Kraichgauer wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
But where we may differ, Bill, is that I believe that the more one studies the historical evidence surrounding the supposed resurrection of Jesus, the more evidence one finds supporting this biblical claim -- thus, automatically, the less faith is required to believe that it happened.
(If atheists can believe that undirected, infinitely chaotic forces
billions of years ago brought about our present existence from nothing, and then can call it "undeniable fact", then I can believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead a
historically-recorded mere 2,000 years ago. The latter is a much more rational thing to believe in, even before further evidence is considered.)
And, as Paul wrote, the entire Christian faith hinges upon His physical, actual resurrection. I do not think God took pains to hide all evidence of His resurrection. You may believe that -- I'm not sure. There is powerful evidence, such as His apostles doubting His prophetic claims during His life on Earth to an eventual resurrection -- yet then, after His death, these same formerly-doubting apostles were willing to give up their very lives rather than simply say He did not rise from the dead. Mass hallucination, or belief
based on sight and physical presence with Jesus after His obvious death?
Quote:
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
John 20:24-28
To quote Christ, "Blessed are those who do not see, but believe."
Again, I believe my faith was a gift of the Spirit, which to me and my religious tradition, reason doesn't come into it.
And in my humble opinion, the Shroud of Turin is a hoax. Then again, we Lutherans haven't been big on relics since Luther wrote against their validity.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, any viewpoint that holds that historical artifacts are by definition nonsense is just pure bias -- though I'm not intimately familiar with Luther's writings on that subject.
Whether they should be reverenced can, however, be debated. Even whether Jesus meant us to celebrate his birth can be debated -- I'm not sure He did.
I accepted Christ at age four, so I didn't have much reason to go on. But much learning and reason
since then has confirmed, and re-confirmed several times, the
evidenced validity of Jesus as God and Messiah. But if this later evidence somehow seemed to prove that He wasn't who He claimed to be, I would
at the least wonder whether or not my belief in Christ was wrong. My final conclusion, in such a case, would be another matter, and would greatly depend on my lifelong observations of His power guiding my life.
I guess at this point, I have no idea whether we're agreeing or disagreeing, so I can't continue the discussion unless I'm shown a clear way in which we disagree.
To put it another way, you like your wording of your beliefs, and I like my wording of mine, but I'm not at all sure we're meaning different things.
_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.
26 Nov 2011, 2:35 pm
