), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.Ryan I have answered your question on the main shroud threadryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that
This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.
I've been a Christian for about 12 years and have been a member of this site for about 7. I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the evidence for Christianity, especially the evidence put forth by this site, but I'm just not really convinced by it anymore, and find the numerous arguments against Christianity just compelling enough to make the foundation of the whole structure feel like its disappeared. Most of the evidence for the resurrection from accounts of the tomb and claims to see him ressurected fail to debunk the proposition "the authors of the Gospels (probably not the actual apostles) made the whole story up". Any particular evidence that you think I'm failing to consider?ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that
This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.
Funny, the apostles testimony in my opinion is what convinced many fence sitter sto come on over to teh Christian side of the fence. i find it amazing that you would say it didnt convince you at all.Seraph wrote:I've been a Christian for about 12 years and have been a member of this site for about 7. I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the evidence for Christianity, especially the evidence put forth by this site, but I'm just not really convinced by it anymore, and find the numerous arguments against Christianity just compelling enough to make the foundation of the whole structure feel like its disappeared. Most of the evidence for the resurrection from accounts of the tomb and claims to see him ressurected fail to debunk the proposition "the authors of the Gospels (probably not the actual apostles) made the whole story up". Any particular evidence that you think I'm failing to consider?ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that
This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.
It is not simply people testifying that they've seen Jesus risen form, its a 2000 year old story ABOUT people who testify that they saw Jesus rise. The story itself may not be reliable, let alone the testimony in the story being reliable. We don't know that the women saw Jesus rise, we don't know that the apostles saw Jesus rise, or for that matter even if any of them ever actually claimed to see Jesus rise. Carbon dating of the earliest manuscripts place them at around 200 years after the events took place, it doesn't even look likely the apostles themselves wrote the books. How is that a reliable testimony? Especially for an extraordinary claim like a person raising from the dead?bippy123 wrote: Funny, the apostles testimony in my opinion is what convinced many fence sitter sto come on over to teh Christian side of the fence. i find it amazing that you would say it didnt convince you at all.
The women finding the tomb empty and seeing the risen Christ first is a mind blower by itself and one huge evidence against the apostles making it all up. Its called the historical criterion of embarressment Seraph.
Thanks Seraph, but dont worry about being sharp and agressive. mark Antonacci was the same way when he set out to prove to his Christian GF that Christianity was nothing but a fairy tale. He decided to pick the shroud to debunk. Little did he know that what he thought would take 2 weeks to debunk took 20 years and not only could he not debunk the shroud but he himself ended up believing in its authenticity and he eventually down the line ended up becoming a Christian and giving his heart to the lord.Seraph wrote:Btw bippy, despite how sharp and aggressive I'm sounding when arguing about this, I do appreciate you trying to convince me otherwise, I recognize that it's an act of love
No problem Rob, I understand the sense of urgency from a Christian with stuff like what I'm going through, as I realize that if the Christian worldview is true, I would be making a grave mistake in identifying as a Deist. I feel as though I definitely had a relationship with Jesus at some point, at least I thought I did. It may well have been "imaginary friend syndrome" though. My own reasoning is what is driving a wedge between me and belief in the resurrected Jesus, not so much pride. I have prayed to God many, many times to remove my doubts, but they just continue to grow. I still have a personal relationship with God and would continue to even as a Deist.Rob wrote:You say you've been a Christian for twelve years, but it doesn't really sound like you've ever had a personal relationship with Christ or else this wouldn't be happening. Do you think you could have been the victim of a false conversion? I was. The reason the arguments against Christianity bothered me so much was because I didn't really know Him.
There are plenty of arguments against Christianity, but there are plenty of arguments against those arguments and also against everything else.
Our faith is a reasonable one. In the end it boils down to an emotional thing- as much as us postmodern empiricists hate to admit it.
God simply isn't that easy on us- nor is he required to be.
I would strongly urge you to seek Him. Really seek Him and put in the work. Pray for help. Pray for help wanting help. Cry out to Him.
Swallow your pride, fall on your face and beg Him.
Sorry if I'm coming off as emotional here, but it sounds as if that's exactly what you need.
I've examined much of the evidence myself and have found that the New Testament text is actually a lot more reliable than modern critics give it credit for. For reference, I would highly suggest you read 'How We Got the Bible' by Neil Lightfoot:
It's a pretty high view and easy to understand- though there are plenty of other more in-depth reference books out there.
P.S., Sorry if this post sounds accusatory. I really don't mean it to be. I mostly lurk, but I have enjoyed your contributions to this forum so far. I will be praying that God intercedes on your behalf. Please, ask Him for help.
Dont Leave us Seraph, sometimes a Christian's faith goes through a desert time. There are many good examples I could give you but the one common denominator from all of their struggles is the question im about to ask you.Seraph wrote:No problem Rob, I understand the sense of urgency from a Christian with stuff like what I'm going through, as I realize that if the Christian worldview is true, I would be making a grave mistake in identifying as a Deist. I feel as though I definitely had a relationship with Jesus at some point, at least I thought I did. It may well have been "imaginary friend syndrome" though. My own reasoning is what is driving a wedge between me and belief in the resurrected Jesus, not so much pride. I have prayed to God many, many times to remove my doubts, but they just continue to grow. I still have a personal relationship with God and would continue to even as a Deist.Rob wrote:You say you've been a Christian for twelve years, but it doesn't really sound like you've ever had a personal relationship with Christ or else this wouldn't be happening. Do you think you could have been the victim of a false conversion? I was. The reason the arguments against Christianity bothered me so much was because I didn't really know Him.
There are plenty of arguments against Christianity, but there are plenty of arguments against those arguments and also against everything else.
Our faith is a reasonable one. In the end it boils down to an emotional thing- as much as us postmodern empiricists hate to admit it.
God simply isn't that easy on us- nor is he required to be.
I would strongly urge you to seek Him. Really seek Him and put in the work. Pray for help. Pray for help wanting help. Cry out to Him.
Swallow your pride, fall on your face and beg Him.
Sorry if I'm coming off as emotional here, but it sounds as if that's exactly what you need.
I've examined much of the evidence myself and have found that the New Testament text is actually a lot more reliable than modern critics give it credit for. For reference, I would highly suggest you read 'How We Got the Bible' by Neil Lightfoot:
It's a pretty high view and easy to understand- though there are plenty of other more in-depth reference books out there.
P.S., Sorry if this post sounds accusatory. I really don't mean it to be. I mostly lurk, but I have enjoyed your contributions to this forum so far. I will be praying that God intercedes on your behalf. Please, ask Him for help.
Thanks for your kind words about me as a poster here, I'd probably continue to stick around G&S even if I went full on Deist.
Then I rest the case...Seraph wrote:Perhaps. There probably is something to that. Still though, I am genuine in my doubts expressed the tirade I went on a couple posts back.B.W. wrote:Well, as long as you can see that things from your past influenced your perceptions about God now, then that could answer a lot for you. Maybe by mirroring these into your concepts about God has created a stone wall providing a way for you to try to comes to terms with the events of the divorce and the passing of your father. What I mean by stone wall, is a form of emotional protection, that numbs and says, I will not be hurt (abandoned, guilty, rejected - etc) again. Not sure, but maybe you have pushed people away from you as a sort of test mechanism for trust. This often occurs in cases of trauma and maybe after your encounter with God, you pushed God away and are testing him to see if he will reject you - like....???
I know all of this on a more personal level and you need not answer if you do not like too but after reading your post over the years you been here, it appears to me that you have been devastated, mainly by what you bravely shared and this wound is your main issue. The flirting with Deism is one area that is currently manifesting. Have you considered that you maybe mirroring your parents relationship/rejection of each other, into your idea that God limits relationships with him to those that partake in a seemingly primitive ritual that practically requires one to believe in magic? If this is so when young, what did your magical thinking imagine - how was it dashed? I know that is deep, but please take the time to mull over it a bit because in that you might discover something you haven't thought of before that may help you come to terms with something deep...
Seraph wrote:It is not simply people testifying that they've seen Jesus risen form, its a 2000 year old story ABOUT people who testify that they saw Jesus rise. The story itself may not be reliable, let alone the testimony in the story being reliable. We don't know that the women saw Jesus rise, we don't know that the apostles saw Jesus rise, or for that matter even if any of them ever actually claimed to see Jesus rise. Carbon dating of the earliest manuscripts place them at around 200 years after the events took place, it doesn't even look likely the apostles themselves wrote the books. How is that a reliable testimony? Especially for an extraordinary claim like a person raising from the dead?bippy123 wrote: Funny, the apostles testimony in my opinion is what convinced many fence sitter sto come on over to teh Christian side of the fence. i find it amazing that you would say it didnt convince you at all.
The women finding the tomb empty and seeing the risen Christ first is a mind blower by itself and one huge evidence against the apostles making it all up. Its called the historical criterion of embarressment Seraph.
To sort of reinforce this, a heavily used papyrus probably wouldn't last more than a decade. Take the four gospels for example... How many original autographs could there be? Four, obviously.bippy123 wrote: On top of that seraph you need to remember that 1st century Jews (and any other culture of that time) didn't have the luxury of paper to write on . They only had papyrus which was known to go bad fast and crumble. They then had to rely on one of the best oral traditions of all time. Very sharp people mentally who had to memorize their traditions because they didn't have the luxury of having it written down on paper.
Even Bart Ehrman acknowledged something similar to this and he is certainly no friend of Christianity. When he debated James White, White asked him a question in his cross examination.bippy123 wrote: Take Alexander the Great , his most accurate writings are dated historically as all sit 400 years after his existence, and this is very common for ancient figures. What we have about Christ is many times more accurate historically ,a we also have this confirmed by the 2nd century writings of the a apostolic fathers who were the disciples of the apostles.
Rob very excellent point about the writers of the New Testament writing scripture at the risk of losing their lives.Rob wrote:To sort of reinforce this, a heavily used papyrus probably wouldn't last more than a decade. Take the four gospels for example... How many original autographs could there be? Four, obviously.bippy123 wrote: On top of that seraph you need to remember that 1st century Jews (and any other culture of that time) didn't have the luxury of paper to write on . They only had papyrus which was known to go bad fast and crumble. They then had to rely on one of the best oral traditions of all time. Very sharp people mentally who had to memorize their traditions because they didn't have the luxury of having it written down on paper.
In order to spread the word, followers of the faith had to make lots of copies to spread them around the Mediterranean. (Risking their lives doing so)
We should find it encouraging that there are many, many different copies. It speaks to the honesty of the scribes.
Our fathers aren't guilty of what Islam is guilty of. (Collecting all versions, choosing one, then burning the rest)
As more and more copies are made, it is only natural that the copies replace the worn originals.
Even Bart Ehrman acknowledged something similar to this and he is certainly no friend of Christianity. When he debated James White, White asked him a question in his cross examination.bippy123 wrote: Take Alexander the Great , his most accurate writings are dated historically as all sit 400 years after his existence, and this is very common for ancient figures. What we have about Christ is many times more accurate historically ,a we also have this confirmed by the 2nd century writings of the a apostolic fathers who were the disciples of the apostles.
I'm paraphrasing, so forgive me, but it was something like:
"Dr. Ehrman, you once referred to the time between the earliest known manuscript and the life of Jesus as 'enormous.' If you classify that span of time as 'enormous,' then how would you classify the time between someone like Suetonius and the earliest copy of his writings?"
In response, Dr. Ehrman says: "Very enormous. Very, very enormous. Ginormous even."
