The purpose of Satan

[nocturn]

what have i said??

i didn't say someone else has an empty tomb??

[chopiabin]

Janice, do you understand my point about that site?

[janice]

what have i said??

i didn't say someone else has an empty tomb??

I know you didn't and I wasn't trying to say that you said tha, but.....it's hard to explain.

[janice]

OK. Janice, I went to that last link you posted, and it is clear that you do not understand the difference ......

Errrrrr......I  feel like I have answered your question at least three times.  The author of that book, Josh MacDowell,was a die-hard atheist who originally set out to disprove the Christian faith, thereby shutting people up once and for all.  However, a very interesting thing happened.  During the time of his writing and researching this book, he became convinced that Christianity is true.  So, no, this is not a "Christian" book.  It does, however, happen to be at a Christian site.  I'm using that link because we are conversing via the internet and it is necessary for us to refer to the book, using the internet.  Here's another chapter:

https://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep17.html
That is chapter 7: The Trilemma--Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

Hope this helps!

[chopiabin]

I guess what I'm saying is that that site simply paraphrases the bible or compares Christianity to other religions - it simply isn't scientific proof.

I believe that Jesus existed and that he was a great leader, but I simply do not believe in his resurrection or divinity.  

[chopiabin]

Well, I just read that chapter and I must say I object t a few things.

1. The scholars they quoted were giving OPINIONS about Jesus.

2. The new testament was written after Jesus's death. I doubt that every writer was present when he supposedly made claims to be the son of god.

3. Their chart is very limited in terms of possibilites .

4. Why couldn't Jesus have been a sincere lunatic?

[janice]

Let me answer question#4--this is a  cut & paste from Chapter 7 "The Trilemma--Lord. Liar, or Lunatic?"  but it directly answers why Jesus could not have been a lunatic.

LUNATIC?

If it is conceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then could not He actually have thought Himself to be GOD, but been mistaken? After all, it is possible to be both sincere and wrong.

But we must remember that for someone to think that He is GOD, especially in a culture that is fiercely monotheistic, and then to tell others that their eternal destiny depends on believing in Him is no slight flight of fantasy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense. Was Jesus Christ such a person?

C. S. Lewis has written: "The historical difficulty of giving for the life, saying and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed GOD has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non-Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment."

Napoleon (cited by Vernon C. Grounds, The Reason for Our Hope) said: "I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, and the gods of other religions. That resemblance does not exist. There is between Christianity and whatever other religions the distance of infinity...Everything in Christ astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and His will confounds me. Between Him and whoever else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by Himself. His ideas and sentiments, the truth which He announces, His manner of convincing, are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things...The nearer I approach, the more carefully I examine, everything is above me - everything remains grand, of a grandeur which overpowers. His religion is a revelation from an intelligence which certainly is not that of man...One can absolutely find nowhere, but in Him alone, the imitation or the example of His life...I search in vain in history to find the similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel. Neither history, nor humanity, nor the ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here everything is extraordinary."

Even Channing, the Unitarian writer, speaking of the lunatic theory (cited by P. Schaff) said: "The charge of an extravagant, self-deluding enthusiasm is the last to be fastened on Jesus. Where can we find the traces of it in His history? Do we detect them in the calm authority of His precepts? In the mild, practical and beneficent spirit of His religion; in the unlabored simplicity of the language with which He unfolds His high powers and the sublime truths of religion; or in the good sense, the knowledge of human nature, which He always discovers in His estimate and treatment of the different classes of men with whom He acted? Do we discover this enthusiasm in the singular fact, that whilst He claimed power in the future world, and always turned men's minds to heaven, He never indulged His own imagination, or stimulated that of His disciples, by giving vivid pictures or any minute description of that unseen state? The truth is, that, remarkable as was the character of Jesus, it was distinguished by nothing more than by calmness and self-possession. This trait pervades His other excellences. How calm was His piety! Point me, if you can, to one vehement, passionate expression of His religious feelings. Does the LORD's Prayer breathe a feverish enthusiasm?...His benevolence, too, though singularly earnest and deep, was composed and serene. He never lost the possession of Himself in His sympathy with others; was never hurried into the impatient and rash enterprises of an enthusiastic philanthropy; but did good with the tranquility and constancy which mark the providence of GOD."

Philip Schaff, the historian, wrote: "Is such an intellect - clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed - liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!"



LORD!!

Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic or the LORD. You must make a choice. "But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD"; and more important, "that believing you may have life in His Name" (John 20:31).

The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as LORD. However, some people reject the clear evidence because of moral implications involved. There needs to be a moral honesty in the above consideration of Jesus as either a liar, lunatic or LORD and GOD.

[DanDaMan]

Chopiabin: I think that in your heart, you have already made the decision that you won't consider anything we could ever say. You have already rejected the words I am about to say. You have chosen not to even consider the truth that lies in them. But God is a persistent God, a God who loves even those that choose not to listen. And so 'ere it goes.

The book of Matthew: good evidence that it was written by matthew, on of Jesus' 12 disciples.

The book of Mark: evidence that it was written by mark. Mark was one of Peter's friends (a disciple), and the book of Mark is really the words of Peter, as Mark wrote them down. And yes, there is hardcore evidence that "Mark accurately preserved this material," (The Papias).

The book of Luke: not sure if he was at the cross as Jesus died, but he is a doctor by profession. he knew what Jesus was going through. Also the friend of Paul, who took a huge role in the early church.

There were countless eyewitnesses. About (hmmm, maybe 400+?) 500+ people saw Jesus after the third day after his death on the cross. Plenty, plenty, plenty of eyewitness accounts.

Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophesies mentioned hundreds of years earlier by prophets. He fulfilled every one, even to the smallest detail.

Oh, about what you said about "the bible not being evidence of anything." Why not? It is consistent. It is the eyewitness account of countless individuals. It holds countless truths about ancient history. It's roman history is not debatable. you could teach a history class in school from it. Every single prophesy mentioned has never been disproved. Some have not happened yet, but every one beforehand agrees completely to the prophets many, many years before.

Ok, about the ressurection. I'm going to paraphrase from Matthew now (27:57-28:15), as it is a long passage, and I got work to do.  K, so this dude named Joseph asks Pilate for Jesus' body to be placed in a tomb. Over that tomb was place a massive stone, very massive stone. On top of that, Roman soldiers were stationed to guard the tomb for three days, as the officials were afraid that Jesus' prophesy would come true (of him raising from the dead). Roman soldiers aren't common militia. No, these guys conquered the world. They were lean, mean, fighting machines. They even sealed the tomb, making sure that no one could get in/out. And so they guarded the site for three days.

On the third day, Mary Magdalene approached the tomb. There was a great earthquake and the stone blocking the tomb entrance was pushed away by an angel. And the soldiers surrounding it "became like dead people." They were scared. No, they were terrified!! Then Mary went inside and saw that Jesus' body wasn't there. She went back and told everyone of her joy that Jesus rose from the dead.

Later, the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests what had happened. And the priests bribed them to keep it secret.

The guards' report is pretty hardcore evidence. Even they couldn't debate that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. The priests couldn't either.

[janice]

DanDaMan,
Wow!!!
Chopiabin, I found an article that specifically addresses an issue that you have brought up.

Have a look here:
https://www.probe.org/docs/ancient.html

"Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources" by Michael Gleghorn.  There are many, many articles and commentaries at that website.

Hope this helps!

[chopiabin]

The book of Matthew: good evidence that it was written by matthew, on of Jesus' 12 disciples.

The book of Mark: evidence that it was written by mark. Mark was one of Peter's friends (a disciple), and the book of Mark is really the words of Peter, as Mark wrote them down. And yes, there is hardcore evidence that "Mark accurately preserved this material," (The Papias).

The book of Luke: not sure if he was at the cross as Jesus died, but he is a doctor by profession. he knew what Jesus was going through. Also the friend of Paul, who took a huge role in the early church.

These were all early proponents of Christianity - they wanted it to be true. It's was very easy to convince people of things in ancient times - there was no mass media, medicine wasn't advanced, science hardly existed, and most religions had miracles in them.

There were countless eyewitnesses. About (hmmm, maybe 400+?) 500+ people saw Jesus after the third day after his death on the cross. Plenty, plenty, plenty of eyewitness accounts.

Where are these listed and are there any outside of the bible?



Oh, about what you said about "the bible not being evidence of anything." Why not? It is consistent. It is the eyewitness account of countless individuals. It holds countless truths about ancient history. It's roman history is not debatable.                                                                                    

I actually never said that. I said that the bible could not serve as evidence of it's own validity (in terms of the resurrection of Christ, etc.). Trying to prove something by using the thing you are trying to prove is like trying to define a word by using the word itself. One can't prove a theory simply by saying "but it's such a good theory." I won't debate the fact that there is some accurate history in the bible.


you could teach a history class in school from it. Every single prophesy mentioned has never been disproved. Some have not happened yet, but every one beforehand agrees completely to the prophets many, many years before.

Could you teach a biology class from it?

Ok, about the ressurection. I'm going to paraphrase from Matthew now (27:57-28:15), as it is a long passage, and I got work to do.  K, so this dude named Joseph asks Pilate for Jesus' body to be placed in a tomb. Over that tomb was place a massive stone, very massive stone. On top of that, Roman soldiers were stationed to guard the tomb for three days, as the officials were afraid that Jesus' prophesy would come true (of him raising from the dead). Roman soldiers aren't common militia. No, these guys conquered the world. They were lean, mean, fighting machines. They even sealed the tomb, making sure that no one could get in/out. And so they guarded the site for three days.

On the third day, Mary Magdalene approached the tomb. There was a great earthquake and the stone blocking the tomb entrance was pushed away by an angel. And the soldiers surrounding it "became like dead people." They were scared. No, they were terrified!! Then Mary went inside and saw that Jesus' body wasn't there. She went back and told everyone of her joy that Jesus rose from the dead.

Later, the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests what had happened. And the priests bribed them to keep it secret.

The guards' report is pretty hardcore evidence. Even they couldn't debate that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. The priests couldn't either.

This is a paraphrase from a book in THE BIBLE.

[chopiabin]

For some reason the quote thing put some of my words inside the quote box thing.

Oh, yeah, Janice, I was going to wait until I could get that new link to work, but it doesn't seem to want to work.

Also, I still don't think that jesus was a lunatic, I simply think he was highly delusional (if he ever actually claimed to be the son of god). Think about it - Mohammed must have been highly delusional and what about Joseph Smith? They surely believed in what they were doing, yet they were not "crazy."
There are many religious fanatics in this world - some go so far as to martyr themselves for their religion - yet they generally show no outward signs of insanity.

[chopiabin]

About the lunatic thing - look at my above posts where I talk about Mohammed and Joseph Smith or the martyrs of the Islamic religion -  surely they were lunatics, but they didn't seem "outwardly crazy."

[janice]

Chopiabin,
Are there any links (that I have posted here & there) that you cannot get to work?  Because I will do a cut & paste if needed.

btw--does Mohammed or Joseph Smith have an empty tomb?

[DanDaMan]

Ok. Well I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to be arguing with anybody. Because it brings no results, and it is not what Christianity teaches. As it is a religion of love. And it's message is simple. We're all sinners. We've all fallen short of the standard of perfection. And by doing so, we have rejected to accept God's love. And to be separated from God is to be in hell. We are a doomed people. But God provides a way out. And that way is having faith that Jesus rose from the dead. We can't escape our sins. Jesus is the only way.

I shall post again if and when I really feel to do so.

[chopiabin]

Yeah, this is definitely getting boring. The last thing I will say is that it was never proven to me that Jesus's tomb was empty - they don't even have a definite location of it (seems that the early church would have marked or written its location down in some way). Basically, I want to iterate that I respect Jesus Christ the man and believe that he existed, but I have never seen any actual SCIENTIFIC proof of his resurrection. I was not discounting the opinions of the scholars on those sites, I was simply stating a fact: they were in no way "proving" anything - they were simply stating their feelings. This has gone on for far too long.

[janice]

Yeah, this is definitely getting boring  

No way!!  I get excited talking about Jesus!!!  Please, keep it up!!!

 but I have never seen any actual SCIENTIFIC proof of his resurrection.  

Ummm......just what do you call "scientific"?  Yes, it WAS documented.  Documented means that it was WRITTEN DOWN.  Jesus was seen post-Resurrection by around 500 people.  The testimony of 500 people is a powerful thing.  

I respect Jesus Christ the man and believe that he existed, but I have never seen any actual SCIENTIFIC proof of his resurrection

So are you saying that Jesus faked his own resurrection?  If that were so, then I would think twice about "respecting" such a person, if I were you.  So he deliberately misled people, is that what you are trying to say?  If he did indeed mislead people, then he definitely wasn't a "good, moral person".  Hmmmm. I don't think he left us with that option.  I'm wondering, how can somebody stage their own resurrection?  Especially after such a brutal death.  Anyone who has seen "The Passion of the Christ" can attest.

 they were in no way "proving" anything  

Well, do you believe that George Washington existed?  You are probably thinking "yes".  How did you learn about him?  You probably read about him, right?  I did too.  Do you trust what you read?

This has gone on for far too long.  

Not really.  Because eternity goes on and on and on and on.  Eternity is alot longer than 80 or 90 or so years.   And I will never get tired of telling you that God loves you so very much, Chopiabin, that He sent Jesus to be your atoning sacrafice so that you wouldn't have to spend eternity apart from Him.

And THAT is good news, is'nt it?? !!!!

[DanDaMan]

Basically, I want to iterate that I respect Jesus Christ the man and believe that he existed, but I have never seen any actual SCIENTIFIC proof of his resurrection.

Hmmmm. Well if you're looking for hard core, biological scientific proof, or whatever. Just scientific proof in general, I'm afraid you're in a tough spot. Because you're asking for scientific proof of a miracle, and the nature of a miracle is to do the impossible, to do what science cannot prove. The writtings of the many people of Jesus' time is good evidence, but evidence like what people look for in the Big Bang probably won't happen. And even so, the Bible says that it is, "by grace that we are saved, through faith." I'll wrap up with this. The second half of that verse I just quoted says, "It is by grace that we are saved, through faith - and it is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast,"(Ephesians 2:8-9) ( We as humans need to realize that we've "fallen short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23). We've missed the mark bigtime. And our good deeds or whatever we invest our lives in can never save us, because it is by faith that we're saved. By faith that Jesus rose from the dead, a miracle. And then the Bible says that, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved," (Romans 10:9).

[chopiabin]

ok

[janice]

ok

So, what are your thoughts, Chopiabin?

[chopiabin]

You know what my thoughts are. I don't agree with him.

Are you ever going to respond to the Believing in God:the real question?

[janice]

 You know what my thoughts are. I don't agree with him.

Chopiabin, could you please give a few specific examples of what you didn't agree with, and why.

Are you ever going to respond to the Believing in God:the real question?

I'm very sorry if I ever seem to overlook a question.  Sometimes I don't realize that a question is aimed at ME. (duh on me!)

[chopiabin]

In this actual topic we argued forever about god. I don't believe in it. I think that it is a misleading human creation that comforts people and makes them feel that they will never truly die.


About the posts in the other topic - the Believeing in god, the real question - we were arguing, and then you just stopped posting. Maybe I didn't put your name, but if I'm responding to your post, I would think you'd be able to figure it out.

[janice]

My apologies, Chopiabin.  I got confused because "Believing in God" The Real Question" is a different thread.  However, I just posted on that!

[janice]

oooooooh

That was my 500th post!!

(is that applause I hear from my fellos Piano Forum posters?) LOL

[Spatula]

WHOOT WOOOT WOOT
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP  There ya go!

GOOD JOB!  


CONGRATS!!!

WE LOVE YOU JANICE!

[janice]

god, the real question - we were arguing, and then you just stopped posting.

Oh I didn't think that we were "arguing".  I know that I wasn't, and I didn't think that you were either.  Besides, even if i thought you WERE arguing with me, it wouldn't bother me at all.  Besides, I know that you are truly seeking the truth (whether you realize it or not).  God said in His Word that he will reward those who diligently seek Him.  Keep seeking, Chopiabin!  Your reward might be right around the corner!