics of the universe.
So ok, by trial and error and extorting the wealth of the masses they get slowly nearer and nearer but at the same time draw us closer and closer to WW3...isn't that a home-goal.
The Higgs is a process that can only work via one set of rules and those rules are the starting point for the whole of science but unfortunately we will never reach that knowledge unless we take in the instruction, freely given, in the Holy Bible, from an All Knowing God who knows all about these things and who sent his son to give us priority training in its ability to offer salvation in any set of righteous circumstances.
Me...The Higgs is a process that can only work via one set of rules and those rules are the starting point for the whole of science but unfortunately we will never reach that knowledge unless we take in the instruction, freely given, in the Holy Bible, from an All Knowing God who knows all about these things and who sent his son to give us priority training in its ability to offer salvation in any set of righteous circumstances.
You...I'm not aware of this process you term 'The Higgs' - that sounds like a dance craze. Do you perhaps mean the Higgs boson, an elementary particle in the (current) standard model of particle physics? Perhaps, in order to convince us that you have the first clue what you're talking about you might explain what you understand the Higgs particle to be - how can we trust that you can adequately gauge whether your Big Boy's Book of Jewish Bedtime Tales is right unless you understand what it is that you're claiming it's right about?
O.
Well...I will tell you one thing...the Higgs isn't a particle...it is a property...not unlike gravity and comes from the same route using the same mechanics...but hey...you don't believe in the Holy Bible which is the proofing ground for all of science...so you musn't expect special privileges.
The blind leading the blind would not be a good idea. Think about that before answering.A jury has to decide whom they believe. Not very different to anything regarding faith and witnesses. Either way the choice is the individuals. You choose whom and what you believe.
And, in both instances, we could all benefit from a better educated, less credulous populace...
QuoteIt wouldn't... the oath in court says " I swear by Almighty God" it would hypocritical to accept an oath sworn by Almighty God then throw out the belief Jesus was real.
No-one is required to swear, it's perfectly acceptable to make an affirmation instead. You could view it as hypocrisy, I see at as one of the ironic idiosyncracies of the history of the British judiciary, but it is amusing that the rules that govern the evidence delivered within the trial don't cover the confirmations made as part of the ritual.
Nevertheless, whether hypocrisy or just irony, testimony equivalent to the Gospels would almost certainly be deemed inadmissible as hearsay in a trial.
QuoteIt is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real. So by that fact alone they could not throw out that Christ actually was real.
A third? A third might or might not personally identify as Christian, certainly a significant portion of that third probably accept the idea - that means that two thirds of the world don't accept the claims. If you're making the logically invalid argument from popular opinion you're losing anyway.
QuoteWas he the Son of God? The question that everyone wants to know the answer to.
I suspect the bulk of the world don't think about it very much at all. A third of the world would love to know what they believe is true, but that doesn't mean they want to know THE answer, they want to know AN answer.
QuoteBut not one everyone would act on.
On the contrary, if it were somehow proven to be the case every rational person in the world would act on it.
QuoteMore importantly... does believing in Christ bring people into a relationship with God?
Maybe, though it seems unlikely. Certainly if other religious views are correct believing in Christ takes you further away from God, or gods, or Nirvana, or...
QuoteMaybe you understand not the weight and measure of who Jesus Christ is.
Or maybe I get exactly the weight and measure of it, and you don't?
QuoteGiven what the power of his name still produces throughout the world, you would be a fool to think no truth to it.Quote
The same can be said of Allah, and yet the two are mutually incompatible. Given that at least one group of millions can be wrong, what reason do we have not to think that both groups of millions could be wrong?
allah hasn't done anything for anyone by just the power of his name. But people have murdered others in his name.
As you can see you haven't a clue what it means when talking about the power of Jesus name.No point in continuing further you are just going to show yourself up, even further. Go and learn.
Come back when you actually have arguments based on sound knowledge.
Sass you are talking about yourself again! ;D
The blind leading the blind would not be a good idea. Think about that before answering.A jury has to decide whom they believe. Not very different to anything regarding faith and witnesses. Either way the choice is the individuals. You choose whom and what you believe.And, in both instances, we could all benefit from a better educated, less credulous populace...
QuoteYou missed the point. We do not swear by big pink Elephants etc. Hence that God and Jesus Christ are accepted are real in our courts. Why else would they believe people are swearing by God to tell the truth.QuoteIt wouldn't... the oath in court says " I swear by Almighty God" it would hypocritical to accept an oath sworn by Almighty God then throw out the belief Jesus was real.No-one is required to swear, it's perfectly acceptable to make an affirmation instead. You could view it as hypocrisy, I see at as one of the ironic idiosyncracies of the history of the British judiciary, but it is amusing that the rules that govern the evidence delivered within the trial don't cover the confirmations made as part of the ritual.
Wrong... having been written as an eyewitness account it is no different from a witness statement.
When written it is acceptable evidence. So that is how the gospel accounts would be viewed. Written by the witness so acceptable not hearsay. Not passed down by word of a mouth but a real account written by the witness.
QuoteNot lost anything... the experts you are so proud of flaunting will not dismiss Christ as being real. Witness accounts are written by the people who were there confirm that Christ existed and a Church in existence since he existence. Evidence outweighs your silly notions.QuoteIt is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real. So by that fact alone they could not throw out that Christ actually was real.A third? A third might or might not personally identify as Christian, certainly a significant portion of that third probably accept the idea - that means that two thirds of the world don't accept the claims. If you're making the logically invalid argument from popular opinion you're losing anyway.
QuoteNow you are making it up.QuoteWas he the Son of God? The question that everyone wants to know the answer to.I suspect the bulk of the world don't think about it very much at all. A third of the world would love to know what they believe is true, but that doesn't mean they want to know THE answer, they want to know AN answer.
What Bulk.
Everyone knows who Jesus Christ is suppose to be around the world. But the other religions lag back don't they.
QuoteNow you are being silly. Many atheists admit that even if they knew it was all true about Christ they would not do anything differently want to go their own way.QuoteBut not one everyone would act on.On the contrary, if it were somehow proven to be the case every rational person in the world would act on it.
QuoteWell give us the arguments for and against these other religions. Oh.that's right you really don't know them but in light of that fact you still make comments that have no foundation.QuoteMore importantly... does believing in Christ bring people into a relationship with God?Maybe, though it seems unlikely. Certainly if other religious views are correct believing in Christ takes you further away from God, or gods, or Nirvana, or...
QuoteI think from the things you write it is obvious you have NO idea about the weight and measure of who Jesus Christ is.QuoteMaybe you understand not the weight and measure of who Jesus Christ is.Or maybe I get exactly the weight and measure of it, and you don't?
Quoteallah hasn't done anything for anyone by just the power of his name. But people have murdered others in his name.QuoteGiven what the power of his name still produces throughout the world, you would be a fool to think no truth to it.The same can be said of Allah, and yet the two are mutually incompatible. Given that at least one group of millions can be wrong, what reason do we have not to think that both groups of millions could be wrong?
As you can see you have a clue what it means when talking about the power of Jesus name.
So he did all that in a state of being dead, i.e. inert?So JC did all this whilst he was died?I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?
The reason Jesus descended into Hades is because he died and this is where all people go after death...unless they have upbuilt within themselves an electric component that has the strength to escape...which, if you recall...is what Jesus did, snatching the keys of life and death from the hands of the keeper of Hades as he did so. Proof that resurrection is possible for us all if we follow the same righteous laws.
That is what the Holy Bible says Jack. The crux being that the universe is the product of an indestructible force...a dynamic energy that is the birth-force behind all life, in fact behind all things, and all science. No need for the vast resources spent on the Hadron Collider...just a few pence spent upon a Holy Bible and a desire to believe what it tells us.
People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of then non-religious and/or political. So that counts that one out.Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of then non-religious and/or political. So that counts that one out.Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?
So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?
I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts. What a sad life. Pity Eastenders has finished.
So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?
I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts. What a sad life. Pity Eastenders has finished.
My post tried to pick up your argument that dying for something validates it. If that isn't the point, happy for you to elaborate.
If you simply want to indulge in random nonsense as your above post about East enders, I am also happy to ignore and in this specific case point out your hypocrisy about attacking people for indulging in personal attacks rather than engage in argument, albeit robust argument.
There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss. If you are not I would hope you might rise above the approach you seem.to feel the need to take and actually discuss. If not then as times before, not interested.
I am sure Shaker thinks the same
So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?
I see you've just come on to go through the thread and contradict all the theist posts. What a sad life. Pity Eastenders has finished.
My post tried to pick up your argument that dying for something validates it. If that isn't the point, happy for you to elaborate.
If you simply want to indulge in random nonsense as your above post about East enders, I am also happy to ignore and in this specific case point out your hypocrisy about attacking people for indulging in personal attacks rather than engage in argument, albeit robust argument.
There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss. If you are not I would hope you might rise above the approach you seem.to feel the need to take and actually discuss. If not then as times before, not interested.
There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss.How very dare you >:(
There is a part of me that suspects you of being a sock puppet of Shaker, chosen to illustrate some point that I neither value or want to discuss.How very dare you >:(
So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?Killing people does not in itself validate a cause.
So dying for things validates it? Kamikaze fighters made Japan right?Killing people does not in itself validate a cause.
And some of those reasons and causes would have been good ones.People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of them non-religious and/or political.Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
Quite apart from who decides what is and isn't a good cause, BA seems to think that a person's readiness to die for a cause says something in support of the truth of that cause. Do you agree with him?
For example, if someone had shot Hitler knowing that he had ordered the Holocaust, and then was shot himself, that would be a good cause based on facts established by more than one witness, ie that Hitler did indeed order the Holocaust. However, not everybody knew that Jews were being killed in Germany. Only some people knew. Likewise only some people saw Jesus alive again, but enough to make it (for them) established fact.
The reason some of the first Christians died is because they were telling people that Jesus could give them eternal life, because he had risen from the dead. This angered religious leaders because it put them out of business. They were killed because of jealousy.
But the point is, you need a combination of testimony from multiple witnesses to validate a cause as well as a willingness to die for it, to show that it is true. We have multiple written reports of Jesus being alive after his death, and we know that the Christians were willing to die so that their message got out, and also that their message was for the good of the recipients.
Thus we know that the message is true.
Thus we know that the message is true.
You don't.
1. You still haven't excluded the risk that alleged witness reports are a mix of exaggeration and/or lies about the Jesus character. These early Christians are no less susceptible to these risks than are supporters of any controversial figure today.
2. Not only do you not have credible evidence for a resurrection claim, which is a natural impossibility anyway, you don't have a method to clearly identify any supernatural intervention. Therefore, there are no good reasons to take this claim seriously.
3.That people die for a cause doesn't validate their cause whether they believed their cause to be true of not - since if that were so then we'd have to accept that the cause of every suicide bomber is justified by their voluntary deaths.
Cue some special pleading from you.
That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
Christians have frequently killed their enemies.That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
Christians have frequently killed their enemies.That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
Christians have frequently killed their enemies.That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
And tortured them first. Including the wrong kinds of Christians.
1. You still haven't excluded the risk that alleged witness reports are a mix of exaggeration and/or lies about the Jesus character. These early Christians are no less susceptible to these risks than are supporters of any controversial figure today.You can always put the witnesses in prison and see if they confess to exaggeration/lies. Or have them flogged. Paul, Luke and others describe this happening to Christians.
If you mean soldiers who are Christian, yes. Islamists kill innocent people though, right?Christians have frequently killed their enemies.That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
If you mean soldiers who are Christian, yes.Not just those - very far from it. There are also those Christians who tortured, maimed and murdered others for not being Christian at all or for being the wrong brand of Christian in their eyes.
Islamists kill innocent people though, right?Christians likewise.
Christians have frequently killed their enemies.That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
And tortured them first. Including the wrong kinds of Christians.
My oh so holy 'born again' paternal grandmother beat her evil brand of religion into her kids. Her only daughter was beaten so badly for kissing a boy she fancied that she couldn't go to school for three weeks because of the bruises! >:(
Nothing to do with religion.Is it ever?
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.If you mean soldiers who are Christian, yes.Not just those - very far from it. There are also those Christians who tortured, maimed and murdered others for not being Christian at all or for being the wrong brand of Christian in their eyes.
I think one problem with Islamist terrorism is that they perceive that their countries are being attacked by the West. They believe they are defending their families.QuoteIslamists kill innocent people though, right?Christians likewise.
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.1. No True Scotsman fallacy.
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.1. No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. That's only.your opinion, not theirs. Theirs was that they were Christians acting in defence of Christianity as they saw it by eliminating 'heresy.'
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.If you mean soldiers who are Christian, yes.Not just those - very far from it. There are also those Christians who tortured, maimed and murdered others for not being Christian at all or for being the wrong brand of Christian in their eyes.QuoteI think one problem with Islamist terrorism is that they perceive that their countries are being attacked by the West. They believe they are defending their families.QuoteIslamists kill innocent people though, right?Christians likewise.
1. You still haven't excluded the risk that alleged witness reports are a mix of exaggeration and/or lies about the Jesus character. These early Christians are no less susceptible to these risks than are supporters of any controversial figure today.You can always put the witnesses in prison and see if they confess to exaggeration/lies. Or have them flogged. Paul, Luke and others describe this happening to Christians.
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.1. No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. That's only.your opinion, not theirs. Theirs was that they were Christians acting in defence of Christianity as they saw it by eliminating 'heresy.'
Objective morality. God says you shall not kill. You may come back with, what about the Canaanites if you want.
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.1. No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. That's only.your opinion, not theirs. Theirs was that they were Christians acting in defence of Christianity as they saw it by eliminating 'heresy.'
Objective morality. God says you shall not kill. You may come back with, what about the Canaanites if you want.
No, I'll come back with "Objective morality? What objective morality?"Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.1. No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. That's only.your opinion, not theirs. Theirs was that they were Christians acting in defence of Christianity as they saw it by eliminating 'heresy.'
Objective morality. God says you shall not kill. You may come back with, what about the Canaanites if you want.
Not applicable since that is non-Christian behavior.1. No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. That's only.your opinion, not theirs. Theirs was that they were Christians acting in defence of Christianity as they saw it by eliminating 'heresy.'
Objective morality. God says you shall not kill. You may come back with, what about the Canaanites if you want.
The deity wants to take its own advice, before instructing humans! >:(
Can you provide a New Testament reference to the teaching - either of Jesus or any one of the apostles, that suggests that this acceptable Christian behaviour?If you mean soldiers who are Christian, yes.Not just those - very far from it. There are also those Christians who tortured, maimed and murdered others for not being Christian at all or for being the wrong brand of Christian in their eyes.
Can you provide a New Testament reference to the teaching - either of Jesus or any one of the apostles, that suggests that this acceptable Christian behaviour?No, but then that goes for a hell of a lot of things that Christians do and purport to believe.
If you think about it, your position is no different from me saying that atheism involves its adherents being bigoted, rude, arrogant, liars and childish on the grounds of my having met atheists over the last 60-odd years - both F2F and virtually - who have exhibited 2 or more of these characteristics.Perhaps if you'd thought about it a good deal more you'd realise that there's no creed or set of rules/commandments that atheists are supposed to follow. Lack of belief in gods is the sole "qualification" for atheism/being an atheist, whereas a Christian behaving in a way allegedly contrary to somebody's interpretation of what Jesus allegedly taught is a hypocrite.
We've only just had bonfire night, a festival rooted in the execution of Christians by other Christians merely for being the wrong kind. Guy Fawkes wasn't innocent but many of the Catholics executed by the Protestant regime at the time were.If you mean soldiers who are Christian, yes. Islamists kill innocent people though, right?Christians have frequently killed their enemies.That is total GARBAGE! By that token the Islamists who are willing to die for their faith have the 'true' message!This has been answered over and over. The Christians didn't kill their enemies, they turned the other cheek ::)
Apparently yes if the religion in question is not Christianity.Nothing to do with religion.Is it ever?
If you think about it, your position is no different from me saying that atheism involves its adherents being bigoted, rude, arrogant, liars and childish on the grounds of my having met atheists over the last 60-odd years - both F2F and virtually - who have exhibited 2 or more of these characteristics.
I am aware that actions often speak loude than words, but there is also a place for discernment and understanding whether someone's behaviour actually matches the principles they claim to be adhering to.
Apparently yes if the religion in question is not Christianity.Nothing to do with religion.Is it ever?
Nobody makes you come here. If you're bored, go and do something more interesting.Apparently yes if the religion in question is not Christianity.Nothing to do with religion.Is it ever?
If only we had a symbol for yawning.
Nobody makes you come here. If you're bored, go and do something more interesting.Apparently yes if the religion in question is not Christianity.Nothing to do with religion.Is it ever?
If only we had a symbol for yawning.
Off you pop, then.
2 Peter claims to be written by Simon Peter (1:1)
2 Peter 1:16-18
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
The eyewitness statement underlined corroborates the same statement found in the gospels where it it hearsay.
In law today there are circumstances in which hearsay can be relied upon as credible evidence. The above example suggests that the gospels are credible.
Only if you can exclude the possibility of mistake or lies - can you?
I somehow doubt that a UK court today would accept an 'utterance made from heaven' as being credible evidence, and aren't you even a tad suspicious that this apparent corroboration (since you don't know the exact details of when this stuff was written) might be deliberately contrived?
At the very least there are risks of mistakes and/or lies here, so how have you assessed these risks? The burden of proof is yours!
Perhaps I have been barking up the wrong tree with the martyrdom argument.
It may be that the risks you mention are eliminated by internal evidence. For example, in 1 Peter the author talks about it being near the time when he will die. This is consistent with what we know about Peter's fate, and so this detail adds to the evidence for the letter not having been made up.
Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1 peter was genuine.
Well yes it does because it shows how stupid and gullible people are about all manner of beliefs and ideologies.People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of then non-religious and/or political. So that counts that one out.Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
No it doesn't.
Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1 peter was genuine.
I note your word 'some'. So how do you discern the good ones from the bad ones?And some of those reasons and causes would have been good ones.People have died for all manner of reasons and causes, many of them non-religious and/or political.Nothing? They were killed because Jewish leaders didn't want them preaching about Jesus. If they knew it would cost them their lives, why didn't they stop preaching? Surely that says something about the truth of their cause? Have a read of Acts 4.As I've said before, if they were lying, they would not have been martyred since they would have admitted it thus avoiding execution.
It doesn't mean that [at] all, since their deaths say nothing about the truth of their cause.
Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1 peter was genuine.
A consensus involving whom?
Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1 peter was genuine.
A consensus involving whom?
Whoever put the NT together.
Jack, I can recommend a book that will tell you.By which methodology is this book supposed to be trustworthy?
Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1 peter was genuine.
A consensus involving whom?
Whoever put the NT together.
Jack, I can recommend a book that will tell you.You think a book can tell us? ::)
The term 'whoever' implies you have no idea who did this and you have no way of meeting them to see if they were remotely good enough. So the NT is left in the air and devoid of any really meaning for us today.Gordon, yes there were lots of forgeries but there was clearly a consensus that 1 peter was genuine.
A consensus involving whom?
Whoever put the NT together.
Baptism? ??? It killed most of the people on Earth. ??? :(
But those in the ark (or the Church) were saved. Everyone else did indeed perish.
How can you be sure it killed everyone else?
Other people may have had boats.
Other boats would have been flooded by the rain and sank. Or they ran out of food or died from exposure.
Now that you lot have finished with your childish noise...
As we see in Daniel 3 : 23.... fire is not always associated with punishment but with cleansing and purification, and therefore, wholeness and completion.
Having been brought up reading the KJV there was only really one version of hell, anything that evoked the realm of the dead was called hell by the translators of the KJV.And that's all you Christians can do is wonder about what they meant in their writings because you haven't got the cultural or idiom context now.
Growing up reading about the various greek/roman/norse gods Hades to me was the Greek God of the Underworld, you know the guy with the three headed dog.
Makes me wonder what word the Aramaic speaking Jesus would have really used in his discourses and if they had the same connotations?
I also have to wonder that in his accurate teachings would Jesus have used "She'ol" or "Ge Hinnom" to represent his flawless Greek understanding?I keep mistaking you for Vlad, until I see the number of posts you have done. You're Farmer aren't you?
Jesus would have never referred to "hell" as "Hades" ~ end of pointless discussion.I don't know. Do you know why?
Time to move on and enquire as to why the realm of the dead was so important to the Greek writers of said "gospels".
Having been brought up reading the KJV there was only really one version of hell, anything that evoked the realm of the dead was called hell by the translators of the KJV.
Growing up reading about the various greek/roman/norse gods Hades to me was the Greek God of the Underworld, you know the guy with the three headed dog.
Makes me wonder what word the Aramaic speaking Jesus would have really used in his discourses and if they had the same connotations?
Jesus would have never referred to "hell" as "Hades" ~ end of pointless discussion.
Time to move on and enquire as to why the realm of the dead was so important to the Greek writers of said "gospels".
I was just wondering what the reason our resident Christians would give for the reason for this action by Christ. How does it fit in with your theology?The flood and events and times before the law saw people condemned from the beginning by Adam. People not part of a covenant. But nevertheless by the death, resurrection and power of Christ God made it so all could be saved.
The flood and events and times before the law saw people condemned from the beginning by Adam. People not part of a covenant. But nevertheless by the death, resurrection and power of Christ God made it so all could be saved.
The flood and events and times before the law saw people condemned from the beginning by Adam. People not part of a covenant. But nevertheless by the death, resurrection and power of Christ God made it so all could be saved.So why did God take so long to correct things; it was Its mess up in the first place! All those people condemned to hell because God twiddled Its thumbs for thousands of years, as the story goes.