Witnesses
I note your criteria.
Reputable
Meticulous
Honest
I’m not sure if you have done any research on Luke. From limited readings, I have found that historians generally believe that Luke was a meticulous historian. Luke investigates his stories. I don’t recall the exact numbers but out of the two hundred and thirty something cities that Luke sites, everyone of them has been finally been verified either through other accounts or archaeological evidence. Luke states accurately the traditions of that time and in detail too. Luke names the rulers, the province heads, military traditions without error. So if you were not biased against Luke, you will have to conclude that he is meticulous.
I have limited knowledge of ancient historians also. I searched for “Famous Ancient Historians” and found a list of ten people. Of these I have read the writings of Julius Caesar and Titus Livius (Livy) in their original language. I have not read all their works but I have studied them for about 2 years. All historians are biased in one way or another. Julius Caesar writes about his Gallic Wars. He describes almost all his enemies as Barbarians. And he talks about how brave and noble his soldiers are.
Livy was commissioned by Rome to write a history of Rome. Historians tend to stand on the side of those that finance their ink and scrolls. He writes brilliantly about the rise of a great nation. He has pride in Roman power and ingenuity.
Yet I would say that both these people do portray a good picture of their subject. They write according to their beliefs. i.e. power and glory and wealth.
Luke and the gospel writers also write according to their beliefs. Truth, righteousness, love. The out come of this you can judge for yourself.
I’m sure you won’t try to compare Luke to your wife’s friend. Judge for youself by reading Luke’s writings. It is no small thing for a person to be literate in Greek at that time. Luke is known to be a physician by trade. His qualification as a historian is not easily dismissible.
Luke 1:1-4 (NIV)
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
You have no reason to believe that Luke is a dishonest person. Just as there is no reason to believe that Caesar or Livy are dishonest people. There is no logical or intellectual reason or evidence to believe that the gospel writers are dishonest or delusional.
The gospels are written for different audiences.
For the poor and illiterate.
For religious zealots
For educated middle-upper class
For those in power
For the ordinary person.
You have not critically analysed other historical records from antiquity. But you insist that there is insufficient evidence to confirm the reliability of the bible. I’m sure that if you applied your scepticism to any of the historical writers, you will find that you have no history to believe in.
The gospel writers made it up?
Wouldn’t it be strange to claim that hundreds of miracles happened between 1970AD and 1975AD and yet not a single person came forward to say they saw it? Miracles don’t happen every day. You’d remember it if it happened. You’d talk about it if it happened in your town. Who is going to follow a bunch of Jews who claimed that hundreds of miracles happened if they had no eyewitnesses to prove their stories? They can not do it with one eyewitness. They need to have done it with hundreds of eyewitnesses with collaborating accounts. Anything short of that, and they’d be out like the latest fad. This is because of the overwhelming number of miracles they claim in their accounts.
Witnesses
You mentioned before hypothetical witnesses. They don’t exist so lets stop talking about them Let’s talk instead about the witness that did exist. The many hundreds of them.
If you see one miracle, it is understandable for a sceptic to dismiss it.
If you see two miracles, it is still understandable to dismiss, but you would expect a person to be on the look out. And be ready to investigate.
If you see three miracles, then you would have to give this man serious thought.
If you see hundreds of miracles over and over again, you have no choice but to knee down with your face to the ground and to worship him
I want to propose that your concept of an objective non-Christian eyewitness to be logically impossible. A person who witnessed these hundred of miracles and still proclaims to be a non-believer cannot exist.
John the Baptist sent some people to ask Jesus he was and Jesus replied. “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.” Luke 7:22 NIV
Only the bible is bold enough to stand out and declare that hundreds of miracles have been performed before thousands of verifiable witnesses. No other religion can even claim even 0.5% of that. Such a grand and amazing claim. Hundreds of miracles performed in a few years. If there were not thousands of witnesses confirming the events, do you think Christianity will still be standing in 40AD?
I can only quote you written accounts by Christians because it is impossible to find a witness that has bothered to write a testimony of the miracles, and yet has managed to remain non believing. Lets explain the witnesses we have and not the hypothetical non-existent counter witnesses.
Christian Character
The greatest act of love was the death of Christ on the cross. Jesus had been telling his disciples over and over again that he will die and rise again in three days. I’m sure you would have heard this argument before. Let me repeat it. If Jesus died on the cross and did not come back, how many people will still follow him and preach his gospel. None. If Jesus died and did not come back, that would mean that he is not credible. Jesus claimed to be God. He claimed to have power over life and death. If he did not come back everyone will very quickly realise that he is a fraud.
You argue, why not continue to spread the gospel even if Jesus didn’t come back? If you look at the character of the bible writers, they believe in truth and righteousness. They don’t believe in tricking people just to give them a good message. They can give them a good message without talking about Jesus! All they need to do is to preach a righteous and godly message without mentioning Jesus, and they would have achieved their purpose. But no. Instead, the followers insist that Jesus is alive. This is at the risk of death by crucifixion. As argued by apologists, people don’t die for lies. Especially if they don’t need to lie to get a good message across.
What is the message? I’m not sure if you fully understand the message. If you understand the message, then you would understand that they would have nothing to preach if Jesus didn’t come back. The fact that they preached it with such conviction indicates also their conviction that Jesus is now alive.
1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead .
Can you see the conviction in Peter’s words? You want to know what kind of person Peter is? Read the rest of his letter. Read the rest of the gospels which talk about him. Unlike other false prophets and fraudsters (not mentioning any names) Peter does not have money, power and women to gain from this. Unlike other lunatics that preach, Peter’s wisdom surpasses any other religious philosophers (or at least on par with other religions if you’re non Christian). His message is consistent with the other biblical themes and wisdoms.
These are the eyewitness accounts that are as accurate today as it was two thousand years ago. You can read today the accounts that eyewitnesses have recorded two thousand years ago.
I hope that I’ve already covered your concerns about the credibility of witnesses and gospel writers. The only ground on which you discredit them is that you do not believe them. But as I’ve shown, there are so much more reasons to believe them then to not believe them. What are the reasons for not believing them? If it were Joseph Smith, I could list hundreds of reasons why you shouldn’t believe him. If it were Julius Caesar, I could list many reasons for not believing his record of events.
In mathematics there is a type of proof where in order to from that a statement is true (I think it’s called prove by contradiction). You first take the negative of that statement. Run the new assumption through your maths. Find that the maths is inconsistent with the assumption, and conclude that the opposite of the negative statement must be true (given that the positive and negative encompasses the entire set of possibilities.) Assume that the gospel writers are liars. Run that through the personal testimonies. Conclude that the gospel writers are not liars. Assume Jesus did not perform miracles, run through the personal testimonies of the first century, conclude that Jesus performed miracles. Assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead, run through the personal testimonies, conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.
I am sad to say that there are people that will not believe, even if a miracle was performed in front of them.
Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. Luke 10:13-15
Reputable
Meticulous
Honest
I’m not sure if you have done any research on Luke. From limited readings, I have found that historians generally believe that Luke was a meticulous historian. Luke investigates his stories. I don’t recall the exact numbers but out of the two hundred and thirty something cities that Luke sites, everyone of them has been finally been verified either through other accounts or archaeological evidence. Luke states accurately the traditions of that time and in detail too. Luke names the rulers, the province heads, military traditions without error. So if you were not biased against Luke, you will have to conclude that he is meticulous.
I have limited knowledge of ancient historians also. I searched for “Famous Ancient Historians” and found a list of ten people. Of these I have read the writings of Julius Caesar and Titus Livius (Livy) in their original language. I have not read all their works but I have studied them for about 2 years. All historians are biased in one way or another. Julius Caesar writes about his Gallic Wars. He describes almost all his enemies as Barbarians. And he talks about how brave and noble his soldiers are.
Livy was commissioned by Rome to write a history of Rome. Historians tend to stand on the side of those that finance their ink and scrolls. He writes brilliantly about the rise of a great nation. He has pride in Roman power and ingenuity.
Yet I would say that both these people do portray a good picture of their subject. They write according to their beliefs. i.e. power and glory and wealth.
Luke and the gospel writers also write according to their beliefs. Truth, righteousness, love. The out come of this you can judge for yourself.
I’m sure you won’t try to compare Luke to your wife’s friend. Judge for youself by reading Luke’s writings. It is no small thing for a person to be literate in Greek at that time. Luke is known to be a physician by trade. His qualification as a historian is not easily dismissible.
Luke 1:1-4 (NIV)
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
You have no reason to believe that Luke is a dishonest person. Just as there is no reason to believe that Caesar or Livy are dishonest people. There is no logical or intellectual reason or evidence to believe that the gospel writers are dishonest or delusional.
The gospels are written for different audiences.
For the poor and illiterate.
For religious zealots
For educated middle-upper class
For those in power
For the ordinary person.
You have not critically analysed other historical records from antiquity. But you insist that there is insufficient evidence to confirm the reliability of the bible. I’m sure that if you applied your scepticism to any of the historical writers, you will find that you have no history to believe in.
The gospel writers made it up?
Wouldn’t it be strange to claim that hundreds of miracles happened between 1970AD and 1975AD and yet not a single person came forward to say they saw it? Miracles don’t happen every day. You’d remember it if it happened. You’d talk about it if it happened in your town. Who is going to follow a bunch of Jews who claimed that hundreds of miracles happened if they had no eyewitnesses to prove their stories? They can not do it with one eyewitness. They need to have done it with hundreds of eyewitnesses with collaborating accounts. Anything short of that, and they’d be out like the latest fad. This is because of the overwhelming number of miracles they claim in their accounts.
Witnesses
You mentioned before hypothetical witnesses. They don’t exist so lets stop talking about them Let’s talk instead about the witness that did exist. The many hundreds of them.
If you see one miracle, it is understandable for a sceptic to dismiss it.
If you see two miracles, it is still understandable to dismiss, but you would expect a person to be on the look out. And be ready to investigate.
If you see three miracles, then you would have to give this man serious thought.
If you see hundreds of miracles over and over again, you have no choice but to knee down with your face to the ground and to worship him
I want to propose that your concept of an objective non-Christian eyewitness to be logically impossible. A person who witnessed these hundred of miracles and still proclaims to be a non-believer cannot exist.
John the Baptist sent some people to ask Jesus he was and Jesus replied. “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.” Luke 7:22 NIV
Only the bible is bold enough to stand out and declare that hundreds of miracles have been performed before thousands of verifiable witnesses. No other religion can even claim even 0.5% of that. Such a grand and amazing claim. Hundreds of miracles performed in a few years. If there were not thousands of witnesses confirming the events, do you think Christianity will still be standing in 40AD?
I can only quote you written accounts by Christians because it is impossible to find a witness that has bothered to write a testimony of the miracles, and yet has managed to remain non believing. Lets explain the witnesses we have and not the hypothetical non-existent counter witnesses.
Christian Character
The greatest act of love was the death of Christ on the cross. Jesus had been telling his disciples over and over again that he will die and rise again in three days. I’m sure you would have heard this argument before. Let me repeat it. If Jesus died on the cross and did not come back, how many people will still follow him and preach his gospel. None. If Jesus died and did not come back, that would mean that he is not credible. Jesus claimed to be God. He claimed to have power over life and death. If he did not come back everyone will very quickly realise that he is a fraud.
You argue, why not continue to spread the gospel even if Jesus didn’t come back? If you look at the character of the bible writers, they believe in truth and righteousness. They don’t believe in tricking people just to give them a good message. They can give them a good message without talking about Jesus! All they need to do is to preach a righteous and godly message without mentioning Jesus, and they would have achieved their purpose. But no. Instead, the followers insist that Jesus is alive. This is at the risk of death by crucifixion. As argued by apologists, people don’t die for lies. Especially if they don’t need to lie to get a good message across.
What is the message? I’m not sure if you fully understand the message. If you understand the message, then you would understand that they would have nothing to preach if Jesus didn’t come back. The fact that they preached it with such conviction indicates also their conviction that Jesus is now alive.
1 Peter 1:3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead .
Can you see the conviction in Peter’s words? You want to know what kind of person Peter is? Read the rest of his letter. Read the rest of the gospels which talk about him. Unlike other false prophets and fraudsters (not mentioning any names) Peter does not have money, power and women to gain from this. Unlike other lunatics that preach, Peter’s wisdom surpasses any other religious philosophers (or at least on par with other religions if you’re non Christian). His message is consistent with the other biblical themes and wisdoms.
These are the eyewitness accounts that are as accurate today as it was two thousand years ago. You can read today the accounts that eyewitnesses have recorded two thousand years ago.
I hope that I’ve already covered your concerns about the credibility of witnesses and gospel writers. The only ground on which you discredit them is that you do not believe them. But as I’ve shown, there are so much more reasons to believe them then to not believe them. What are the reasons for not believing them? If it were Joseph Smith, I could list hundreds of reasons why you shouldn’t believe him. If it were Julius Caesar, I could list many reasons for not believing his record of events.
In mathematics there is a type of proof where in order to from that a statement is true (I think it’s called prove by contradiction). You first take the negative of that statement. Run the new assumption through your maths. Find that the maths is inconsistent with the assumption, and conclude that the opposite of the negative statement must be true (given that the positive and negative encompasses the entire set of possibilities.) Assume that the gospel writers are liars. Run that through the personal testimonies. Conclude that the gospel writers are not liars. Assume Jesus did not perform miracles, run through the personal testimonies of the first century, conclude that Jesus performed miracles. Assume that Jesus did not rise from the dead, run through the personal testimonies, conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.
I am sad to say that there are people that will not believe, even if a miracle was performed in front of them.
Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. Luke 10:13-15
I like it when a historian actually names his sources. I like to know who he interviewed and what he read in compiling his account. Luke asserts that he researched everything but he does not say what his research entailed.
I like it when a historian explains how his sources differ and why he believes one account is more accurate than another. For example, Luke reports Jesus’ last words as "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” Why did he reject Mark’s report of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Why does Luke think his version of the Sermon on the Mount is more accurate than the one Matthew reports?
My concern is not that Luke is like the woman my wife met. My concern is that his sources are like her. I think a meticulous historian would recognize that a miracle is such an extraordinary event that it would require more careful documentation of sources than Luke provides.
You say that “[a] person who witnessed these hundred of miracles and still proclaims to be a non-believer cannot exist.” Unfortunately, the gospels themselves tell us that this is false. John tells of the Jews who wanted to stone Jesus as a blasphemer despite the many miracles that had been performed before them. 10:31-33. Of course, you later say that “there are people that will not believe, even if a miracle was performed in front of them.”
If Jesus performed hundreds of miracles, there would be thousands of witnesses.
If there were thousands of witnesses, then Jesus performed hundreds of miracles.
The reasoning is circular.
Posted by
Vinny |
10:38 pm, October 25, 2007
/*********/
Hi Vinny. Really happy to see you commenting with us. Usually people just leave a msg attacking us and then the never return. I really appreciate your comments/conversation. Logic based, honest (though biased in my opinion :)).
/********/
>>
Your "circular" statements say that if one was true then the other must be true.
The statements are both true. The simplest from of my argument is then:
Since there were thousands of witnesses (fact), then Jesus must have performed miracles.
-------
Compare these miracles with your invisibility miracle.
Dead becomes alive.
Blind see
Lame walk
Incurable cured
Feeding thousands
Water to wine
Walking on water
Calming the Sea
Demon possessed free
Forgiving sins
Invisibility
- "witnessed" by one.
- Easiliy explainable
- questionable witness
- subjective
Biblical
- witnessed by hundreds.
- not explainable
- Mark Matthew Luke John Paul Peter disciples etc are people of integrity. there is no reason for you to argue otherwise.
- objective
- witness not delusional
You also have an unfounded bias against Luke. People back then don't leave ten pages at the back of their book for bibliography. They didn’t study reference giving at collage or school.
I noticed that you gave an example of discrepancy from the accounts. They recorded hundreds of events and quotations from Jesus. Did you seriously expect all of them to match? Two witnesses always give a slightly different account to the same event, crime scene etc. They didn't bring their mp3 recorder or a writing pad with them, so you must forgive them for misquoting. But you miss the point. The point is Jesus died on the cross and he said something along those lines. That you can be certain of. You can't dismiss the credibility of eyewitness accounts based on that.
I am afraid you are unreasonably biased against the bible. I wonder if you apply that to newspapers and other historians and the discovery channel (you should if you don't).
Luke already names hundreds of people events and places in his accounts. What makes you think he'd want to do more? His purpose was as I quoted from the first chapter of Luke. Even if he did you wouldn't believe him anyway. But I emphasis that he named many many names. He is meticulous.
You wanted witnesses that were with Jesus "24/7" for the three years. Consider the twelve disciples. You want a hostile witness? Consider Judas. Too bad he died.
Posted by
Jot.. |
5:18 pm, October 26, 2007
Are you sure that ancient historians did not discuss their sources and conflicts between their sources? It is my understanding that historians like Tacitus would identify the specific sources for various stories and explain why they followed one source or another. In any case, the fact that all ancient historians failed to document their sources would not serve to make Luke more reliable. It would mean that all ancient histories have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Eyewitnesses may indeed give differing accounts, but it is the historian’s job to resolve the conflicting accounts between witnesses. Luke was not an eyewitness (nor was Mark for that matter). Moreover, the discrepancy in Jesus’ last words is not slight. Mark’s quote indicates a man in despair. Luke’s quote indicates a man in calm control. Which was it?
How do you know there were thousands of witnesses? Is it because the miracle stories are true? How do you know that the miracle stories are true? Is it because there were thousands of witnesses?
I actually do apply the same standards to other things I read that I propose applying to the Bible. I recently read “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman which discusses the errors scribes made in copying biblical manuscripts and the implications of those errors for the doctrine of inerrancy. The first thing I did after finishing was to look for reviews of the book by conservative Christians because I wanted to know whether Ehrman had his facts right. I found that evangelical scholars acknowledged Ehrman’s expertise, but disagreed with his conclusions.
Posted by
Vinny |
12:10 am, October 27, 2007
There is always bias no matter how hard a historian tries to be impartial. You must take into account of the imperial bias when you study Tacitus. He was a proud Roman, but was at the same time deeply critical of Roman tyrany. You must take into account of the Jewish bias when you study Josephus. Likewise, you should also appreciate and take into account of the Christian bias when studying the historical compilations that make up the New Testament. Just because it has a Christian bias, doesn't mean you have to dismiss it by saying it being a grain of salt. (Just a lighted hearted one on the side, Salt, by the way, is very important in Jesus's eye, according to Matthew 5:13, he did say: "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." Anyways, back to our discussion ...)
Everyone has a bias. Not that I have a problem with it, but with due respect, you have a bias against Christian sources (a strong one too, if you don't mind me adding). There is no problem with that. As a result from the bias in historical sources, you will get discrepancies, simply because it affects the way you perceive things.
Use our "conversation" example previously. You record a version, I record a version. We discussed and you agreed that history will NEVER account 100% of what EXACTLY happened.
With due respect, I really cannot see why you are now revisiting this issue and say that "it is the historian's job to resolve conflicting accounts between witnesses." They don't need to and they can't! Why are they and what authority do they have to judge and determine which one is the more correct version to bring all accounts consistent? Aren't they supposed to be impartial about it all so the end reader makes the final verdict?
Right now you are trying to scrutinise so you obtain original accounts, and yet when you get what are closest to these accounts, you are refusing to take them because they are inconsistent? And when they are consistent, you dismiss it and say its plagarised?
But if you insist in holding your own logical inconsistency (as we so happened to be addressing the issue of inconsistency), then I am compelled to continue on explaining.
Carrying on from our "conversation" example, suppose I recorded a very heated argument because I was outraged by the remarks you made in the conversation. You never took the remark in a way that I was so offended by it and you did not think likewise, and you recorded a calm conversation. There is bias, and differing accounts. Different perspective. But again, we cannot deny the event occured. So I really cannot see a substantive point you are trying to make.
It is widely agreed that Mark was probably a colleague and interpreter of Apostle Peter. Mark's gospel is about Peter's teaching about the life and teaching of Jesus. It was merely an account of Jesus from Peter's perspective.
It's a bit like a person writing a biography (or autobiography) for someone else. The scribe doesn't have to question the original source by asking where he got his source from. That is plainly absurd!
Consider the following scenarios:
Scenario 1
- Author: Mark
- Biography of Peter - chapter on how Jesus has influenced his life.
Critical questions:
- does Peter have a written certificate that he is an apostle of Jesus?
- has he been with Jesus for every single minute during the 3 years of Jesus's public ministry?
- how can Peter be sure Jesus influenced his life.
Scenario 2
- Author: X
- Biography of your wife - chapter on how you (as husband) has influenced your wife's life.
Critical questions:
- does your wife have a marriage certificate to substantiate that you are her husband? (If she says you are, then you are her husband! Would you need to ask for a source document to support her claim?)
- How can she be sure that she knows you when she wasn't with you for 8 hours a day Monday to Friday when you were at work (assuming you work full time - or for the sake of things, insert your own description AND your wife does not work with you)?
- How can she be sure it was you who influenced her life?
If we want to understand you better, do we question your wife's biography because she did not present her marriage certificate or that she wasn't with you for every single minute of her life to substantiate the things you've done?
You probably ask how Husband and Wife vs. Jesus and apostle be comparable? Well, you can be pretty confident when the disciples gave up their jobs as fishermen to become full time "fishers of men" and follows Jesus wherever they go. You haven't given up your job for your wife, so do they understand Jesus more, or do you understand your wife more?
Although in today's world, we have the privilege of having all 66 books of the bible conveniently bound into one big volume, but you must appreciate (and I am sure you are aware) that the New Testament is a compilation of texts that was composed and circulated independent of each other in the first century. That is historically significant! You have all these different texts that are INDEPENDENTLY compiled that are emerging around in the parts of the region pointing to one consistent message.
But then, you are going to argue what we have argued before that all these documents that are now the gospels sprung up in Rome, so the Galileans cannot refute their claims. Consider this: Paul travelled vastly around the Roman empire and the surrounding regions to spread the gospel. How hard is it, for a compiled document to float across the seas (or land) back to Galilee?
But of course, you are going to argue Paul only travelled to all these places because it was recorded in the New Testament, and because it was recorded in the New Testament, Paul travelled. Another circular argument?
Satisfy yourself then, by doing some independent research to see how hard it was to hop on a boat to travel from A to B 2000 years ago. If you've got that far, then try researching how hard it would be to pass a document around by people travelling by boat. If you've done, that, try being very impartial and research how hard it would be to try preventing those pieces of paper from reaching the desired destination.
Paul travelled many places during his lifetime. I wouldn't think it would be hard for those letters to be copied and copied and copied, so it could go further than where Paul has travelled during one's lifetime. But surely, no one could ever be certain that it got to a small town called Galilee so people could refute, right?
Posted by
Ivan |
9:16 am, October 27, 2007
Since any response I make is going to be attributed to my bias, I think this is a good point to end the conversation. Thanks for your time.
Posted by
Vinny |
10:34 am, October 27, 2007
What a lively discussion!
Much evidence and statistics have been provided by previous postings; largely it is for the individual to determine or judge how reasonable and applicable the facts stand in their present personal life.
If one feels that incidents and events that have occurred some thirty odd years ago is a bit far–fetched and difficult to imagine. And requires layers upon layers of evidence and convincing, then how would you react to two thousand more years ago?
Understandably, I suppose it is better to imagine the present and now. Christianity is about 1. having believing faith (not just faith, but believing faith), 2. our personal walk with God and 3. transformation. Miracles and supernatural events have occurred (Jot and Ivan sites the Book of Luke).
And we continue to transform daily in the image and likeness of God, Romans says the old self is gone, replace with new self. Concurrently, God instills in us wisdom, knowledge, faith, hope and love. The purpose of The Cross allows us to have fellowship with Him, wisdom helps us to understand.
In our transformation, it is not unreasonable to term this as little miracles (as well), and being grateful for small mercies.
Therefore all one needs to do is look within themselves, each house starts with one brick at a time, nothing grand at all……
There is absolutely no need to expect someone to perform the same miracles of two thousand years ago, it has been done! And the purpose of Jesus and The Cross has been fulfilled.
In short, we cannot be at many places at the one time to see everything for ourselves.…no ones physical life is eternity…..life is too short to be a skeptic, the proof is in believing…..
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:36 pm, October 28, 2007