Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:I just think it says a lot that Kenny thinks Christ's calling was to "convert" people.

1Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

If the "plan of salvation" included events that resulted in the conversion of countless more, don't cha think that would be a good thing?

K

Kenny,

The "plan of salvation" has nothing to do with "converting" people. That's a common misconception about Christianity. But usually the misconception happens when non believers think it's a believer's duty to "convert" them. I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was supposed to "convert" people.

So I assume you would not consider it a good thing.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:I just think it says a lot that Kenny thinks Christ's calling was to "convert" people.

1Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

If the "plan of salvation" included events that resulted in the conversion of countless more, don't cha think that would be a good thing?

K

Kenny,

The "plan of salvation" has nothing to do with "converting" people. That's a common misconception about Christianity. But usually the misconception happens when non believers think it's a believer's duty to "convert" them. I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was supposed to "convert" people.

So I assume you would not consider it a good thing.

Ken

Ken,

Here's a pretty good list of what Jesus came to do. None of which includes "converting" people. So no, I wouldn't consider it a good thing for Jesus to do something he didn't come to do.

IF conversion happens, it is by the Grace Of God and through the HS.
People CHOOSE to be converted, no one "gets" converted.

PaulSacramento wrote:IF conversion happens, it is by the Grace Of God and through the HS.
People CHOOSE to be converted, no one "gets" converted.

Paul,

My point was that when someone "converts" someone, by definition, he changes the person's religious belief. Jesus didn't come to change anyone's religious belief. That's a common misconception. Many non believers just think Christianity is just one of many religions, that one "converts" to.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:I just think it says a lot that Kenny thinks Christ's calling was to "convert" people.

1Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

If the "plan of salvation" included events that resulted in the conversion of countless more, don't cha think that would be a good thing?

K

Kenny,

The "plan of salvation" has nothing to do with "converting" people. That's a common misconception about Christianity. But usually the misconception happens when non believers think it's a believer's duty to "convert" them. I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was supposed to "convert" people.

So I assume you would not consider it a good thing.

Ken

The "conversion" has to come from within the person, it can`t be forced upon someone.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:I just think it says a lot that Kenny thinks Christ's calling was to "convert" people.

1Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

If the "plan of salvation" included events that resulted in the conversion of countless more, don't cha think that would be a good thing?

K

Kenny,

The "plan of salvation" has nothing to do with "converting" people. That's a common misconception about Christianity. But usually the misconception happens when non believers think it's a believer's duty to "convert" them. I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was supposed to "convert" people.

So I assume you would not consider it a good thing.

Ken

Storyteller wrote:The "conversion" has to come from within the person, it can`t be forced upon someone.

Do you suppose to witness such a miracle could cause a conversion from within?

It could, and did, for many. It just seems that even that isn`t enough for some. And that isn`t a criticism, I just find it odd. I mean, what will it take?

How much more of a miracle do people want to believe?

Storyteller wrote:It could, and did, for many. It just seems that even that isn`t enough for some. And that isn`t a criticism, I just find it odd. I mean, what will it take?

How much more of a miracle do people want to believe?

I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.

Ken

Why is there a credibility issue? Do you believe it?

It took me a long time to get my head around the resurrection. Sometimes it still feels to miraculous, too good to be true but why wouldn`t it be? Why would people risk their lives to spread the Word, to produce Bibles so we could know the truth if it was all a lie?

Now I know people believe all sorts of things, and can be wrong, and die for false beliefs, so what sets Christianity apart? The resurrection. It all hinges on that. No resurrection, no faith. No resurrection, no hope. Which is why I am so enthralled by the shroud.

If scientists prove, without doubt, that it is indeed the shroud of Christ, would that encourage you to believe?

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:It could, and did, for many. It just seems that even that isn`t enough for some. And that isn`t a criticism, I just find it odd. I mean, what will it take?

How much more of a miracle do people want to believe?

I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.

Ken

I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

Byblos wrote:I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

Alexander the Great was the student of Aristotle, of royal blood and carved out one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. He acheived the sort of stuff Jesus promised he would to the locals but still hasn't gotten around to doing. Claims of divine birth are common to both Jesus & Alexander. Ultimately it doesn't really matter much if Alexander the Great turns out to be an amalgamation of myth, legend and someone really called Joe the Mediocre, you may be in for some mockery from historians but there's not many people holding that opinion on Alexander the Great is a choice between eternity with a loving God or eternity in hell.

Storyteller wrote:If scientists prove, without doubt, that it is indeed the shroud of Christ, would that encourage you to believe?

It would lend weight to Jesus being an awesome guy, it would lend weight to something spectacular happening when he was in the tomb....but for me it doesn't lend a lot of weight to the core theological themes of the gospels like John 3:16 and such.

Storyteller wrote:
If scientists prove, without doubt, that it is indeed the shroud of Christ, would that encourage you to believe?

Proinsias wrote:
It would lend weight to Jesus being an awesome guy, it would lend weight to something spectacular happening when he was in the tomb....but for me it doesn't lend a lot of weight to the core theological themes of the gospels like John 3:16 and such.

and this, of course is exactly why (although ken will not get it) Christ coming down off the cross would certinly not have inspired more to believe he was God, than death and resurrection, ... people with the same beliefs as Proinsias and ken would have said " he came down off the cross on his own, he must be in great shape... or... wow, what a great constitution he must have.. or man-o-man what an awesome guy" Not "look... He must be the Messiah"... the belief isn't there and I'm so afraid when the time comes, if things don't change for those who mock... Matthew 7:23 and this saddens me beyond belief.

Proinsias wrote:

Byblos wrote:I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

Alexander the Great was the student of Aristotle, of royal blood and carved out one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. He acheived the sort of stuff Jesus promised he would to the locals but still hasn't gotten around to doing. Claims of divine birth are common to both Jesus & Alexander. Ultimately it doesn't really matter much if Alexander the Great turns out to be an amalgamation of myth, legend and someone really called Joe the Mediocre, you may be in for some mockery from historians but there's not many people holding that opinion on Alexander the Great is a choice between eternity with a loving God or eternity in hell.

What on earth does the choice between heaven or hell have anything to do with my question to Kenny?

Kenny made it a matter of credibility and I simply asked if he holds to the same level of credibility with any other historical figure. If not Alexander the Great then pick another, how about Napoleon, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Does Kenny hold the same historicity value he does for Jesus as he does for Napoleon or the others with the same eye for (or lack of) credibility? That is my question and you've not addressed it in the least.

There is no evidence that will convince some,they have their mind made up that Jesus was a fairy-tale story.They ignore that there is more historical evidence for Jesus Christ than for Alexander the great.And the earliest of writings about Alexander come hundreds of years after him,there are no eyewitnesses like with Jesus,and the history for Alexander had many gaps that had to be filled in over time,but they'd still sacrifice Alexander in order to reject Jesus.

We have 1st Corinthians that was written about 30 years after Jesus ascended to heaven and we can go to 1st Corinthians 15 to see Paul had already preached to the Corinthians even before even then,years before.We can see that Paul after his on the road dimascus moment only about 2 years after Jesus went to eyewitnesses who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead,not even the most liberal of historical bible scholars even Bart Erhman will deny this.