Dan56

Member
  • Content Count

    3,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Dan56

  • Rank
    Priceless Being

Helpful Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Illinois

Friendly Details

  • Doctrine /Affiliation
    Christian

Other Details

  • Occupation
    self-employed

Recent Profile Visitors

3,566 profile views
  1. One either believes in the written record or they dismiss it.. But again, what's the motivation for making it up? In a hundred years or more, there will probably be no evidence of Jonathan either, those who claim that such a person ever existed with no evidence for Jonathan, will foolishly base their conclusion on faith and fraud.
  2. Yes, it is my belief... I wasn't trying to present evidence, but simply stating what's written... No one can proof it to be true or false, its accepted by faith. Both, he was resurrected and then appeared to brethren, not law-enforcers, journalists, or the general public. While his physical body was resurrected, he was also in spirit. John 20:19 & 26 states that Jesus came to his disciples, who were in a locked house, and Jesus appeared in the midst of them (twice). And when he departed for the final time, he didn't walk, he ascended into heaven. Apparently, your not familiar with scripture; "And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison" (Acts 5:18). "They stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead" (Acts 14:19). "The chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them to be beaten with rods" (Acts 16:22). "Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes" (2 Corinthians 11:24). etc. Stephen was stoned. James was beheaded. Philip crucified. Matthew slain with a sword. James the brother of Jesus, had his brains dashed out with a fuller's club. Matthias stoned and then beheaded. Andrew crucified. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria. Peter crucified upside down. Paul beheaded with a sword. Jude crucified. Bartholomew beaten then crucified. Thomas killed with a spear. Luke hanged. Simon crucified. John was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, but lived and was exiled and died on the island of Patmos. If Jesus was not resurrected, why would a bunch of scared disciples who ran away, all of a sudden decide He was worth dying for?
  3. No, because he only appeared to those who knew him. Where does it say that he appeared to gentles, Romans, or nonbelievers? His appearances were only to his followers. And what do you suppose that agenda was? Money & fame? Nearly all of them were afflicted, persecuted, imprisoned, and killed, just like Christ.. Hardly an agenda one would aspire to achieve. True, there no middle ground for me. In context, Jesus was instructing those who would be his apostles.. And collectively, they did perform a greater number of miracles in that first century, and then it ended.
  4. "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matthew 27:52&53). They weren't zombies in appearance, they were simply people formally known by those they appeared to. In other words, the Baker Joe would appear to those who knew him when he was alive, so his re-appearance was a witness to the resurrective power of Christ. A Roman would have just seen another Jew walking down the street with no clue. This miracle was foretold by Christ in John 5:25-28, it served as a living testimony of his resurrection and his promise that there is life beyond the grave.. Consider that if a dead relative personally appeared to you as evidence and confirmation of life after death, would your first concern be that no reporter witnessed it, or that no historian recorded it? The miracle was only meant for you, just as the biblical miracle was only meant to establish the faith of believers.
  5. Historians didn't know the people who resurrected, so why would they write about people they didn't recognize? The event was only relevant to those who knew and witnessed the resurrected ones. Rome should have taken credit for destroying the Temple, because they did it. Jesus just said it would be torn down (Not one stone a top another), so how do the versions conflict? None of the gospels conflict, There were 2 angels at the tomb. Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb. Yes, the gospel writers went to extreme measures to 'harmonize' their gospels with Hebrew scriptures, even to the extent of arranging their leader be crucified ... Please
  6. Ever hear of the Roman historian Tacitus, or the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus? Most scholars, even non-Christian ones are convinced Jesus existed. There's no Jewish records that deny his existence either. Not all gospels are the same, Only John's gospel mentions the 'woman at the well', but the omission from the other gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. Mark just didn't cover what happened after the crucifixion. Its fine that you don't believe it, my only point was that fulfilled prophecy is considered evidence to Christians, even though you disregard it.. And the "Threat of Christian Damnation" is a nonreligious topic? Hmm
  7. So your saying that Christ volunteered to be crucified to fulfill scripture? I wonder if those Roman soldiers knew what their role was in order to fulfill the prophecy? Jesus said, "They shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again" (Luke 18:33). I wonder how he choreographed that? Especially the raising from the dead part? Did he bend his own prophecy or fulfill it? I know you don't believe any of it even happened, but the empty tomb is evidence to believers that it did. It would have been easy for his enemies or the Roman soldiers who guarded his tomb to discredit the resurrection claim by producing a body, but they couldn't and didn't. Talk about an absence of evidence!
  8. Yes, I'm aware that the bible is received by faith and not tangible or objective evidence.. But many things are accepted by the preponderance of evidence, and while subjective evidence can't be factually evaluated, it can still be credible evidence which can establish some legitimacy towards determining a truth. The prophecies of Christ are a perfect example, and its what takes the gospel out of the category of "mythology" for me. A quote like Psalm 22:18, "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture". This foretold the crucifixion which occurred 1000 years later when the Roman soldiers gambled for his cloak, "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots" (Matthew 27:35). It may be a pointless quote to someone who writes it off as a wild coincident, but its relevant evidence to others, including myself. The bible is evidence when it accurately and divinely predicted a future event.
  9. God is Spirit, so He is not seen, but Christians believe that God was revealed through Christ. God is revealed in His works, in His Word, and in events. “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him. But God hath revealed it unto us by his Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10). As Jesus told Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (john 14:9). But of course, belief and faith are necessary components. That's true, but what they miss is that God is knowable in Christ. We understand God through Christ. Seeing is not the real proof, understanding is. Of course, we can't fathom the depths of God (Isaiah 55:8-9), but we can learn enough through His Word to know Him.
  10. I'm aware that Atheist & Agnostics accept things by evidence, but that doesn't require belief. My inference was that they don't accept anything spiritual, because they reject what can't be proven. You simply trust books that support theories like the big bang, evolution, etc, while I trust another book. Life consist of more than a list of facts that we can prove, there are many unanswered questions, and that's where that old bronze age book fills a void that is absent from the human knowledge base. God exist outside of time, outside of space, and is immaterial, so He is not revealed or defined by scientific method or observation.
  11. I understand the theory, but to me its just an unproven hypothesis with no more evidential support than anything in the bible. If it all started with a Bang, I'd still believe God initiated it, even a collider needs beams of particles, nothing can come from nothing. Agnostic just means an absence of knowledge, to paraphrase what Jonathan just wrote, "Without such facts, I don't know". God is spiritually discerned, you won't find any physical evidence that proves God in any science book. I understand that some people won't accept anything that they can't factually substantiate, but you can't deduce God by the observation of physical evidence. God is Spirit and so are we. That said, I believe there is prophetic evidence, but nonbelievers are content to write it all off as coincidence. I simply write what I believe, its not an argument, nor meant to irritate. My intent here was to understand why my "fantasy beliefs" threaten others? We've been all through the "evidence" discussion before, with no resolution of course. Any belief is accepted by faith. Mine makes sense to me, so I've chosen to embrace it. Everyone finds there own truth, others seem content going down a dead-end street, but that doesn't appeal to me at all.
  12. No, I'm not capable of agreeing with something that I don't agree with... The same could be said of you. The difference is; Preaching eternal salvation is hardly a comparable threat as shooting someone. That's why in the free west, Christians aren't sentenced like criminals. Proving a belief wasn't the assumption I dispelled, eternal damnation is what I was alluding to.. Your correct, God, spirit, bible, etc, are all accepted by faith, there's no objective evidence that proves any of it, and I've never suggested otherwise. I am just trying to figure out why you are all scared to death of something you don't even believe is true? Being frightened of something that your convinced doesn't exist seems like nonsense to me. Your list of what I believe is essentially true... I understand the objective evidence you seek, but that type of proof isn't available, it must be accepted by faith. I'm relatively positive that you wouldn't accept the Christian God even if there were indisputable evidence. So it is as much about dislike and hate as it is evidence. Its true that spirituality is different from your physical reality, and its also true that my spiritual view is seamless. And yes, Christ said that he was the truth, so its either true or false, and I obviously believe the former. Imo, you have no answers, facts, or evidence to prove anything either. Your Agnostic because you don't know the answers, you don't have objective evidence that proves how everything came into existence, while I've simply decided to accept a spiritual reality that explains what you don't know.. I know its difficult for you to believe in intelligent design, but I find it much more fathomable than; In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded, and everything magically came into being! That requires more faith for me to swallow than believing in a Spiritual Creator.
  13. To the contrary, I dispelled the threat of eternal damnation.. There is simply death for those who don't believe they have an eternal spirit. And Jonathan doesn't believe in eternal damnation, so to be threatened by it is illogical.. Its like someone threatening to shoot you, but they don't have a gun, but yet he's still scared to death of being shot. I don't get it because its irrational.
  14. Yes, we know people physically die, but we don't know that they spiritually die because there's no evidence of that. And hope is the belief that one did resurrect., at least it was witnessed and his grave is empty. In either scenario, people die. With your ending, death is a terrible and permanent thing. Likewise with Christianity, except that it offers a very rewarding alternative. I said nothing incorrect about Atheism or Agnosticism, so of course your 'corrections' were immaterial.. And you probably don't remember that I quoted the dictionary's definition of Atheism & Agnosticism, so your trifling is with the Webster-dictionary. You seem to label anything that contradicts what you think as 'condescending'. So no, I didn't expect a polite or respectful response from you. I always expect a rude and spiteful response from those who have no argument.
  15. Most Christians don't embrace Christianity out of fear, but out of hope for eternal life.. Consider the alternative nonreligious indoctrination; When you die, its over and you cease to exist forever, you become food for worms and simply return to dust, never to be remembered again.. Is that the ultimate reality that you prefer children be allowed to embrace? What really promotes a more threatening and fearful scenario? That was all I was pointing out... I personally would never feel threatened by what I considered "a bronze age book of fiction". Nor would I fear the people who choose to believe it, unless they were chasing me with a gun and trying to force it down my throat