And another excellent post!

actually, it is 100% consistent with what I stated. What I see as a fact/truth is in part based on the Lord calling me and revealing His truth to me...these things that are fact to me would not be able to be proven in a court of law or scientifically. Personally because of God's still small voice in me, I am left with no doubt. Others...those that want irrefutable proof...want to be able to stick their fingers in his wounds and have a more verifiable record of events. Until the Lord calls them, they will not KNOW Him based on any proof....for in my eyes, it does not exist. Obviously, you see things differently. I am okay with that.

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded as though you were saying that "irrefutable proof" didn't exist at all.


What I see as a fact/truth is in part based on the Lord calling me and revealing His truth to me

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It is consistent with "by grace you have been saved, not of works, lest any man should boast.


...these things that are fact to me would not be able to be proven in a court of law or scientifically.

"Scientifically," no. It is not possible to "recreate in the lab" the resurrection of Jesus.

"in a court of law," that is where we might have a difference of opinion because the "standard" is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." An "unreasonable doubt" is not the standard, and MANY cases are "proven" by such things as eyewitness testimony, especially when there are more than 1 eyewitness, all relating the same observation of events that happened before their very eyes.


Personally because of God's still small voice in me, I am left with no doubt.

Understood.


Others...those that want irrefutable proof...want to be able to stick their fingers in his wounds and have a more verifiable record of events.

Also understood. It is also why I believe God gave us Thomas, the "original 'I'm from Missouri, show me'" sort of person.


Until the Lord calls them, they will not KNOW Him based on any proof....for in my eyes, it does not exist.

You are correct, they will not know Him. But the proof exists, it is the resurrection. Anyone not accepting the proof is not the same thing as the proof not existing. It's sort of like gravity...a sincere belief that gravity does not exist for "me" does not negate the fact that gravity DOES exist. Using the "example" of someone who denies the existence of gravity and someone who denies that Jesus IS who He says He is, when the "unbeliever" in the "proofs" that they exist for everyone steps off the roof of the skyscraper...they will both have THEIR "final proof" when they die. In other words, HIS truth meets "our" truth at the interface of the earth.

The "court reporter records," if you will, are the Scriptures. A "read back" of the record gives the precise testimony of the individual "on trial" in this court, as well as the testimony of the eyewitnesses AND the opponents to Jesus.


Obviously, you see things differently. I am okay with that. As I am okay with how you see things for yourself.

there is NO proof of the resurrection that would withstand a courtroom standard of proof.

You may feel differently, but IMHO, it is by faith that I believe that Christ rose from the dead...not because there exists any verifiable proof.

Christian's have gotten into this mindset that they need to prove that their beliefs are correct. Let's argue carbon dating, dinosaurs...etc. Baloney. Every single thing that a learned Christian can come up with as proof...somebody equally as smart and learned can counter with just as convincing an argument. Seriously...who cares. I don't really give a hoot that you think there exists proof of the resurrection. Go on believing that all you want...and when you get countered by people a lot smarter than you...you have lost the ability to discuss faith and are now in a scientific or historical discussion that will only contribute to divisiveness and doubt.

Speak to people about your faith and why you believe...show them an example they can latch on to and then you will be living a life that shows the proof of God's love. get all high and mighty...chest thumping...a whole lot of statements that contribute to nothing more than debate....and guess what...people will tune you out. I have seen it right here on these boards...and I have seen it IRL. Then the misuse of gifts that God has given you stop you from having fellowship with other believers because of your differences....it results in a fractured church...it results in nothing more than intellectual masturbation that pushes the gift of grace aside.

I am happy to live by faith in my Lord. The day I start feeling that I need to provide proof of His existence...beyond a sunset...beyond the birth of a child...beyond the glory that He lays out every single day...well, that is the day I surrender to the world.

Rant done.

The empty tomb seems to be somewhat irrefutable proof. (Tomb was guarded by Roman Soldiers)

Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days to 100 people - that would also seem to be fairly convincing proof that would stand up in a court of law.

and the names of the soldiers are...
their sworn testimony is ...
their credibility is...
the record keeping is....
the guarding of the tomb was supervised by...
the 100 people (actually I thought it was 400) are...
their testimony is...
the record keeping of their testimony is...
cross examination is...
and so on and so on.

I am not going to defend the rejection of these beliefs...but not a single one of them would hold up in court.

But the accounts of this are thought to have been written by people long after the event, ie not first-hand witnesses? Therefore hearsay, and of doubtful value in a court-system trial. There could be all sorts of alternative explanations. We don't have much evidence from the Roman side, after all, do we?


See above. Also, even at the time, could have argued that the desire of the witnesses to 'see' Jesus was so great as to generate hallucinations that they had. Mass hysteria is still implicated in some medical situations today. People still think they see Elvis, and a surprising proportion of Americans genuinely believe they've been abducted by aliens.

Christianity is about a leap of faith. Not one of us was there in 33AD. There is no proof.

TA

Let's bring this back on topic please. Thanks.

gladly. (TA..I don't know what the edited comments were, but please do not take my "gladly" to be directed at you in any way. I just find these threads that have people defending their religion to be a bit useless...you have done or said nothing to bother me).

****edit****

**EDIT**

**EDIT**

Please email the mod directly with your concerns.

Thanks, Revera

St. Francis of Assisi said something you would probably agree with.

"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."

MEDC, I think I am beginning to understand your position on this better, but I thought it best to tell you what I think I understand and let you confirm, reject, or amend that understanding, so as to not run the risk of "putting words into your mouth."

You said, "God is sovereign and will call those to His table as He sees fit."
I agree with this as it is clearly taught in Scripture, it is God who initiates bringing someone to Christ, we don't "choose to find Christ on our own."

"just as I will not suggest that a Muslim deny theirs."
There is a marked difference between "demanding" someone "deny" their belief (religious system of any kind, including "no religion") and "suggesting" there are valid reasons to consider receiving Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

I don't think anyone is "demanding" that someone change their faith, unless you are talking about God Himself who has clearly stated that there IS only one way, HIS way, TO receive forgiveness of sins and to be reconciled to Him for all eternity.
The issue of NOT "suggesting" to anyone that Jesus, not any other "faith system," is the ONLY correct and acceptable "way" to God is, within "Christian belief systems," what is commonly referred to as "HyperCalvinism."

The "problem" with HyperCalvinism is that it carries with it a refusal to obey the Great Commission given BY God the Son TO all believers. It "eliminates" all missions work and ANY attempt to "convince" someone that Jesus Christ is real and that the "claims" about Him are true.

God does not demand that WE convert anyone. God does not tell us to "demand" that others change their belief system TO a belief in Jesus Christ.

With respect to the "requirement" of "irrefutable proof" that you raised, and upon which you are basing your argument that there IS no proof that "cannot" be refuted, it may be that the "standard" you are using for "proof" is a bit "high" for establishing what TRUTH is. The issue is not that TRUTH is "proven," though it has been. The issue as you rightly point out is the ACCEPTANCE or REJECTION of that truth by individuals who have the "God-given" capacity to CHOOSE whether or not they happen to believe in Christ, or even in the existence of God for that matter.

When you say:
"and the names of the soldiers are...
their sworn testimony is ...
their credibility is...
the record keeping is....
the guarding of the tomb was supervised by...
the 100 people (actually I thought it was 400) are...
their testimony is...
the record keeping of their testimony is...
cross examination is...
and so on and so on. "

You are raising questions, not providing proof that what was recorded is FALSE.

Without going into a long dissertation of answering each of those questions, let me simply suggest that a good reference for discussion of those sorts of questions would be Josh McDowell's book, Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

"Prove to me that God exists" is the same sort of issue. "Prove to me that LOVE exists and is true" is the same sort of issue. What it seems as though you are arguing for in this "irrefutable proof" issue is that someone "bottle up a quart of LOVE, set in on the table, as PHYSICAL, "before MY very eyes proof" that I can touch and examine" sort of proof. "Prove to me" that monogamous, faithful, marriage between one man and one woman IS the "only true and right" definition of, an "acceptable" and "real" marriage. That sort of "truth" is what is "argued" here on MB all the time and even IS the basis for the existence of MB. Are the no other 'true marriages' that would disagree with the "Truth" as presented on MB? On what "irrefutable proof" DOES one "suggest" to anyone else that adultery is wrong, that 'affairages' are wrong, that 'swinging' is wrong. How "dare" anyone on MB "suggest," let alone "demand" that faithfulness to a marriage partner IS the only true course and should be embraced by anyone who wants to believe that "waywardness" is equally alright.

Even (as I believe as a Christian) as Satan and the fallen angels KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt WHO Jesus Christ is, they still do NOT ACCEPT that truth for themselves. They CHOOSE not to. They didn't before the "Fall of Mankind," they didn't when Jesus walked the earth, and they don't today.

But the "proof" is right there today, as it was then. It is Jesus hanging on a Cross. It is Jesus dying and paying the full penalty of God's wrath against sin FOR all who WILL accept Him as being TRUTH. It is the empty tomb that His opponents sought so vigorously to prevent from occurring. It is the physical witness of many (actually more than the 400 you mentioned). It is the faithful recording of HISTORY, of historical events AS THEY HAPPENED.

To "deny" the "proof" of history would be to deny ANYTHING that cannot be "bottled" and presented for physical examination TODAY. Julius Caesar did not exist. Napoleon did not exist. Abraham Lincoln did not exist. Martin Luther King did not exist.

I am of the opinion that any of those people could be "proven" to have existed and to have done what others claim they did, in a court of law.

I am also of the opinion that the existence of Jesus Christ and what He did while here on Earth could also be "proven" in a court of law. PROVING the facts, is relatively easy. ACCEPTING the facts is a different issue altogether…and that IS where FAITH comes in.

God bless.

Very much so. I have that saying hanging in my house and have used it here on these boards as well.

nope...if this is your take on my position, I fear you will never understand me. I am not arguing for any proof..as i said...I don't need it.

As I said before, I have read the books. I have also read the retorts. They continue to cause nothing but division.

I happily stand by my posts on this thread and all the thoughts/feelings that they convey.

Then, if this is your understanding of what I've been saying, I equally fear you will never understand me either.

What I "understand" is that FOR YOU, personally, YOU don't need any "proof" for yourself. As I said previously, I'm okay with that.

But you extended that to include others who might want to hear of "proof" so that they can consider the issue, evaluate the "proofs," and reach a decision for THEMSELVES. You have, in the past, extended that to an "acceptance" (often called 'tolerance' of BELIEFS, not of individuals as we are all sinners), that are directly contrary to what God has revealed to us as HIS position regarding Jesus Christ.

You extended that personal opinion to others who DO think it's important to DEFINE terms when speaking about Jesus in order to avoid confusion and misunderstanding of WHAT IS and what is NOT believed about Jesus, as the Bible has revealed it and not based on opinions that might be contrary to the revealed Word of God.

Again, as I said, you are entitled to your opinion, and I'm fine with you holding that opinion. But it is also my opinion that I, or anyone else, does not have to "accept and embrace" your opinion or my opinion, but that we are all free to state them and give reasons for what we believe and why we believe it.

*******

With what as the proof....the Bible?

Then any religion at all could prove THEIR teaching with their own 'bible' ...(notice not capitalized)

Our entire Christian concept is based on "faith".

Faith meaning : belief that is not based on proof:

It isn't "faith" if you have proof.

My Grandfather and Father were both ministers. One of the first words that we learned in Sunday School was Faith.

He read us the stories in the Bible. He laid it out for us to clearly understand so that we could make our own path to Christ.

Parts of the Bible told the story....parts of the Bible provided our road map, if you will.

Since the Bible we used was King James Version, we had to trust that King James (the men that put it to print) got it right in their interpretations. We needed faith...or all was lost.

" For by grace are ye saved through FAITH "

If we had proof there would be no need for faith.

God doesn't give us proof.

He tells us to use faith...which is the greatest thing that a person can have in something or someone.

Faith...no proof necessary.

Proof is what man uses to try and convince another man that this way is the right way.

God doesn't need to prove anything to us.

He doesn't want us to come to him based on proof.

He wants us to place our FAITH in him.

What a wonderful gift we give TO him...our faith IN him and his promise to us.

I never had to be convinced because of any proof. I didn't need proof. God doesn't want us to come to him if we base it on proof. He wants us to come to him because of FAITH.

He will only accept us if we have FAITH.

Mind you..this is only MY opinion.

I don't care to have it dissected and the attempts to tear it down won't work on me.

I don't NEED...nor do I want....PROOF. Proof serves me no good. I have my FAITH...that is ALL that is expected, required, and needed to satisfy God.

IMHO
committed

ETA....oops...I see that some Moderator intervention occurred while I was composing this. Pardon the intrusion if my comments are not within TOS. I do apologize

I have emailed both yourself and Dufresne.

TA