Let's talk about god

Karaka · Apr 15, 2016

anyway if there are any questions, even from you pottersclay, please don't hesitate to ask

pottersclay · Apr 16, 2016

I don't consider myself unreasonable....science is a wonderful thing. But if you want to use it to disprove God or his word then I must admit my knowledge of the subject is very shallow but I can and will tell you you are on a foolish path. What I do know is that if you question God's word but don't question your resources then you have not investigated anything fully.

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

pottersclay,

i just spent hours to explain my position and how i got to them, please don't just ignore my efforts. I do question my ressources, that's all I'm doing, that what i explain how i do and why, that's the central point of everything is say... Have you read my posts or have you jumped to conclusions before the end? you don't sound like you read what i wrote, i have to be honest with you, that's the impression I got.
and in it i explain that I question my resources so much that I even question God's word, that's how far i go

what I am hearing from you is that you do not want me to question God's word, that you don't think that's allowed...
I say all ressources are questionable, even God's word. If they are really God's word, then fine, they can surely not be challenged by my questions... They will rise above challenge and show me the truth. that's the point of challenging everything, to separate the jewels from the mud. Don't you see that i'm not threatening God's word by questioning it?

are you advocating dogmatism over open mindedness?

Miri · Apr 16, 2016

Karaka you asked about the Old Testament (well the Torah) in relation
to Jesus.

Incidentally regarding other religions, just on the matter of one of them.
Even the Muslims believe in Jesus he appears in the Koran even they think
he was a great prophet, they all agree he died on a cross but they don't
believe he rose or was Gods son.

[TABLE="width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4, align: center"]44 Prophecies Jesus Christ Fulfilled[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Prophecies About Jesus[/TD]
[TD]Old Testament
Scripture[/TD]
[TD]New Testament
Fulfillment[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be born of a woman.[/TD]
[TD]Genesis 3:15[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 1:20
Galatians 4:4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.[/TD]
[TD]Micah 5:2[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 2:1
Luke 2:4-6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be born of a virgin.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 7:14[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 1:22-23
Luke 1:26-31[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would come from the line of Abraham.[/TD]
[TD]Genesis 12:3
Genesis 22:18[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 1:1
Romans 9:5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be a descendant of Isaac.[/TD]
[TD]Genesis 17:19
Genesis 21:12[/TD]
[TD]Luke 3:34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be a descendant of Jacob.[/TD]
[TD]Numbers 24:17[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 1:2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah.[/TD]
[TD]Genesis 49:10[/TD]
[TD]Luke 3:33
Hebrews 7:14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be heir to King David's throne.[/TD]
[TD]2 Samuel 7:12-13
Isaiah 9:7[/TD]
[TD]Luke 1:32-33
Romans 1:3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]Messiah's throne will be anointed and eternal.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 45:6-7
Daniel 2:44[/TD]
[TD]Luke 1:33
Hebrews 1:8-12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be called Immanuel.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 7:14[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 1:23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would spend a season in Egypt.[/TD]
[TD]Hosea 11:1[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 2:14-15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]A massacre of children would happen at Messiah's birthplace.[/TD]
[TD]Jeremiah 31:15[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 2:16-18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 40:3-5[/TD]
[TD]Luke 3:3-6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be rejected by his own people.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 69:8
Isaiah 53:3[/TD]
[TD]John 1:11
John 7:5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be a prophet.[/TD]
[TD]Deuteronomy 18:15[/TD]
[TD]Acts 3:20-22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be preceded by Elijah.[/TD]
[TD]Malachi 4:5-6[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 11:13-14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be declared the Son of God.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 2:7[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 3:16-17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be called a Nazarene.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 11:1[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 2:23[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would bring light to Galilee.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 9:1-2[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 4:13-16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would speak in parables.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 78:2-4
Isaiah 6:9-10[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 13:10-15, 34-35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be sent to heal the brokenhearted.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 61:1-2[/TD]
[TD]Luke 4:18-19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]22[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 110:4[/TD]
[TD]Hebrews 5:5-6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be called King.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 2:6
Zechariah 9:9[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 27:37
Mark 11:7-11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]24[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be praised by little children.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 8:2[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 21:16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]25[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be betrayed.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 41:9
Zechariah 11:12-13[/TD]
[TD]Luke 22:47-48
Matthew 26:14-16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]26[/TD]
[TD]Messiah's price money would be used to buy a potter's field.[/TD]
[TD]Zechariah 11:12-13[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 27:9-10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be falsely accused.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 35:11[/TD]
[TD]Mark 14:57-58[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be silent before his accusers.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 53:7[/TD]
[TD]Mark 15:4-5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]29[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be spat upon and struck.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 50:6[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 26:67[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be hated without cause.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 35:19
Psalm 69:4[/TD]
[TD]John 15:24-25[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be crucified with criminals.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 53:12[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 27:38
Mark 15:27-28[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be given vinegar to drink.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 69:21[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 27:34
John 19:28-30[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 22:16
Zechariah 12:10[/TD]
[TD]John 20:25-27[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]34[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be mocked and ridiculed.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 22:7-8[/TD]
[TD]Luke 23:35[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]Soldiers would gamble for Messiah's garments.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 22:18[/TD]
[TD]Luke 23:34
Matthew 27:35-36[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]36[/TD]
[TD]Messiah's bones would not be broken.[/TD]
[TD]Exodus 12:46
Psalm 34:20[/TD]
[TD]John 19:33-36[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]37[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be forsaken by God.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 22:1[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 27:46[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]38[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would pray for his enemies.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 109:4[/TD]
[TD]Luke 23:34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]39[/TD]
[TD]Soldiers would pierce Messiah's side.[/TD]
[TD]Zechariah 12:10[/TD]
[TD]John 19:34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be buried with the rich.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 53:9[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 27:57-60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]41[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would resurrect from the dead.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 16:10
Psalm 49:15[/TD]
[TD]Matthew 28:2-7
Acts 2:22-32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]42[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would ascend to heaven.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 24:7-10[/TD]
[TD]Mark 16:19
Luke 24:51[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]43[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be seated at God's right hand.[/TD]
[TD]Psalm 68:18
Psalm 110:1[/TD]
[TD]Mark 16:19
Matthew 22:44[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]44[/TD]
[TD]Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD]Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin.[/TD]
[TD]Isaiah 53:5-12[/TD]
[TD]Romans 5:6-8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Magenta · Apr 16, 2016

Karaka said:

How do you expect to be able to tell if we are in possession of the Truth when you yourself are not in possession of the Truth? Your yardstick is faulty and you do not even know it, nor can you. But you will commit logical fallacies you wish others to avoid, consulting this so-called expert and that self proclaimed guru, those brandishing the same yardstick you use, to dismiss what we say based on your lack of desire to accept what we offer, having determined in advance that we are already wrong. Still you will call it an honest assessment, and when you go away with no clearer view to God you will then be able to add us to your list of blame for your lack. Just remember to keep getting down on your knees on a daily basis, morning and evening. Please God, and Thank you God. Don't forget. Muster your sincerity. Add the Lord's prayer if you feel moved to do so. It will help. Also I suggest you read the gospel of John a few more times. Get better acquainted with Jesus. He is the Truth you seek. Perhaps a movie will also help. This one is a word for word rendition of a translation I am not overly fond of, but very well done still the same:

[video=youtube;5hexhw3wWmE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hexhw3wWmE[/video]

My apologies for the lack of digital quality. There was an HD one but it had ads across the top that I could not completely get rid of. I watched a section near the middle to compare them, and happened upon that which we had very recently been studying in Mark, in fact it was just last Sunday: the healing of a blind man. With his sight restored he was not only able to see, but also returned to society, able to work, no longer at the mercy of others to support him, and finally allowed into the temple to worship. Wow. In Mark the blind man is named, apparently the only recipient of a miracle so honoured, except for Mary Magdalene, I suppose

Miri · Apr 16, 2016

Josh McDowell's Powerful Evidience for Resurrection

For centuries many of the world's distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can't be discounted.

A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. "Professor McDowell, why can't you refute Christianity?"

"For a very simple reason," I answered. "I am not able to explain away an event in history—the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings—or it is the most remarkable fact of history .

Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.

LIVING WITNESSES
The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means "good news," the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: "Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective."

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "

[HR][/HR]

I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

[HR][/HR]

BACKGROUND
The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.
A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to "prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb's entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.
But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many "infallible proofs." Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ's tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:
FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus' disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.
FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was "too notorious to be denied." Paul Althaus states that the resurrection "could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned."
Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the "Toledoth Jeshu." Dr. Paul Maier calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."
Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God's doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ's body.
Paul Maier observes that " . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."

FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.
[HR][/HR]
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University
[HR][/HR]
Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus' body, how could they have done that without the guards' awareness?

FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors' wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one wand be punished with death for the guard unit's f ailure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment "produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches."

FACT #5: GRAVE CLOTHES TELL A TALE
In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty—because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty—like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes—undisturbed in form and position.

FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.

OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.
Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.
[HR][/HR]
If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University
[HR][/HR]
The argument that Christ's appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just "an insignificant few."
Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.
The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by "natural causes" are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.

THE WRONG TOMB?
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women's statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus' body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!
If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.

Miri · Apr 16, 2016

HALLUCINATIONS?
Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn't it produced?

DID JESUS SWOON?
Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss—certainly no believer in the resurrection—gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: "It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

[HR][/HR]

For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

[HR][/HR]
an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship."

THE BODY STOLEN?
Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.
The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ's body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn't they explain: "Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn't rise from the grave"?
And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn't they explain exactly where Jesus' body lay? If this failed, why didn't they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity—not in the cradle, but in the womb!

THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?
Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts—prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits—we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."
As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.
Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

WHERE DO YOU STAND?
How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ's empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?
When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ's resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: "What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!' The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted—Thomas. Jesus told him: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6).
On the basis of all the evidence for Christ's resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.
Learn how to be saved at: Salvation

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

Okay Miri, good, you have looked for many white swans and found a lot. Now do you imply that you disagree with my analysis that only looking for white swans is confirmation bias?

I'm fully aware of all those things you just threw at me like I was an ignoramus, but I would like to ask you if you coming back to evidence, historical or through prophecies, means you agree with me about all that I wrote about knowledge in my previous post? Are we on the same level there?

Do we agree on the scientific method, the validity of the foundations of science and hypotheis testing, and that faith alone does not permit us to know, it permits us to believe, and that it is not the same thing ? Please let me know what you have to say about that before we get into bible material please. I don't want to make the effort to look once more into this massive amount of material if you're just going to disparage my methodology once I'm done.

Also do you agree with William Lane Craig and me that the resurection can only be accepted if you already accept a creator God ? It basically is not the case that bible itself can be taken as a proof of God. And that's not me but the best theologians and appologists who say it. In order to show that the bible is the word of God, we need to accept there is a God first. I admit it is legitimate to look into prophecies, but unfortunately for this approach to be valid, we would need to read, on one side the prophecies, and have , on the other side, the fulfilments. If we have them all in the same book, we can't tell if the author made them up, or edited after the facts, or simply made the gospels match the prophecies because he was aware of them and though it would sound better that way .

Otherwise, since you copy pasted a lot to me I feel it might be okay to do so as well, can I ask what you think of this ?

One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34) Specifically, the Bible (any translation will do) says he will:

Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If a man fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.
Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Hebrew Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

I would also like to know what you think of this :
The True Religion

and especially this : https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html

I'd like to know if you agree with me that's incorrect and why.

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

About the empty tomb, thank you for pointing to me that it is such an important thing to you...
I have read a lot about it already but I'll take the time to study what Mcdowell has to say.

but since you like copy pasting I'll do the same with this, let me know what you think, sounds like he has a point...
if you know of anything else that could be considered a black swan, let me know...

[HR][/HR] [h=2]Argument from Silence[/h] I titled this section "Argument from Silence" because I am well aware that these are arguments from silence. Whenever an argument from silence is made, the objection invariably comes "that is just an argument from silence," perhaps accompanied by the dictum, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I am recognizing these objections explicitly from the start in order to emphasize that I do understand the nature of this type of argument.

Once the type of argument is recognized, I would maintain that there are better arguments from silence and worse arguments from silence. If this is the case, then I would argue further that not all arguments from silence are worthless, or else there could not be better ones and worse ones. Why do I think that there are some better than others? I will give two examples. Suppose I claim that I sneezed at 5:03 pm PST on December 1, 2000 while in the kitchen of my Orange County home. You search the New York Times for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a very bad argument from silence. Now suppose instead I claim that the sky appeared hot pink from any point on Earth for a full minute at 5:03 pm PST on December 1, 2000. You search two hundred newspapers for December 2 and find no record of this incident. That is a very good argument from silence.

I submit that at least three criteria can be used to evaluate the strength of an argument from silence. The first criterion is the presumption of knowledge. This criterion asks, how likely is it that a particular writer knew of an event if it had happened? The second criterion is the presumption of relevance. This criterion asks, how likely is it that the writer would mention this event in this document? The third criterion is applied after we have a number of different writers and documents that have been evaluated through the first two. The third one asks, how likely is it that all these documents fail to mention this event? While perhaps it would be understandable if any particular one failed to make a note of the event, the argument is strengthened by several silences when it would seem a strange coincidence for every one to happen not to mention the event.
What should be expected if the story of the discovery of the empty tomb were true concerning knowledge or awareness of this event? I have a presumption that the story would be likely to be known by any particular Christian writer. The reason for this presumption is that the writers who have been preserved are likely to have been learned in the faith, if not church leaders themselves, and thus would be likely to have heard an important tradition concerning the resurrection of Jesus such as the empty tomb story is.
What occasions would provide a likely opportunity for a mention of the empty tomb story? Those writers that discuss the basis for belief in the resurrection could have some reason to mention the discovery of the empty tomb.
Of the writers that are relevant in this regard, the apostle Paul is foremost. For this reason, the evidence of Paul will be considered separately in the next section.
But Paul is not the only Christian author who wrote letters in the first century. A letter was written from Rome to the Corinthians around the year 95. This letter fails to appeal to the historical knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus (such as the discovery of the empty tomb would provide) and prefers instead to provide assurance of the resurrection on the basis of nature, scripture, and the legend of the phoenix. The author of First Clement writes:

Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection which is at all times taking place. Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, "Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee; " and again, "I laid me down, and slept; I awaked, because Thou art with me;" and again, Job says, "Thou shalt raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things."[4]

The author of First Clement also describes the beginning of the Christian religion without reference to the empty tomb.

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ. In both ways, then, they were in accordance with the appointed order of God's will. Having therefore received their commands, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with faith confirmed by the Word of God, they went forth in the assurance of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming.[5]

Since there was occasion for the writer to mention the discovery of the empty tomb and the writer did not do so, this writer and document may be included among those that form the argument from silence.
It should be noted that, outside of the four gospels, all Christian documents that may come the first century mention neither tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea nor the subsequent discovery of such a tomb as empty. Although there may have been no particular reason for any one of these writers to mention the story, it could be argued that, if they all accepted the story, perhaps one of them would have entered a discussion that would mention the empty tomb story. For example, if there were a polemic going around that the disciples had stolen the body, one of these early writers may have written to refute such accusations. In any case, it is necessary to mention these documents if only to note that there is no conflicting evidence that would show that the empty tomb story was an early or widespread tradition since the argument from silence would be shown false if there were. Here is a list of these early documents:

1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Philemon
Hebrews
James
Colossians
1 Peter
Ephesians
2 Thessalonians
Jude
The Apocalypse of John
1 John
2 John
3 John
Didache
1 Clement
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
The Epistle of Barnabas

Indeed, outside of the four canonical gospels, the Gospel of Peter is the only document before Justin Martyr that mentions the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea or the discovery of the empty tomb. If the Gospel of Peter as it stands is considered to be dependent on the canonical gospels, then there is no independent witness to the empty tomb story told in the four gospels.
This, then, is the argument from silence. The writers of the foregoing documents would be likely to have been aware of the empty tomb story if it were true as opposed to a late legend or gospel fiction. If all these writers were aware of the empty tomb story, there is some reason to think that one of them would have mentioned the empty tomb story. Because none of them did, the argument from silence provides a reason to think that the empty tomb story is false. This does fall short of proof, but this should be given consideration as admissable historical evidence. If this were the only count against the empty tomb and there were very strong evidence for the empty tomb, then the judgment would fall in favor of the empty tomb. Nonetheless, this argument should be placed on the scales so that a complete assessment of the evidence is made.
There is a different argument from silence, and this one is sometimes made by those who support the historicity of the empty tomb. James D. G. Dunn expresses this argument in these words:

Christians today of course regard the site of Jesus' tomb with similar veneration, and that practice goes back at least to the fourth century. But for the period covered by the New Testament and other earliest Christian writings there is no evidence whatsoever for Christians regarding the place where Jesus had been buried as having any special significance. No practice of tomb veneration, or even of meeting for worship at Jesus' tomb is attested for the first Christians. Had such been the practice of the first Christians, with all the significance which the very practice itself presupposes, it is hard to believe that our records of Jerusalem Christianity and of Christian visits thereto would not have mentioned or alluded to it in some way or at some point.[6]

I agree with Dunn up to this point but cannot agree with his conclusion:

This strange silence, exceptional in view of the religious practice of the time [of meeting at the tomb of a dead prophet], has only one obvious explanation. The first Christians did not regard the place where Jesus had been laid as having any special significance because no grave was thought to contain Jesus' earthly remains. The tomb was not venerated, it did not become a place of pilgrimage, because the tomb was empty![7]

This conclusion is highly illogical. I agree that it would be most reasonable to conclude that early Christians did not know that Jesus was resting in his tomb because we would then expect tomb veneration. I agree that this is evidence against knowledge of a full tomb. But I would state further that this is equally evidence against knowledge of an empty tomb. It is plain to see that the site of the tomb of Jesus would become a site of veneration and pilgrimage among early Christians regardless of whether it were full or empty. The factors of nagging doubt, pious curiousity, and liturgical significance would all contribute towards the empty tomb becoming a site of intense interest among Christians. Contrary to Dunn, the obvious explanation is that early Christians had no idea where Jesus was buried. Peter Carnley writes:

I must confess that I do not understand this argument which suggests that the grave in which Jesus had been laid would have been interesting to Christians had Jesus' body been found in it, but of no continuing interest even as the site of the resurrection, if it was found empty! Apart from the fact that a lack of early interest in the site of the tomb would also be congruent with the thesis that by the time the kerygma reached Jerusalem the site of the tomb could not be located, the pious interest in the alleged site of the Holy Sepulchre in our own day seems to render such an argument completely impotent.[8]

Like Dunn, Craig also accepts the "fact that Jesus's tomb was not venerated as a shrine" as an indication in favor of the empty tomb.[9] Again, however, if it is granted that there was no tomb veneration among early Christians, the correct conclusion is that early Christians did not know where the tomb of Jesus was. This argument is effective not only against a full tomb theory but also against an empty tomb theory. As Craig states at one point in his essay, "Indeed, is it too much to imagine that during his two week stay Paul would want to visit the place where the Lord lay? Ordinary human feelings would suggest such a thing."[10] Indeed, is it too much to imagine that other early Christians would have the same ordinary human feelings as Paul would? Raymond Brown states, "A particular reason for remembering the tomb of Jesus would lie in the Christian faith that the tomb had been evacuated by his resurrection from the dead."[11] Thus, it is extremely likely that an empty tomb would become a site of veneration from the very start of Christianity. For this reason, the fact that there was no tomb veneration indicates that the early Christians did not know the location of the tomb of Jesus, neither of an empty tomb nor of a full tomb.
The best way to avoid this conclusion is, I think, to assert that there was tomb veneration despite the silence of any first, second, or third century writers on such an interest. However, as Dunn and Craig would agree, this is unlikely. So this consideration provides evidence against the empty tomb story.

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

And i haven't read it yet but I'm sharing it with you anyway so we can read it at the same and then talk about it:

Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

and this is going to be a busy evening filled with bible quotes for me... you guys are achieving your goal...

Magenta · Apr 16, 2016

Karaka said:

Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

So yes, it is the Holy Spirit of God Who reveals God and Jesus Christ to us.
I have been saying this all along: Scripture affirms that He reveals Himself.
His church is built upon this confession of faith in Who He is.

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

but really, I'd like to know what you think about what i wrote yesterday, because it took me a lot of efforts and I'm a bit upset nobody commented on it except magenta.

By the way magenta, please tell me we agree on something: a movie about the life of Jesus is not reliable to know what happened to Jesus. you agree with that right? thanks for the movie though.

otherwise you ask:

How do you expect to be able to tell if we are in possession of the Truth when you yourself are not in possession of the Truth? Your yardstick is faulty and you do not even know it, nor can you.

That shows me you have not understood (or read) what I wrote.
Let me say it again:

What I did was demonstrate that I question everything and in which way, and how I justify that attitude because I even question my methodology and the foundations I have for thinking that that methodology has value. If you question absolutely everything, challenge it to the utmost, then somehow, things resist the challenge. Those things, like « truth needs to be logical » , « the physical realm exists » or « I think therefore I am », we can then accept with a very high confidence they are true. And then we can build a knowledge based on those, by keeping on questioning everything, even why you question everything of course, and build knowledge about the world from the bottom up.

Doing that for the last few hundreds years since we stumbled on that methodology, we've attained some knowledge as to what is most likely to be true, but that knowledge is always challenged, always refined, always changing, always growing, that the beauty of it, it is not dogmatic. What we were wrong about before we can discard because we replace it with something more true. Those who don't do that are dogmatic and when they are shown to be in error over and over they don't change their mind, and become delusional.

We have demonstrated we can trust our assumptions, we do not have to take them on faith, which is top down knowledge, and I'm sorry for those who didn't know this, but faith does not survive the challenge of questioning and it is dogmatic, the very opposite of open mindedness. Faith is not reliable, you just have to look at all the different contradictory faiths in the world to see that.

And so we keep questioning on and on. We have reached a level where we have to question whether there is a supernatural realm, and whether there is a God. We are questioning God's very word. Because quite simply, if God's word is true, not only do we want to find out, but we'd rather know it that take it on faith. And nobody can possibly think that God's word, if true, cannot withstand challenge. What a weak God that would be. Surely God's word is not to be toppled off by a mere human challenge.

At this stage, my methodology tells us that God is improbable, that the word of God, the bible, is probably nothing of the sort ( which is not saying it isn't). I engage with you strong believers to question that knowledge, first because I can not just accept it on faith from whoever reached that conclusion, but also because I hope to refine it and improve on it. I can best do that by trying to disprove God exists and that the bible is not the word of God, as I've explained. Truth will fall where it falls. Is God real despite the improbablilty? That is a real possibility so let's find out. If he is, then how can I be a fool for actually doing my best to find out, and if it is so, my methodology is the best we know of, demonstratably, to find out. So if the bible is God's word, we'll find out. And we won't need to believe, we'll know.

So now that hopefully you get it, please help me find the black swan. Let's look for that black swan hard and deep. Look into the sources i provided about, look ito the argument against the bible. that's the best way to tell if the bible is indeed the word of God, try to show it isn't. Do you agree with this or not?

Karaka · Apr 16, 2016

and once more, you just have to realize that you can not prove the bible is correct by quoting the bible, that can not work, it is circular.
Using that way of proving the bible, I can prove a book about batman is true because it says so in a book about batman.
If it works for anything, then it is no proof at all, we need something else.

I'm asking over and over, what else do you have to show the bible is special?

Karaka · Apr 17, 2016

and once more, you just have to realize that you can not prove the bible is correct by quoting the bible, that can not work, it is circular.
Using that way of proving the bible, I can prove a book about batman is true because it says so in a book about batman.
If it works for anything, then it is no proof at all, we need something else.

I'm asking over and over, what else do you have to show the bible is special?

Karaka · Apr 17, 2016

that's it you've done it, you've dragged me into looking again into the empty tomb...

i need to ask something:

i have read Craig, who i take to be the one making the best case FOR the empty tomb as evidence for the resurection. Have you read him?

I have also read a lot of the skeptic litterature about the empty tomb. Could you tell me who you have read on the skeptic side please?

I have to admit the question is loaded, i am under the impression you have not taken the time to read what skeptics say in opposition to your most cherished belief: THE TOMB WAS EMPTY. I am seriously baffled about this. how can you reach a conclusion is you just look at one side of the argument? so please show me you are not guilty of this because otherwise I'm affraid I'm not going to be able to take you seriously anymore.

pottersclay · Apr 17, 2016

The subject of prophecy seems to be one you place on the back burner...why...
Just to begin with.

Magenta · Apr 17, 2016

Karaka said:

I have not read everything you have written because much of it is directed to others, even if I may sometimes take a part of something said to another and respond to it... as you know this is time consuming and we each have yes, the same 24 hours in any given day, but other interests and responsibilities etc curtail our involvement. Also, just so you know, the shorter a reply is the more likely I am to read it, long replies take too much time. My powers of concentration may not be what they used to be... Though, yes, I have read what I have caught of your responses to me, and answered other things you have posted to the board at large. And I do read long posts when they grab my attention.

You are welcome, and just to clarify, the movie was added right after I recommended you read the gospel of John a time or two or three, and the movie== you may have noticed, pus I tried to tell you== is a word for word rendition of the gospel of John, albeit from a translation that is not my favorite, it is still word for word gospel and very well done, I only included it to help with your understanding of Who Jesus is. I thought you might enjoy it and give you a bit of a break from all the reading you have done and are doing. (And really, kudos to you for all the reading you have done.) Also, it was after watching a movie on the life of Christ that I had a powerful God encounter. when I was younger. Maybe you will too

Though I had not really thought of that at the time I posted the movie... And you know (I know you don't haha) but you know, after that very profound God encounter, I walked away thinking, not literally, but with the attitude that, gosh, it is nice to know God loves me and that I am forgiven, but I am looking for a different God, I don't really care for this one portrayed in Scripture... and off I went for fifteen more years seeking, yes, seriously spiritually seeking, it is so true when Scripture says, nobody is seeking God, God knows we are not really looking for Him. Even you are looking for something else. You say you are on the edge, and that is better than being totally opposed, but you are still opposed, and it is likely that only a supernatural encounter will move you in the direction you need to go.

I will have to come back to this later, please forgive me, I may keep checking and responding in other threads, but this looks like something that I need to look at with a fresh mind, and I have had an exhausting day... God bless you! And thank you

Karaka · Apr 17, 2016

i don't place it on the back burner, i'm ready to look into it, already started actually, but it is not something i can just comment on like this on the top of my head...

and beside i thought i made quite a lot of point yesterday, in two very long and elaborate posts, and i think it is legitimate to ask what you think of them and whether you agree or not... i mean who is putting what on the back burner here?

Karaka · Apr 17, 2016

okay magenta and all the others, i might have been using a format that wasn't kosher ( sorry i can't resist the joke)
my two big post of yesterday was for ALL of you. please read it in full. i answered to Miri because i can't answer to everyone separately saying the same thing but it was directed at everyone, even those who just read and don't participate. so if you haven't yet, please go back and read in full posts #168 and # 169
(yes they are long and intense, but if you came here to talk about god i expect you now the subject is deep)

I really would like answers to those please? even from people who are not Miri or Magenta or B1Davanda or JimmieD

thanks

Let's talk about god

Banned

pottersclay

Guest

Banned

Miri

Guest

Senior Member

Miri

Guest

Miri

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

pottersclay

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned