The Passion of the Christ

[TonyC]

Re: Whoa...

Dude, you've obviously not been hub turning enough.

LOL That's an oxymoron, you know, like military intelligence. There's no such thing as not enough hub turning!

Actually, I was scheduled last week for my first hub turn in several years. The second trip was changed to a Bus, so I got to go home and cross my fingers they wouldn't call me for 4 hours. Hub turns are why most commuters hate Memphis - - and I can't say I blame 'em!

There ain't enough free poprcorn, free coffee, or free movies to EVER make hubturning worth it! Show me the money!

 

[enigma]

Is there an easy way to save an entire thread?


enigma

 

[enigma]

Gentlemen, I stopped weighing in on these matters some time ago because I believe that they had degenerated into a disagreement between only a very few individuals. But I decided to read this thread after noticing that it had grown to eight pages. I still don't have much to add, because others are much more informed, or smarter, than I.

My only point will basically the same as I posted on one of the other long religion strings. If you want to gain my agreement, (advocates of all sides), you will need to show me that your side can be supported and verified. Don't tell me that you are correct, show me. TB, I support you, but you've got to stop quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. As TWA stated way back on page 7, he doesn't accept(or maybe he said believe) the Bible, so quoting from it won't change his mind. Show him how the Bible can be supported.

Now, I'll shut up and go back to my Calvinistis upbringing. That means that I believe that we should witness to others about Jesus the Savior. (BTW, mission accomplished for this forum.) But, after we witness, it's up to God. After the witness, continued preaching seems to be counterproductive. If someone wants to know more, they will ask. In other words, I won't try and save someone from himself but once. Anyone listening?

regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

TB, I support you, but you've got to stop quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. As TWA stated way back on page 7, he doesn't accept(or maybe he said believe) the Bible, so quoting from it won't change his mind. Show him how the Bible can be supported.

Others are better than I am in trying to give an earthly support to a Godly document. Even if you are successful, you will be doubted when doing so. Some are called to do this, like Super 80.

I stick to communicating the message, and let God work in the hearts that hear. Not everyone will hear, and many hearts will remain hard. I can't change that.

The fact that TWA Dude doesn't accept the scripture as true does not change its truth in any way. I've told Him the truth just as it is told to me; no more, no less. I'm not expecting him to change his heart because of what I have done, but because God can use this to help him to accept the truth he has heard. What he does, having been told the truth....well, that's up to him, isn't it? Romans, 10:17.

I'm not posting in this thread to win a debate, only to give the message. Remember the parabel of the sower? Matthew 13:18, or Luke 8:5 explain this principle well.

I can't control where the seed falls, but I can distribute it well when it is time to sow.

 

[enigma]

Timebuilder, Don't misunderstand. But I want you to think of the issue this way: people like TWADude are interested enough to continue the dialoge (sp?), but have not been swayed by your proclamations of truth. I think that it is time to try another approach. I'm afraid that an otherwise receptive heart may be turned away because they perceive us to be arrogant about the truth. Again, telling them that the Bible is true because it says it is true doesn't appear to be working. Try proving that it is true.

regards,
enigma

 

[TWA Dude]

I support you, but you've got to stop quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. As TWA stated way back on page 7, he doesn't accept(or maybe he said believe) the Bible, so quoting from it won't change his mind. Show him how the Bible can be supported.

Thank you for succinctly stating what I've tried to state numerous times. In reality though it's a setup: I know full well that the Bible can't be proven in any conventional sense. One has to believe it's divine origin to believe it's words. That's why I have no desire to prove that my religion is correct; it's impossible. In any case one needn't believe in my religion in order to be a good person and to reap whatever benefits await us. G-d chose the Jews to set an example of behavior for the rest to follow. Nowhere does G-d insist that all must adhere to Judaism. In fact, if one consults a rabbi for conversion tradition dictates that s/he must be talked out of it three times! To become a Jew is to assume a burden rather than a priviledge.

I wonder if it's unique to Christianity to believe that one must follow only it's tenets to achieve salvation. Most other religions aren't nearly so concerned with what others believe.

Dude

 

[Super 80]

I wonder if it's unique to Christianity to believe that one must follow only it's tenets to achieve salvation. Most other religions aren't nearly so concerned with what others believe.

I'm sorry but you can't put this off on Christians. This is the exclusive claim of Christ Jesus.

Jesus said He was the only way to the Father. He said the only way was to believe in the One that God sent. This is the whole message behind the Servant passages in Isaiah and elsewhere in the Prophets.

Now how many ways are there to God?

Each religion has its own set of rules. Each religion has differing obligations you must do. They are all at odds with each other.

This sets up the Law of Mutual Exclusivity.

Either all of them are wrong and one right, or all of them wrong. But they cannot all be right or even have two right because they contradict each other.

Furthermore, all the world's religions will tell you what to do to get to heaven, only one says it's been done for you.

Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light. That all men come to the Father through Him. He paid the price one time for all! He said in a loud voice: "It is finished!" and then commanded His Spirit to God. (Yes, I know this is a little different than what's in the movie.) This word finished has the same meaning in the Aramaic as being "paid in full."

This is why He can redeem us - that is to literally buy us out of the market place of slavery (sin).

HOS 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?

 

[TWA Dude]

I'm sorry but you can't put this off on Christians. This is the exclusive claim of Christ Jesus.

Sorry, but that's circuitous reasoning. Similar to Enigma's point about the claim that the Christian Bible is true because it says it's true, how can you put this off on Jesus when all we know of his teachings is what was written by Christians? To say something's true "because Jesus said it was true" is not an argument; it's a belief.

Furthermore, all the world's religions will tell you what to do to get to heaven, only one says it's been done for you.

And you consider this to be a good thing?

 

[Timebuilder]

I think that it is time to try another approach. I'm afraid that an otherwise receptive heart may be turned away because they perceive us to be arrogant about the truth. Again, telling them that the Bible is true because it says it is true doesn't appear to be working. Try proving that it is true.

I understand what you mean, but I leave that to others who do a better job at that aspect than I.

I'm informational. If they think that's arrogant, then it is God that seems arrogant, because it is His word being declared.

Without the great commission, I'd just be watching TV and waiting for the trumpet.

 

[enigma]

I know full well that the Bible can't be proven in any conventional sense.
Dude

Dude, I believe that the Bible, both the Jewish version, and the Christian additions can be shown to be reliable. I am not a scholar (although I have read enough to become comfortable with my belief), so I will have to speak sort of generally here and make a more detailed post at some later date that will be more specific.

First. The Bible, {including the Jewish Old Testament , (if I tried to refer to it by its Jewish name, I might get it wrong), the Catholic New Testament, and the slightly smaller non-Catholic New Testament] has been proven to be a highly accurate work of history. Other histories, as well as archeology, have proven that accuracy.

Second. A great deal of the OT is prophecy, of which a great deal has already come true. Even one doesn't accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, the rest of the fulfilled prophecy is undeniable.

Third. The Bible is perfectly harmonized. It was written by numerous authors over a couple of centuries, yet each verse is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. Not one human author contradicts any other author.

Fourth. The Bible is full of hidden meanings. The geneology of Genesis for example. If you take the meaning of all of the names, and make a sequential sentence out of them, they make sense and have a message.

In my way of thinking, if the Bible can be verified to be accurate in it's historical and prophetic terms, I am happy to accept that it's other, non-provable contents are also true. Also, the continued existence of the Jewish people shows me that there is something to the Bible story. No other people/race has endured the persecution that the Jews have endured and survived. Without exception, other persecuted races from ancient history disappeared. The Jews are not only still here, but they have even been returned to their ancient homeland. If they weren't the people God choose to bring his message to the World, they'd have been extinct long ago.

I will attempt to do some more research and back up my writings later.


regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

Not only are the Jews still here, but Christians the world over are concerend for them and the sovereignty of their homeland.

 

[Super 80]

Sorry, but that's circuitous reasoning...how can you put this off on Jesus when all we know of his teachings is what was written by Christians?

I find this sentiment among detractors as well as professed believers: it all has to be done on faith alone. Now while Faith is what saves you, and True Faith will have Works to evidence it; I reject that the only way there is to believe is by faith because I came to faith by reason. Like many that run hot and cold, I came to faith in Christ from being an atheist and literally trying to disprove God.

You haven't even taken the time to examine the Gospel, so how do you know what His teaching is to criticize it? How do you know that the only thing there is to know about Christ is from the Gospel?

Josephus wrote about Christ. The Gospel account is not the only record of Jesus.

Josephus; Jewish Antiquities; Book 18, Chapter 3
(63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

I am also getting tired of the "circular" argument. How hard is it to establish a fact these days? If you don't see it yourself, or feel it, or can't give a web address where you can watch a video, evidently it doesn't exist.

How else were the earliest Christians, all Jews by the way, to tell us of Jesus? They didn't have camcorders or cameras in their cell phones. The Renaissance movement was 1300 years away so even paintings in perspective were not possible. Nor were these people able to preserve what little artifacts remained (since there is no body to preserve...) because they were persecuted for three hundred years after Christ. (Although there is evidence of a first century Church at the alternate crucifixion site at the base of the skull of Golgotha complete with a two ton circular stone used to enclose a burial crypt of that era.)

Up until this modern age, you established fact with witness. There were a dozen witnesses to Jesus' entire ministry. There were thousands that saw Him teach. Hundreds saw Him resurrected. In fact a Judge of the past century said there is no more proof of Jesus' claims that can be made in a Court of Law as to establish a fact as there is in the Bible. And fifty days after the Sabbath of the Passover week, three thousand came to believe in the One God sent. These Jews were in Jerusalem. They knew of Jesus, and could speak to those that knew Him and of Him. These facts have been established.

Jesus Himself said that the witness of two or more satisfied the requirements of the Law in the Old Testament. He was the first witness and the Father through His miracles was the second. Just as God established Moses as the Deliverer to the Jews of Egypt! Well after His and God's witness, we have the witness of those that were there.

These facts have been established. The only circular argument is to say they made it all up, because if they did, then you don't have to believe. But how do so many eye-witnesses to the miracles of Jesus are going to die for professing their belief when if, as you say, they're lying, and their faith is worthless and they know it? Well all the Apostles save John were martyred -all without giving up their faith. Now you reason with me, how is it that they were willing to die for nothing?

(Only Jesus says it's been done for you.)
And you consider this to be a good thing?

Yes, don't you?

`The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes' ? (PS 118:22-23)

 

[TWA Dude]

In my way of thinking, if the Bible can be verified to be accurate in it's historical and prophetic terms, I am happy to accept that it's other, non-provable contents are also true.

Actually I'm a large advocate of the Hebrew Bible as an historical document, however, that history is often told metaphorically or allegorically. (I realize some choose to interpret the Bible word-for-word literally and frankly that's scary.) I've mentioned this in previous threads, but there's a book written by a nuclear physicist who happens to be an Orthodox Jew: Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder. I attended a lecture by him in Jerusalem and he blew my mind. He ties the Genesis story of Creation into the Big Bang theory. As far as I'm concerned there's no conflict between science and religion. They both describe the same processes but in differing terms. Good stuff if you're interested.

As far as the non-historical, non-provable contents of the Bible all I can say is that one has to choose to believe it. My very personal opinion is that the Bible has stories to tell, lessons to teach, and commandments to deliver -- yet the depicted conversations need not to have happened verbatim. Poetic license, if you will.

Dude

 

[TonyC]

As far as the non-historical, non-provable contents of the Bible all I can say is that one has to choose to believe it. My very personal opinion is that the Bible has stories to tell, lessons to teach, and commandments to deliver -- yet the depicted conversations need not to have happened verbatim. Poetic license, if you will.

Although this perspective must seem quite clever and self-satisfying to those who hold it, it doesn't conform to the scripture. Inasmuch as the word claims to be inspired (not some cute collection of fables), we much conclude that either the claim comes from a liar - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from a lunatic - - in which case we should trust none of it - - or from God - - in which case we should trust all of it.

 

[TWA Dude]

...I reject that the only way there is to believe is by faith because I came to faith by reason.

That's nice, but of course many arrive at different conclusions using reason.

You haven't even taken the time to examine the Gospel, so how do you know what His teaching is to criticize it?

My admittedly incomplete knowledge of Christianity knows that Jesus' teachings make people do good things. Most religions do the same. I don't recall criticizing anything but if it makes you feel better I am also critical of some teachings of Judaism.

Josephus wrote about Christ. The Gospel account is not the only record of Jesus.

This is news to me. I knew that Josephus wrote of the siege of Masada in the 70's C.E. but I didn't realize that he was an eyewitness to the goings-on of Jesus some years earlier. Was he?

I am also getting tired of the "circular" argument. How hard is it to establish a fact these days?

Good point. It depends on what you're trying to prove and who the judge is. Your "facts" differ from my "facts". Who's to judge? My guess is that neither of us will find out while we're still alive.

Up until this modern age, you established fact with witness. There were a dozen witnesses to Jesus' entire ministry. There were thousands that saw Him teach. Hundreds saw Him resurrected.

The Christian Bible tells you there were all those witnesses. You must choose to believe the accounts.

These facts have been established. The only circular argument is to say they made it all up, because if they did, then you don't have to believe.

Hmmm. You may be onto something there...

But how do so many eye-witnesses to the miracles of Jesus are going to die for professing their belief when if, as you say, they're lying, and their faith is worthless and they know it? Well all the Apostles save John were martyred -all without giving up their faith. Now you reason with me, how is it that they were willing to die for nothing?

How is it that Jews during the Inquisition were martyred -all without giving up their faith? At Masada? Arab homocide-bombers in Israel are willing to die just to kill a few civilians. People can be zealous about the strangest things sometimes.

And for the record I haven't accused anyone of lying. One needn't be lying to tell an untruth. I wasn't there so I need to choose which version of history to believe -- and I've made my choice -- through reason.

(Only Jesus says it's been done for you.)And you consider this to be a good thing?
Yes, don't you?

No. Quite frankly I don't like the idea that one must profess faith in another man for salvation. Furthermore I don't like the idea of a religion that tells other religions they must do the same. Yeah, I know, it's G-d's demand and not yours. Tell it to the Judge.