You can try to make a play on words all you want. But proselytizing is proselytizing. A commandment is a commandment. You can not claim to be a follower or a disciple of Christ (who's entire life was dedicated to preaching about the Kingdom of God) and be in opposition to almost everything he stood for.

I've read this argument many times. Implying that Jesus didn't want to convert Gentiles shows extreme ignorance regarding the scriptures. You can't pick a couple of verses where Jesus favored preaching to one group over another to claim that he didn't want the "less favorable" group to be preached to at all. There are plenty of examples throughout the NT where Jesus preaches to Gentiles. Please don't make me bring them up.

I wanted to address the issue of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is my belief that the Resurrection account is the most historically reliable account of anything ever written about the life of Jesus. I also believe that I can convince even the most skeptical of people of this, so long as they are not closed minded. I won't be able to "prove" it happened anymore than I could "prove" that Washington crossed the Delaware, however I do believe that there is more evidence to support Christ's resurrection than there is to support most historical accounts which we freely believe to be true.

The most difficult aspect regarding the resurrection of Jesus is that it's an account of a supernatural event which none of us have ever witnessed anything similar to. It's an account of something that we can neither comprehend nor explain how it took place. It's also an account of something that we cannot recreate. However, if we simply threw out everything we didn't understand, couldn't explain or couldn't duplicate, we would have to throw out almost every belief we have, theist or atheist. How do you think the theory of evolution would hold up if comprehension and duplication were a requirement for adhesion to a belief? (Please don't go off topic regarding evolution vs. creation. That's an entirely different thread. I'm just making an example of something which I assume most atheists can relate to.)

I will attempt to compile my reasoning for believing in the resurrection of Jesus and lay it out for you in my subsequent post. However, it's going to be a long one, so I probably won't get to it until later tonight.

He talked about giving up wealth more then proselytizing to the gentiles so...

He should of told his brother and other apostles as it would of saved some bloodshed and heartache.


Im just joking around with my posts though. No need to quote me a bunch of verses.

start a thread on this. it wouldnt be the first time, but it would be your first time.

wrong

wrong

wrong

wrong

pretty good. sort of like how the theory of gravity holds up pretty well. Just because *you* can't comprehend it doesn't mean its uncomprehendable. But as you said, let's not hijack this into another evolution thread. my advise to you is try not to be "closed minded" towards evolution, and learn a little bit before you try to make unsubstantiated claims that demonstrate that your only exposure to evolution is creationist propaganda.

again, do it in a new thread, otherwise your proof will get lost in these other posts.

popcorn.gif

Perhaps I should bow to your wisdom. Such elegant thought provoking responses.

By your train of "wrong" statements, we can conclude that mankind (and suggestively you in particular) is fully capable of understanding and explaining the science behind how someone is raised from the dead 3 days after they've died. We can also gather that mankind is able to duplicate this event (I await your evidence of this). Pretty remarkable statements. One word answers seem rather insufficient for such bold claims.

Next point... I never claimed to be a creationist. I also never claimed to not "understand" the theory of evolution. I simply stated that we (as in scientists) can not yet recreate or duplicate the most fundamental building blocks of evolution. We can not turn a fish into a lizard through a series of forced mutations and it's not because we haven't tried. We also can not recreate a living cell in the lab without proteins and amino acids. I have no clue what your scientific background is nor do I know how much you know about our current understanding of the cell. You should read up on it. There have been some incredible discoveries within the last twenty years.

Regarding your attack against my *ability* to grasp scientific principles, I assure you that this will not be an issue in our discussion.

Regarding your attack against my *closed mindedness* regarding evolution, again you fail. I am completely open to any and all ideas. I have shifted and reshaped my beliefs more times than I can count. I even once believed that God created the earth some 6,000 years ago. I no longer believe that. I use to believe that God sent people to Hell who didn't believe in him. Again, I no longer believe that. Claiming I am closed minded is well... let's just say closed minded.

I'm very interested in your reasoning behind this Rainman.

Mathew 7:13 states "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

Does the word "destruction" not refer to Hell?

I hear this quite often, but rarely do I hear it from someone who claims to be Christian.

This belief contradicts what the Bible is all about. Jesus is the ONLY way to paradise.

1st Commandment= I am the lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

You simply cannot call yourself a Christian and still believe that someone who worships Allah can also enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Go to University and take 3 or 4 years of Natural Science/Medicine courses. That will cure anybody of any theistic hallucinations.

Unfortunately, I spent my University studies in other coursework.

Cliff notes?

I believe exactly what the Bible says. The verse you just quoted is a prime example. Matthew writes, under inspiration, that many people will be subject to destruction. If something is subject to destruction, then we can assume it will be destroyed. Destruction and eternal torture are two extremely different concepts. Again, the idea of eternal destruction is not well supported in the Bible. It is another one of the Catholic Churches methods for scaring the population. Remember, the Catholic Church was not just a religion during this era. They were also the government. There was an irrevocable bias in their interpretation of scripture. Unfortunately, their many of their beliefs have carried on because people believe that it is "God's Word" and you can't change "God's Word".

Here's a prime example of the craftiness of the Catholic Church. In the KJV Bible, we find the following at Psalms 9:17, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Yet if you look in an interlinear Bible, you will find the Hebrew word for grave (Sheol) rendered here as "hell." If you look this same verse up in just about all other translations, you will find it accurately rendered as "grave" or "Sheol".

Here are a few other verses that deal with the afterlife, all of which support or imply that mankind ceases to exist after death: Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalms 88:10, Psalm 146:4, Ezekiel 18:4, Job 14:13,

And perhaps my favorite, Acts 2:25-27... if the Greek word here is correctly translated as "hell" then Jesus went to hell. Add that up...

Also, Romans 6:7 tells us that one who has died has been aquitted of their sins. By definition, this would imply that no further punishment is needed. This is reiterated in Romans 6:23.

Here's another example: there's a story in Jeremiah where the Judeans turn their backs on God. They start speaking abusively against God, cursing him, etc. etc. They didn't just turn their backs on him, they openly criticized him. The following verses are found in Jeremiah 7:31, "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." ... Some translations render it as "... neither came it into my mind." The word here rendered "heart" or "mind" has to do with God's desire. He had no desire to, it was not in his mind, it was unthinkable to God to burn these ones in the fire for turning their backs on him. Why would we think he would then later on develop the desire to burn those who turn their backs on him on a greater scale (aka hellfire of the wicked).

There's lots more, but I'm sure you've had enough examples to see my viewpoint.

I lied. I apologize. I majored in Mathematics and minored in Physics. I await your cure to my disease. FWIW, I was not a Christian during College. It wasn't until after I studied Math/Physics that I became a Christian.

The Catholic Church weren't the only ones to push it. The idea of a place of torment predates Christianity and was held by some ancient Jews.

your sarcasm only further shows your inability to see your own ignorance. like i said, if you want to discuss the historicity of the resurrection, start a thread.

again, you are missing the point. It is depressing that i have to explain this to you like a child, but I will since you are new here:

Your claim:
"The most difficult aspect regarding the resurrection of Jesus is that it's an account of a supernatural event which none of us have ever witnessed anything similar to."

My response:
"wrong"

Let's see if we can figure out what is "wrong" about your claim. You make a couple of statements:

1. Resurrection of Jesus is an account of a supernatural event.
2. Its a supernatural event which no one has ever witnessed anything similar to.
3. Its the most difficult aspect of the resurrection.

If you can't see how any, if not all, of your points are just flat our wrong, then theres very little I can do to help you.

No one said you were a creationist. All i said is that your understanding of evolution appears to be built solely on creationist propaganda. Saying things like "We can not turn a fish into a lizard through a series of forced mutations", only furthers your demonstration of this ignorance.

agreed, which is why i said let's not hijack this thread. any continued defense by you in your claim to understand evolution will only further embarrass you. Try not to be so closed minded and accept that you have some learning to do, and drop this topic.

well good, then start learning more than what your creationist friends have told you.

oh wow good for you. Again, I will quote myself:

"my advise to you is try not to be "closed minded" towards evolution, and learn a little bit"

Did i say you were closed minded? No, I said try not to be closed minded towards evolution, and try to learn a bit before making unsubstantiated claims regarding it. Learning to read and understand what people write will go a long ways in making your time here more enjoyable.

That said, we all eagerly await your thread discussing why the resurrection is the "most historically reliable account of anything ever written about the life of Jesus".

For the record, I'm in medical school and this is definitely not true.I'm having trouble thinking of everyone, but it seems like more than 50% of my class are theists.

I'm actually curious to hear about experiments in which we tried to turn a fish into a lizard. We have directly observed speciation however. Just not class-iation, which would be a ridiculous standard anyway.

Wait, what? Can you explain this to me? How are any of those not true statements?

We can't create a volcano or hurricane either... what has us being able to create something have to do with what we know about it?

really? fine.

1. Resurrection of Jesus is an account of a supernatural event - there's no evidence that the resurrection is supernatural (definition of supernatural: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws).

2. Its a supernatural event which no one has ever witnessed anything similar to. - really, come one. you need me to explain how nothing similar has never been "witnessed" before?

3. Its the most difficult aspect of the resurrection. - pretty much nonsensical

Wow, this is shockingly what it actually sounded like you were going to say. But it still sounds like a joke. How is the bringing to life of a dead body not supernatural? Resurrection is not "subject to explanation according to natural laws" and is therefore supernatural. You can't seriously be disagreeing with this, can you?

When's the last time people have witnessed a resurrection?

The resurrection itself is a supernatural event, so it is the most troubling part. The rest I'm willing to accept. Are you somehow able to prove that I'm wrong, that I don't really find that part most difficult?

how is it supernatural?

I don't think you understand what the term supernatural means.

many, many times. Not only does it happen throughout religious history, it has happened and been "witnessed" countless times in human history. It is neither a unique or particularly "supernatural" event.

no. you are more than welcome to have your opinion regarding why you find the resurrection difficult. using your logic, doesn't the fact that i dont find it the most troubling part discount his statement?

It's really hard to pose a rational argument against an irrational belief. It will always end up running into a stone wall which is the belief itself. That is where the beginning and end of the argument is. "You just gotta have faith." It's a crutch for people who want to stop thinking.

Dknightx, the resurrection is the base of Christianity. Generally when a non-believer decides to consider becoming a Christian, the FIRST thing they have to accept is that Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus in fact did not rise from the dead, our religion is false. That is why it's the most difficult aspect of Christianity. Once you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, you accept everything that he claimed to be. I would never have placed my faith in him if I didn't believe he resurrected.

If he was a liar, he simply lied about being God. Do you think a liar claiming to be God would just ironically predict his death and resurrection and fulfill it?

If he was a lunatic, and really actually did think he was God, but was simply hallucinating, do you really think he would just ironically predict his death and resurrection and fulfill it?

If he really is God and everything he claimed was true, his resurrection confirmed it.

Unless of course you think that rising from the dead is not a supernatural event.

I personally believe that no one can rise from the dead without the help of a supreme being. However, I am open minded to any argument you have against this.

there are other arguable problems with his statement.

(1) "Ressurection of Jesus is an account of a supernatural event" - (1) what if it never happened? Then its merely a story. What if Jesus never died but was mistakenly thought dead who then woke up and left? There are plenty of problems with this statement.

(2) "Its a supernatural event which no one has ever witnessed anything similar to." If you ignore all the other religions that have people rising from the dead, it might be true. This statement certainly puts the OP into a class of people ignorant to competing claims. Of course, it still leaves the problem that we can't say with any certainty that anyone witnessed it.

(3) Its the most difficult aspect of the resurrection - Must admit I've lost sight of what "It" is... since I say its more difficult to even accept that it did happen. For me, its difficult believing people just accept that it happened because its written in an old book written by superstitious people.

Superstitious people huh? You mean.... the people who let themselves be tortured to death for their belief, when they could have just admitted that they were wrong and saved themselves? Yeah, reeeeal superstitious.