Ask A Protestant Christian II

[kochman]

It was a real question. If god makes no moves to validate or invalidate those who claim to act on his behalf, then how can you claim to be certain of the validity of any one claim? Wouldn't universal scepticism be the proper response? Certain theologies could reconcile that, no bother, but yours doesn't seem to offer you any easy escape, given that you state that "He brings swift justice".

Well, there is tons validity to back up Jesus... atheists chose to ignore it.
It has been discussed in this thread already.
I can summarize with this, Jesus isn't in His tomb, that was guarded by Roman soldiers. He said He would come back from the dead, He did. If He didn't, all those people who converted to Christianity in the earliest days, often to be martyred but at least to face severe persecution, would have had had no incentive to do so...

A party doesn't have to be explicitly founded upon a religious basis to be, in practice, a party aligned with certain religious groups. The British Conservative Party has no official faith, but they were always, at least until very recently, a party of and for Protestant Christianity.

Well, the fact that they went against the very core of Christianity is enough to prove it isn't at all Christian based...
Some of this you are expected to know on your own before you start posting. It'll save everyone time if we don't have to break things down to the core level like that on a regular basis.

 

[Flying Pig]

I can summarize with this, Jesus isn't in His tomb, that was guarded by Roman soldiers. He said He would come back from the dead, He did. If He didn't, all those people who converted to Christianity in the earliest days, often to be martyred but at least to face severe persecution, would have had had no incentive to do so...

I think the problem that people have with all this is that the reason we know that Jesus came back from the dead is that it was written down by someone who used that book to convert people, who as you rightly point out would not face persecution for someone they didn't think was their Lord. See the issue?

 

[Ajidica]

Well, there is tons validity to back up Jesus... atheists chose to ignore it.

Did a guy called Jesus exist during that time period who was a religous leader and was killed? Yes. Can we prove he was the 'Son of God' using non-biblical sources? No.
Just noting that it isn't just athiests who chose to ignore him. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, the various forms of Chinese Ancestor Worship, and the various forms of other polythiestic religions out there. In short, you have really only two religions (Christianity and Islam) accepting Jesus with everybody else saying 'Meh' about him.

I can summarize with this, Jesus isn't in His tomb, that was guarded by Roman soldiers. He said He would come back from the dead, He did.

Based on what Plotinus has said in his thread, there is no external evidence that those events occured.

If He didn't, all those people who converted to Christianity in the earliest days, often to be martyred but at least to face severe persecution, would have had had no incentive to do so..

They believed those events had occured, is that not enough for them to risk persecution?

Well, the fact that they went against the very core of Christianity is enough to prove it isn't at all Christian based...

Well, NAzism did draw upon alot of support from various protestant groups so saying "Nazism is anti christian" is suspect given the number of christians that did support the Nazis.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Well, there is tons validity to back up Jesus... atheists chose to ignore it.

Why have you chosen to ignore the tons of validity to back up Mohammed/Buddha/KrishnaRamakrishna/[insert name]?

I can summarize with this, Jesus isn't in His tomb, that was guarded by Roman soldiers. He said He would come back from the dead, He did. If He didn't, all those people who converted to Christianity in the earliest days, often to be martyred but at least to face severe persecution, would have had had no incentive to do so...

...isn't in his tomb according to the Bible, he came back from the dead according to the Bible. So yeah, if the Bible isn't 100%, there is no sure proof of Jesus' divinity. And if you believe that Christianity is right, then many martyrs have died with no incentive to do so... that's life for you.

Well, the fact that they went against the very core of Christianity is enough to prove it isn't at all Christian based...
Some of this you are expected to know on your own before you start posting. It'll save everyone time if we don't have to break things down to the core level like that on a regular basis.

What is the very core of Christianity? The Golden Rule? The divinity of Jesus?

 

[timtofly]

I think the problem that people have with all this is that the reason we know that Jesus came back from the dead is that it was written down by someone who used that book to convert people, who as you rightly point out would not face persecution for someone they didn't think was their Lord. See the issue?

I think I understand, but there were 20,000 manuscripts that were written between dozens of local groups of believers that were written by the apostles and other people of authority. As the apostles started to pass away the followers saw the need to compile these into one text that would be agreed upon as the Truth that would not be changed, but would be the Testament of the actual events.

 

[Ajidica]

Why have you chosen to ignore the tons of validity to back up Mohammed/Buddha/Krishna/[insert name]?

Not entirely fair to lump an actual divinity (Krishna) in with a prophet and a holy man.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Not entirely fair to lump an actual divinity (Krishna) in with a prophet and a holy man.

Ach, I meant Ramakrishna. :<

 

[Flying Pig]

I think I understand, but there were 20,000 manuscripts that were written between dozens of local groups of believers that were written by the apostles and other people of authority. As the apostles started to pass away the followers saw the need to compile these into one text that would be agreed upon as the Truth that would not be changed, but would be the Testament of the actual events.

And you don't reckon that a situation like that lends itself to any sort of corruption of information at all? Seriously?

 

[timtofly]

And you don't reckon that a situation like that lends itself to any sort of corruption of information at all? Seriously?

If you hold to the theory that Jesus is God and that what is in the NT is all about God, then if there is a God, He would be able to keep that Testament from error. If God is prone to error, then there is no Christian, follower of Christ and no church and history has been fabricated starting with BCE and CE and it is all a lie.

It was not called 'sodomy'. There was no word for the modern conception of a loving homosexual relationship.

As far as I can tell, the misuse of the word "sodomy" is a homophobic conspiracy. I wrote a rather detailed post here.

El_Machinae is it ok to answer this here? Thanks.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, there is tons validity to back up Jesus... atheists chose to ignore it.
It has been discussed in this thread already.
I can summarize with this, Jesus isn't in His tomb, that was guarded by Roman soldiers. He said He would come back from the dead, He did. If He didn't, all those people who converted to Christianity in the earliest days, often to be martyred but at least to face severe persecution, would have had had no incentive to do so...

Those are, has been observed, articles of faith, not verifiable claims.

Well, the fact that they went against the very core of Christianity is enough to prove it isn't at all Christian based...

Regardless of what you consider to be their ideological, ethical, or spiritual failings, the fact is that there were Lutheran and Roman Catholic establishments in Germany, and that the Nazi government was broadly aligned with them. The private mysticisms of certain portions of the party elite do not in any way contradict that.

Some of this you are expected to know on your own before you start posting. It'll save everyone time if we don't have to break things down to the core level like that on a regular basis.

I don't consider your personal delineations of what constitutes a real and a false Christian can be taken as common knowledge.

If you hold to the theory that Jesus is God and that what is in the NT is all about God, then if there is a God, He would be able to keep that Testament from error. If God is prone to error, then there is no Christian, follower of Christ and no church and history has been fabricated starting with BCE and CE and it is all a lie.

As opposed to "actually did", if you see what I mean. We've already established that God didn't feel particularly motivated to prevent the Holocaust, so the idea that he would bend over backwards to guide the composition of a particular body of canon down a particular historical of path just sounds bizarre.

 

[timtofly]

Those are, has been observed, articles of faith, not verifiable claims.


Regardless of what you consider to be their ideological, ethical, or spiritual failings, the fact is that there were Lutheran and Roman Catholic establishments in Germany, and that the Nazi government was broadly aligned with them. The private mysticisms of certain portions of the party elite do not in any way contradict that.


I don't consider your personal delineations of what constitutes a real and a false Christian can be taken as common knowledge.


As opposed to "actually did", if you see what I mean. We've already established that God didn't feel particularly motivated to prevent the Holocaust, so the idea that he would bend over backwards to guide the composition of a particular body of canon down a particular historical of path just sounds bizarre.

If a 35 year old male scientifically eliminated 100 female hopefulls would that take out the personal aspect of the scenario? I have already stated, that science will never be able to explain God. To me it feels like people are trying to scientifically take history and try to compare that God did this and this and allowed this and this, thus God has to do this. That is deductive reasoning. That has been in our psyche for millenia. I know people do not like adding faith into the mix, because even though faith is not scientific, scientist rely on faith that their hypothesis will work.

It seems to me that the line between theory and facts has disappeared and they are synonomous. If they are the same thing then why were they even both put in the scientific equation? One is redundant. I cannot even use both seperately because it seems people say they are the same and we have a very schismatic communication. BTW, no one can rationalize nor figure God out. They can call Him every name in the book, but all they are doing is bringing God down to their level. They have no Faith that He is Who He is.

 

[Traitorfish]

If a 35 year old male scientifically eliminated 100 female hopefulls would that take out the personal aspect of the scenario? I have already stated, that science will never be able to explain God. To me it feels like people are trying to scientifically take history and try to compare that God did this and this and allowed this and this, thus God has to do this. That is deductive reasoning. That has been in our psyche for millenia. I know people do not like adding faith into the mix, because even though faith is not scientific, scientist rely on faith that their hypothesis will work.

It seems to me that the line between theory and facts has disappeared and they are synonomous. If they are the same thing then why were they even both put in the scientific equation? One is redundant. I cannot even use both seperately because it seems people say they are the same and we have a very schismatic communication. BTW, no one can rationalize nor figure God out. They can call Him every name in the book, but all they are doing is bringing God down to their level. They have no Faith that He is Who He is.

If god is so entirely beyond human comprehension, then why worship him at all? You make him sound like an impersonal force of nature, rather than any sort of personal entity with which a meaningful relationship may be established.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, there is tons validity to back up Jesus... atheists chose to ignore it.

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from stating my motivations or actions. I do not choose to ignore it, I reasoned the evidence presented is less conclusive than your take on it. If you argue evidence to back up Jesus' existence I'd say the evidence is pretty good. If you argue evidence for Jesus rising up from the dead, I'd say it's pretty poor.

I too don't feel the need to argue with you about this, but I do object to you speaking on behalf of me.

It seems to me that the line between theory and facts has disappeared and they are synonomous. If they are the same thing then why were they even both put in the scientific equation? One is redundant.

They are not the same thing. Facts are the observed phenomena, a Scientific Theory is the explanation of those phenomena or it's characteristics. Example, Fact: if you drop an apple it falls to the ground. Theory: if you drop it from height x, it will take y seconds to reach the ground.

 

[Agent Cooper]

I know people do not like adding faith into the mix, because even though faith is not scientific, scientist rely on faith that their hypothesis will work.

...and if observations or experiments make the hypotheses/theory invalid, the scientific method adjusts or discard the hypotheses and start all over again until what is actually theorized and what is observed/measured, adds up.

The religious community (or parts of it) seem unable to discard aspects of their beliefs no matter how bizarre recent and well documented scientific findings, disprove them.

The Bible is considered to be truth full in every aspect, yes? That absolute is carried over when speaking of the interpretation . If you are not willing to question the book itself, how do you feel about questioning the interpretation of the book?

 

[Flying Pig]

If you hold to the theory that Jesus is God and that what is in the NT is all about God, then if there is a God, He would be able to keep that Testament from error. If God is prone to error, then there is no Christian, follower of Christ and no church and history has been fabricated starting with BCE and CE and it is all a lie.

That assumes that God is willing to reach into our affairs and fiddle with them, and he doesn't exactly have a great track record for molly-coddling his children and making sure they don't screw up. More likely he just shook his head and hoped that we'd be able to improvise - after all, there's no consequences for us if we get it wrong except that we don't live as well and as fulfilledly (is that a word) as we might, but that's not worth 'giving the game away' - if God were to do anything that proved beyond a doubt that he existed, people would believe in him for all the wrong reasons and the whole thing woulnd't work.

If god is so entirely beyond human comprehension, then why worship him at all? You make him sound like an impersonal force of nature, rather than any sort of personal entity with which a meaningful relationship may be established.

Which he may well be. The Hindus describe God as what you can loosely say is 'whatever that thing out there which created the world and watches over it'; we can only see what he's like through what he's done, and he's had the sense to keep it fairly vague. Hence all the different religions! If it was obvious how He worked, would we need all those?

the religious community (or parts of it) seem unable to discard aspects of their beliefs no matter how bizarre recent and well documented scientific findings, disprove them.

We call them fundamentalists and think they're just as crazy as you do. You'll struggle to meet a Protestant who reads about a scientific discovery and thinks 'that can't be right, the Bible says different' - usually because the Bible doesn't say, and those bits it does can be written off as the science of a very much bygone age.

The Bible is considered to be truth full in every aspect, yes?

Not really. The Word - what God actually says, wants etc - is truthful in every aspect, because it comes straight from God. The Bible is man's attempt to represent the Word in book form; it's a human construct and prone to error.

That absolute is carried over when speaking of the interpretation . If you are not willing to question the book itself, how do you feel about questioning the interpretation of the book?

Again, as evidenced by the huge variety of Christian belief even on here, interpretations are by no means perfect.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, a non-American maybe, FlyingPig. A quick review of the religious threads here will reveal several fundamentalist Protestants who are in dispute with prevailing scientific theory.

 

[kochman]

This thread is called "Ask a Protestant", ONCE AGAIN... not, tell a Protestant your atheist ideas and objections.

Did a guy called Jesus exist during that time period who was a religous leader and was killed? Yes. Can we prove he was the 'Son of God' using non-biblical sources? No.

Josephus is a non-biblical source who verified...

Just noting that it isn't just athiests who chose to ignore him. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, the various forms of Chinese Ancestor Worship, and the various forms of other polythiestic religions out there. In short, you have really only two religions (Christianity and Islam) accepting Jesus with everybody else saying 'Meh' about him.

Well, at least the others have some sort of ideology other than themselves to guide them.

Well, NAzism did draw upon alot of support from various protestant groups so saying "Nazism is anti christian" is suspect given the number of christians that did support the Nazis.

Once again, people who call themselves Christians are not necessarily Christians. I bet some of the concentration camp guards called themselves Christians... Doesn't make it true.

Why have you chosen to ignore the tons of validity to back up Mohammed/Buddha/KrishnaRamakrishna/[insert name]?

For one, none of them claimed to be the Son of God, told people they would die and come back in 3 days time, and then follow through with it.

...isn't in his tomb according to the Bible, he came back from the dead according to the Bible. So yeah, if the Bible isn't 100%, there is no sure proof of Jesus' divinity. And if you believe that Christianity is right, then many martyrs have died with no incentive to do so... that's life for you.

No, isn't in His tomb according to archeologists and the Bible.

What is the very core of Christianity? The Golden Rule? The divinity of Jesus?

The teachings of Christ... hence the term, "Christianity"

Those are, has been observed, articles of faith, not verifiable claims.

Well, can you verify that Julius Caesar lived?

Regardless of what you consider to be their ideological, ethical, or spiritual failings, the fact is that there were Lutheran and Roman Catholic establishments in Germany, and that the Nazi government was broadly aligned with them. The private mysticisms of certain portions of the party elite do not in any way contradict that.

Nonsense... then according to that, the CCCP was a bunch of Orthodox. Just utter rubbish. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Stop linking Nazism and Christianity, because THAT is offensive, and completely against the reality of what Christianity teaches.

@Arakhor... I don't understand the people who dispute some obvious science, but it isn't only limited to fundamentalist Protestants...

 

[Ajidica]

Josephus is a non-biblical source who verified...

If memory serves, Josephius was heavily edited by later scribes.

A third passage, the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in the Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in its current form summarizes the ministry and death of Jesus; but the authenticity of this passage remains contested by many scholars, and has been the topic of ongoing debate since the 17th century. The most widely held current scholarly opinion is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic; but that those words and phrases that correspond with standard Christian formulae are additions from a Christian copyist.[3][4]

In those parts of the Testimonium that are commonly regarded as authentic, Josephus describes Jesus as a teacher and miracle worker, attracting a large following who revered him after his death; but, other than James, Josephus names none of the founders of the Church such as St. Paul, St.Peter or any the Twelve Apostles, nor does he refer to basic Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation or the Atonement. This led William Whiston to suggest that Josephus may have been an Ebionite Christian.[5]

\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
Finaly, Joesepheus says little to nothing about the ressurection, so it is safe to assume that he simply was saying Jesus existed and performed some miracles (however, at that time in Palestine miracles were almost a dime-a-dozen. There were lots of holy men there). Few people argue Jesus did not exist. Many argue against his alleged divinity.

For one, none of them claimed to be the Son of God, told people they would die and come back in 3 days time, and then follow through with it.

For the record, the gospels were likely not written down by the immediate disciples, so it wouldn't be that hard to insert some ressurection prediction into it. Biblical scholarship is one of my weak points, so ask Plotinus for further information.

No, isn't in His tomb according to archeologists and the Bible.

We also don't know where his tomb is. Archaeologists have some basic ideas but nothing firm enough to say 'this is where Jesus's tomb was.

Well, can you verify that Julius Caesar lived?

Yes. We have numerous independant sources detailing he lived, along with coinage bearing his name and statues bearing his name on their dedication.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This thread is called "Ask a Protestant", ONCE AGAIN... not, tell a Protestant your atheist ideas and objections..

I agree completely. I only hope that also includes "Tell an atheist his ideas and objections"

atheists chose to ignore it

 

[EnglishCrusader]

Well, there is tons validity to back up Jesus... atheists chose to ignore it.

Wrong. Atheists don't 'ignore' this evidence, we just find it hardly compelling enough to make us believe - and worship - him.

Also, have you ever thought of the probability that this is all a scam? Jesus and his disciples could easily have staged all of this and have good reason to do so - to be worshipped.