You don’t think learning most anything includes metaphors, analogies, a story that explains something completely unrelated?
, I’m not saying you’re being thick but you’re purposely trying to not understand simple points.
He is God, right? His instructions on how we are to approach life are important, right? Why leave everything (including his existence) contingent upon fables, riddles, and bad evidence? Sounds like a cruel game with vague rules/instructions. If he really loves us wouldn't he communicate precisely what he expects, so eternity in hell can be avoided? At the very least, show himself to exist in reality.
Yes, the Bible uses different literary forms to get points across. Why is that a problem?
You just want to intentionally “not get” what I’m saying and compare the Bible to a children’s story book instead.
Here, let me simplify things for you. You have commonalities with a monkey, but you are not a monkey, capiche?
You’re putting what you “think” all Christians believe into EVERY Christian. I just said using blanket statements makes you look silly and uneducated on a topic. Try not doing that bubba.
It’s funny that you say the Bible uses fables and other literary methods to teach lessons. Yet you have “believers” make pilgrimages to see Jesus tomb so they can physically see where he rose from the dead. You have people searching for Noah’s ark with claims that it can be found on Mt. Ararat as physical proof that he built it and lined up the animals 2x2. You have people go see things like the Shroud of Turin (the burial garment of Jesus) as physical proof that he rose from the dead. There are plenty of other examples. If those are simply fables/stories to teach as you claim, why would people go and look for/at those items as proof? Are you wrong for thinking they are simply “stories” or are the thousands that make those trips to see those things and countless other religious artifacts and locations wrong for being so zealous in taking the Bible literally? Both of you can’t be right.
The test is....can you believe in him based on bad evidence. What kind of test is that? Some kind of measurement of stupidity or gullibility. And I look silly?
What do most works of fiction and the Bible have in common? You have not read them.
Oh, okay. So in other words, correct.
Question for all atheists (crash, just using your comment since you had mentioned evidence)...
You did notice that I said.....BAD EVIDENCE?
I am not talking about biblical evidence. I am asking if you have ever looked at non biblical evidence that supports what the Bible says.
If I provide links, would you actually have interest in reading through the material? If not, I probably wouldn't spend any time providing it.
Evidence that would corroborate what the Bible says, in relation to Jesus Christ's ministry on Earth, death, resurrection, and work of the early church.
No....don't bother. I have yet to see good evidence for God.
Oke doke.
The teachings of Jesus Christ is the religion that prohibits you from discovering possibilities.
How bout... magic or false/unproven claims?What do most works of fiction and the Bible have in common? You have not read them.
The writings of the gospels are about as contemporaneous as it comes for the era of history in which Jesus taught.
Yes. I think you're definitely right, but that's the reason I cannot help but wonder why there are not written contemporaneous accounts by non-biblical historians and other authors.
No. All religions say “do”…Christianity says “done”. All religions set up rules whereby one makes himself “worthy”. Christianity says we are “made” worthy by Christ’s sacrifice for us.
THANK YOU for taking the time to share the link. I ran through it and saw the kinds of names and dates that I've been familiar with over the years. However, these are not contemporaneous accounts authored by folks during the time Jesus was alive. Josephus seems to be the most-mentioned "contemporary" author, but he did not live when Jesus did. This is my only point ... how come they are NO contemporary, non-biblical accounts? I find this curious and fascinating ...
Likewise, for me, the question of why no contemporaneous accounts of the scores of people who are reported to have risen from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem after Jesus died and arose ?? It just seems to me that such an incredible phenomenon would've been timely-reported and documented outside of the oral tradition (years later) that followed the event. It is perplexing to me ...
No problem. I actually wasn't providing this in response to your post, was providing it as a source of historical non biblical support of the New Testament gospels.
It would seem to me that first-hand eyewitness recording/reporting by the historians and reporters of the day would have more credibility than hearsay later on. I find it somewhat questionable, if not odd, that there are none reported. That is my only point, especially regarding extraordinary claims of a man dying and rising from the dead three (3) days later. THANKS for the exchange of thoughts and ideas.
That is not how ancient writers typically wrote. They had their own "time language", stylistically in their time that is exponentially different than in the subsequent eras.
Reporters? I think it very easy to apply today’s access to writing materials and today’s motivations to a time when the idea of keeping history was still relatively young. One would need a motive to record the events of the day. That said, the gospels are written very close to the time period.
To me, and I will let you decide as well, the validity of the resurrection/empty tomb comes down to three options based upon what the disciples claimed when saying that saw the risen Jesus:
I'd go with the first two, as it's accepted these actually happen. Also.....