"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
How about picking someone who was more akin to Jesus? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc were all hugely famous across the world in their lifetimes, commanded armies, won wars, held power over hundreds of thousands of people......politcal & military giants that changed the world within the time they spent on earth. Jesus seems to have spent most of his chatting to people within a fairly localised area, made little impact on the world in his lifetime and stands in stark contrast to all the others on the list as someone who intended to establish a kingdom on earth but never got round to it.Byblos wrote:What on earth does the choice between heaven or hell have anything to do with my question to Kenny?Proinsias wrote: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.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.
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.
I don't see miracles as proof of religious convictions. If he came back from the dead it proves he came back from the dead, not that he was spot on in his reasoning and theological outlook.Storyteller wrote:@Proinsais.
On kindle so cant quote!
Why would it not lend weight to Christ being the Messiah?
They say Rome kept detailed records of events of their day. Today Rome is one of the most Christian spots on Earth yet they have no record of such an event today. If Muslims claimed many saw Mohammad ascend to heaven, do you think many Christians would believe it? Or do you suppose there would be credibility issues.Storyteller wrote:Why is there a credibility issue?
If I did, I would still be Christian.Storyteller wrote: Do you believe it?
If there were ever an expert on the Shroud, I think that would be the Catholic Church. Yet the Pope refuses to pronounce it as authentic; instead choosing to refer to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins”Storyteller wrote: 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?
If people claimed Alexander the Great preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I would be skeptical of that as well.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.Kenny wrote:I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.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?
Ken
Fair enough Rick, I think the point still stands at least as somone who never had an earthly kingdom.RickD wrote:Proinsias,
Contrary to your assertion that Christ was going to establish his kingdom on earth, but never got around to it, are the words of Jesus in John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
Nonsense. You give credibility to the deeds of Alexander the Great simply because they are a matter of historical record without giving it much thought. Yet you deny such to Jesus. Besides which, how exactly can you be certain that what Jesus performed was 'outside the laws of nature'? How do you know that science will not one day explain all the miracles including the resurrection? As you so often state, back in the 1850s microbial diseases would have been thought of as 'outside the laws of nature'.Kenny wrote:If people claimed Alexander the Great preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I would be skeptical of that as well.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.Kenny wrote:I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.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?
Ken
Ken
I'm sorry but that just struck me as very funny. Are you saying these individuals had more of an historical impact than Jesus?Proinsias wrote:How about picking someone who was more akin to Jesus? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc were all hugely famous across the world in their lifetimes, commanded armies, won wars, held power over hundreds of thousands of people......politcal & military giants that changed the world within the time they spent on earth. Jesus seems to have spent most of his chatting to people within a fairly localised area, made little impact on the world in his lifetime and stands in stark contrast to all the others on the list as someone who intended to establish a kingdom on earth but never got round to it.
I'm not sure either way, though, how it could not support the issue I am contending with Kenny vis-a-vis credibility. The fact remains that as a purely historical figure, Jesus' historicity is held to a much, much higher standard than any other figure in history. And I hope you're not gonna hide behind some nonsense like 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs'. I'd really be very disappointed.I give credibility to the deeds of Alexander the Great because the historical record sounds realistic. The idea that some leader did a bunch of stuff leaders often did years ago sounds realistic. Now if science proves it is possible to walk on water, heal blind, raise people from the dead, and all the other miracles Jesus is said to have done; without going outside the laws of nature, I will at that time change my mind; but until then I will remain skeptical.Byblos wrote:Nonsense. You give credibility to the deeds of Alexander the Great simply because they are a matter of historical record without giving it much thought. Yet you deny such to Jesus. Besides which, how exactly can you be certain that what Jesus performed was 'outside the laws of nature'? How do you know that science will not one day explain all the miracles including the resurrection? As you so often state, back in the 1850s microbial diseases would have been thought of as 'outside the laws of nature'.Kenny wrote:If people claimed Alexander the Great preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I would be skeptical of that as well.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.Kenny wrote:I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.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?
Ken
Ken
Always glad to entertain. I'm saying the impact of the others was felt within their lifetimes as domineering figures in world politics, wars and the establishment of nations, empires and whatnot. The impact of Jesus has arguably eclipsed all of them but his influence has grown over hundreds and thousands of years, the height of his fame is long after he left the earth. For a more apt comparisson I would venture someone like John the Baptist....a religious figure in the ancient near east mentioned in the Gospels, by Josephus and gaining worldwide fame long after he left the earth.Byblos wrote:I'm sorry but that just struck me as very funny. Are you saying these individuals had more of an historical impact than Jesus?Proinsias wrote:How about picking someone who was more akin to Jesus? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc were all hugely famous across the world in their lifetimes, commanded armies, won wars, held power over hundreds of thousands of people......politcal & military giants that changed the world within the time they spent on earth. Jesus seems to have spent most of his chatting to people within a fairly localised area, made little impact on the world in his lifetime and stands in stark contrast to all the others on the list as someone who intended to establish a kingdom on earth but never got round to it.
You can't use Roman "detailed records" of 2000 years ago as proof or not of a single event if you can't use them for events that took place that numbered in the thousands and were not recorded, such as crucifixions ... surely there were, but almost none have been recorded in antiquity. Jesus is famous now, He was barely a blip on the Roman radar then.They say Rome kept detailed records of events of their day. Today Rome is one of the most Christian spots on Earth yet they have no record of such an event today
That's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.If Muslims claimed many saw Mohammad ascend to heaven, do you think many Christians would believe it? Or do you suppose there would be credibility issues.
why would you think that? The church has never been or intimated themelves as an authoratative expert on the shroud and has in fact never said anything other than refering to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” It's why the Church, knowingly allowed the Shroud to be subjectd to 2000 hours of true scientific research, even tho said scientific research may have conclude it as a forgery and thereby relinquishing it even as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” . Unafraid ken, of the religious consequences to reach the truth.To me that speaks volumes. Ante Mortem ContumeliamIf there were ever an expert on the Shroud, I think that would be the Catholic Church.
Yeah, you see he has a responsibility to over 1 billion Catholics not to besmurch the Church by making unfounded claims, If the Shroud had a chinese laundry ticket that said "no ticky no washy, property of Jesus of Nazareth" they still wouldn't authenticate it as people would likely say... "Oh come on, how many Jesus's were there in Nazareth at that time... it could have been any one of them !" Again, Ante Mortem Contumeliam To me that speaks volumes.Yet the Pope refuses to pronounce it as authentic; instead choosing to refer to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins”
My point is, if christians are reluctant to accepta (what you might consider) false/other religious claims; it shouldn’t surprise you if those of other religions or no religion at all are reluctant to accept Christian claims.EssentialSacrifice wrote: That's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.
The Catholics have had the Shroud for over 500 years! You don’t think any of those “Catholic Scientists” have taken a peek at it to see if they could claim it as authentic?EssentialSacrifice wrote:That's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.TThat's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.why would you think that? The church has never been or intimated themelves as an authoratative expert on the shroud and has in fact never said anything other than refering to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” It's why the Church, knowingly allowed the Shroud to be subjectd to 2000 hours of true scientific research, even tho said scientific research may have conclude it as a forgery and thereby relinquishing it even as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” . Unafraid ken, of the religious consequences to reach the truth.To me that speaks volumes. Ante Mortem Contumeliam
Yeah, you see he has a responsibility to over 1 billion Catholics not to besmurch the Church by making unfounded claims, If the Shroud had a chinese laundry ticket that said "no ticky no washy, property of Jesus of Nazareth" they still wouldn't authenticate it as people would likely say... "Oh come on, how many Jesus's were there in Nazareth at that time... it could have been any one of them !" Again, Ante Mortem Contumeliam To me that speaks volumes.
Not much of a point... nothing you say surprises me anymore and other religions can think whatever they want... reluctance aside... don't care...My point is, if christians are reluctant to accepta (what you might consider) false/other religious claims; it shouldn’t surprise you if those of other religions or no religion at all are reluctant to accept Christian claims.
Soooo you got proof of this, or are you just talkin out your hat again (your hat must be exhausted)... find the link where "Catholic Scientists" took a peek...The Catholics have had the Shroud for over 500 years! You don’t think any of those “Catholic Scientists” have taken a peek at it to see if they could claim it as authentic?
Over 80% of the scientists that STURP used were not Christian... do your homework ken... quite a few of them converted after research... I'm not holding my breath for nothin... don't need to, my faith, as most here on site, is not determined by the Shroud's potential authenticity... it's just cool that it hasn't been ruled out yet ... after the most extensive research on any religious article in the history of man...do your home work ken... LOLIf all of those Christian scientists are reluctant to call it authentic, I wouldn’t be holdin’ my breath waiting for those evil atheist scientist to do so. (LOL)