committedandlovi - Yes, as with ANY historical document that faithfully records events.

That is not the same thing as "accepting by faith" what the proof is.

committedandlovi - no intention of dissecting or tearing down your belief, nor is there any intention of telling you that you have believe anything you don't want to believe.

All I will do for any who might be interested and/or reading this thread is to state what the Word of God says about it:


"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31, emphasis added)

"But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:16-17, emphasis added)

I fully respect and agree with your Grandfather and your Father, who I am fairly certain preached the Word, from the Bible, so that the truth about Jesus Christ could be made known. FAITH to accept that truth and to accept Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior is what is needed, not just "mere assent" to the truthfulness of the "proof" that is presented.



Perhaps in the past this "trusting" of the translation was needed, but there have been many archaelogical discoveries in recent past that have provided a means by which to "test" the faithfulness and accuracy of the translations we have today, including the KJV. Since we now have documents very very near to the dates of the actual autographs, we have "proof" of the meticulous care with which the Bible documents were both copied and translated. Again, the "fact" of the accuracy of the "documents" is not an issue of faith. Believing what the documents teaches IS an issue of faith.



This is very true. But God also does not preclude the use of "proof" to bring some people to Him either. If that were not so, He would never have told Thomas to touch Him. He would never have eaten food with His disciples to prove to them that he was not a "ghost" or some "imagination or hallucination."

God has, in my humble opinion, supernaturally preserved the Scriptures AS the "proof source" for all mankind. Whether or not mankind chooses to accept the proofs recorded in the Scriptures is up to each individual. God had provide throughout Scripture HIS "proofs" of who He is and who Jesus Christ is. God, through the written testimony of the Scriptures, tells us precisely WHO Jesus Christ is and WHY He existed in incarnate form on the earth. He asks us to receive that proof individually and personally, through faith, not as a mere acknowledgment of the real existence of Jesus Christ as an "historical person" who simply DID live and walk the earth some 2000 years ago.


God bless.

exactly

If people take a step toward God because of Lee Strobel, great.

That won't keep them there.

Their faith will.

I agree 100%. My only concern with books like those is that very learned people disagree with much of the books and can make a very convincing argument against these authors/experts.
That is why I see these discussions regarding proof as basically fruitless. One expert lines up against another (not that Stroble is an expert) and before long, the true message of grace, salvation and faith are lost amongst the three ring circus of proof.

medc:

I have 2 say, I am IMPRESSED! You have very eloquently characterized the difference between proof and faith in your posts above. I agree with most of it, even though I would be considered by most here, an atheist (I prefer my made-up term, atheologist, as it describes my perspective on this whole experience better than the former term).

Truthfully, there is no "proof" of Jesus' very existence outside the Bible, and while the Bible can certainly be considered a history text of sorts, verification of the ac2ality of the events described therein by simply referring 2 it is like saying "If you don't believe me, just ask me and I'll tell you". Independent evidence, either via other historic documents or archaeological corroboration, would be helpful. Particularly for those interested in the history who may not believe that the Bible is an unbiased account of it.

But religion is faith-based and deals with feelings and spiri2al matters, not equations describing the physical universe or events that led 2 the sinking of the Titanic. Faith doesn't require proof 2 be real 2 the faithful. And it doesn't have 2 be at odds with efforts 2 understand the physical universe and events that happen within it.


I agree. For forums like this 2 be really productive and helpful 2 those dealing with the grodyness that is infidelity (from either side), respect is paramount. But I find it a little sad that you feel the need 2 show contempt for people you don't feel "deserve" your respect. Your life and your call, though.

Personally, I prefer 2 go forward with the perspective that we're all down here trying 2 figure our [censored] out. Some of us may progress faster, or more efficiently, than others. And we all have somewhat different lessons 2 learn. But it's not for me 2 say what the specifics of another person's responses 2 these lessons ought 2 be.

There's just 2 much nifty stuff 2 see and do!

-ol' 2long

Coincidence???

Today I received the book ordered last month at Amazon: The Resurrection of the Son of God. It's 740 pages and I decided to read it after listening to several conferences by the New Testament scholar Bishop N.T Wright.

If anyone is interested, one of his lectures on The Resurrection is at: http://seaver.pepperdine.edu/dean/lectureseries/pages/20050111.htm

He has convinced me that it IS a historical truth.

OT-TJ: How you been, CC? I just luv ya..you are always adding something intriguing to my life. Get in touch with me...

Excuse me...Carry on...

Hi 2long. Yes religion is "faith-based." That doesn't mean anything different than atheists or atheiologists (as you prefer) "believing" there is no God based on "feelings" and their own idea of "spiritual matters." Neither is based on equations or events that are "reproducable and verifiable" in the laboratory.




You are also correct in saying [i]""Faith doesn't require proof 2 be real 2 the faithful." Simply "believing" doesn't make any religion more true than any other religion, or atheism for that matter.

"Sincere belief" does NOT equal "TRUE" unless the object of that belief is, in fact, true.

What determines what is TRUE? I would submit that the evidence that supports the "claims" of a given faith and the direct revelations to us by the ONE who IS truth, who is the Creator and sustainer of the universe, is correct and true. I call that person God.

For an atheist, there exists no God, therefore ANY religious belief other than atheism is irrelevant since they have arrived at the "conclusion" or "feeling" that there is no God and, therefore, no religion that claims any "higher power" is right. Yet atheists have no proof that God does not exist either and base their "belief" on their own feeling and opinion.

Basing a "belief" solely upon "feelings" is a very risky thing to do too, imho. Even Moses faced this fact when God tasked him with leading the people of Israel out of Egypt. When he asked God for a way to prove to the people of Israel that he was, in fact, sent by God for a specific task, God responded and gave Moses a "proof" for the Israelites.

This "feeling only" issue is, imho, a very risky way to determine the "truth" of any religion. It leads to "blind faith" and accusations that are commonly made of the sort like "Christians check their brains at the door." Besides, most of us around MB know just how risky "blind faith" in anything is.





Truthfully, I can't figure out if your "truthfully" statement is something you sincerely believe, something you "just say," something you are really ignorant of, or something you are deliberately saying while knowing that proof of the "outside" sort you are referring to DOES exist.

Regardless, there is "external" proof of Jesus's existence. Jesus is an "historical figure" placed in history. But beside that, to "discount" or "reject" the written record of Him as recorded in the Bible is to NOT be faithful to Textual Criticism and Historical Criticism as applied to all written works. That is a separate issue, as MEDC has stated, from "accepting and believing" in Jesus Christ as the Savior that was promised by God throughout the Old Testament.

FH:

IMHO, you completely missed my point, completely misinterpreted and misunders2d what I said.

End of discussion.

-ol' 2long

well, actually "blind faith" is, IMO, exactly what Jesus considered to be a wonderful this when He said..

Okay. No one has to participate in any discussion they don't want to.

It seemed to me that you chose to participate when you offered up your opinion on the subject, but now you try to accuse me of "completely missing your point." Perhaps I did, but it seemed rather clear and straightforward when you opined:
It seemed rather clear from this statement that you were arguing "relativism," determined by each individual, and that there is no "objective truth" by which any choice is made." "Figuring this stuff out" and "some of us may progress faster, or more efficiently than others" is part of the learning process. But once again, without an "objective standard of truth" by which to "figure things out" and/or "progress" DOES leave it up to the individual to determine what is "true" for themselves with nothing to gauge their choice against in evaluating if the direction they are "progressing" is in a "right direction" or in a "wrong direction."

If that was not the point that you were making, then I suppose I did "miss your point."

However, in the realm of "it's all relative," there is an inherent problem that relativists need to answer for themselves. IF all things are relative and can be whatever any individual wants to it be…..If you or I choose to believe that all things are NOT relative…we cannot be wrong in holding that belief, by the application of the relativists own point of view.


You also seemed to clearly state your opinion that "Truthfully, there is no "proof" of Jesus' very existence outside the Bible." There didn't seem to be much room for misunderstanding what you were saying and that's what I said what I said as MY opinion. In addition, there is "proof" of Jesus' very existence "outside of the Bible" and that was my point. Once again, the FACT that Jesus existed is NOT argued by many today because the evidence is available that He did exist. That is NOT the same thing as saying Jesus IS the Messiah and our Lord and Savior, of proving as in a laboratory setting, the reproducibility of Him and His miracles. Those ARE matters of faith, based upon the evidence that supports the claims by, and about, Him.

Maybe we are just talking about a difference in "defining terms" here, medc.

"Blind Faith" can be given to anything that anyone wants to give it to. The same as with "blind trust."

Jesus was speaking, obviously, to Thomas, who needed to touch the very physical person of Jesus for himself.

Without question, once Jesus ascended into heaven, THAT particular "option" would no longer exist and any subsequent person coming to a faith in Jesus would necessarily have to come there by way of the testimony of the those who WERE witnesses to the truth.

That, in large part, is why the New Testament was written, as John pointed out for all of us who were to "come after." The New Testament was written to provide documentary proof of what happened for the time when the Apostles would no longer be around. Given that there was no such thing as voice recording or video recording "options" available "back then," they did have the written form of communication available and used it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to "codify" the truth, the events that "proved" Jesus' claims to BE the Messiah. They provided the written testimony as a "type" of "court record" of what actually took place.

Without the written Word, or the proofs concerning Jesus contained with the pages of that Word, WHAT would anyone have to believe in, either by some sort of "blind faith," or based on accepting the truth of what was evidentiary in the testimony presented.

I suppose the really simple answer to "blind faith" as you are using Christ's statement in John 20:29 would be a question;

WHO would believe in Jesus Christ with no one to tell anyone about Him and WHY He IS the Messiah and the Savior of all who accept Him as their personal Lord and Savior?

If, for example, I wanted to "believe" that Julius Caesar or the Pope or any other human being WAS God incarnate, I could so believe based simply on "blind faith." But what evidence would there be to support such a belief other than "because I simply want to believe it?" Faith that is founded on truth IS NOT "blind faith." But without the Scripture, without the direct revelation FROM God TO us in His written word, what would have to form the basis of any belief in Jesus?

The FACT remains that Jesus Himself clearly held that the Scriptures, and the truths that they reveal to us, WERE God's words given by inspiration to the authors of the Scripture. Jesus USED that truth in answer to Satan when He was tempted. Without the Scripture, Jesus would not have been able to appeal to … "it is written."

And the New Testament was written for the very same purpose, to provide truth to us, the evidence that supported the "claims" of Jesus to BE the Messiah, the incarnate Son of God, the one who created all that there is in the universe. In other words, the New Testament was written to provide "proof statements" of who Jesus was and is, and why we SHOULD place our faith in Him, and in Him alone.

That's not any different from when Joshua told the Israelites "choose ye this day whom ye will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua was reminding the people of Israel, calling to remembrance if you will, ALL the "proofs" that God had provided to them up to that point in time. Many, if not all, of them were themselves eyewitnesses to what God had done for their nation up to that point, but KNOWLEDGE alone is "not enough." It DOES take, as you have said, a willing surrender TO God based upon the truths presented before each individual. It DOES take a recognition of our own sinful state and the NEED for a Savior. It DOES take a faith that not only affirms the truth of who Jesus is and what He did for us, but a faith that accepts Him as our own Lord and Savior even if we don't know "all the finer theological points" or all of what God has also told us as to how a believer should try to "conform their lives to Christ-likeness" as the model for how to "live out" our faith.

So it is not "blind faith," it would seem that Jesus was talking about. Rather, it was faith based upon testimony of others to the actual events that took place and the affirmations of who Jesus is through the use of miracles, culminating in the miracle of His resurrection.

God bless.

Faith is needed to believe this is the direct revelation from God. Otherwise, it could just be considered the greatest story ever told. Same thing with the Gospels. The words were not written for years after Christs death. The Bible was not formed for hundreds of years...most would NOT consider that to be an accurate accounting of fact. Jesus chose to appear to those close to him...he did not appear in the temple for all to see. Many would consider that to be a situation that is ripe for conspiracy.


Ah, there's the rub FH. I would suggest that reading God's word without His touch on your heart is nothing more than a intellectual escapade. Julius Caesar does not have the ability to reach into my heart and soul and call me to him. It is NOT Scripture that forms my basis for belief in Christ. Scripture can be argued against with a great deal of authority and intellect.

No offense meant. I just don't think we'll accomplish anything by it.


Regarding things like morals and spiri2ality, yes. These things ARE relative, but not so individually-determined as you imply, IMO. More, a product of millions of years of human evolution and interaction resulting in the moral codes we live by 2day (more or less, depending on a variety of cultural and peer influences).



Apparently not entirely. My apologies.


No, there isn't (Josephus notwithstanding, as most historians believe that the mention of Jesus is anomalous and a later addition).


Agreed. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist, just that the evidence for that is entirely within the Bible.

-ol' 2long

Absolutely. I agree 100% with this statement, medc.

"Proof," though it exists and is available, does NOT have to be "accepted" as such by anyone who doesn't want to.

Does the acronym TULIP mean anything to you? If it does, it speaks to what you are saying here.

God bless.

Just so that we are on the same page...I do not believe that "proof" exists. I do believe that since faith is required that proof is not needed.

I could reference as "proof" text books...written by biased men...that show the Native Americans were treated fairly. Forgetting the genocide of 12 million natives here...well, I guess the story would be true.

Without faith, the Bible is nothing more than a story written a long, long time after the actual events. I do not see that as proof. Hence, the need for faith and a calling.

I am familiar with the acronym.

No offense taken, 2long. I thought you were offended by my response. You may be right that "we" won't accomplish anything, but that's no different that any discussion of divergent opinions IF the "objective" is to "convert" someone rather than to simply discuss the arguments and let anyone who wants to arrive at their own conclusions.



I understand what you are saying, and obviously I also disagree with your conclusion because I reject "evolution" as the cause of how things "got here" and also how "morals" are arrived at.

Yes, people CAN and DO choose their own moral standards, but that does not mean that God's moral standards have not been given to us. All it means, from my perspective, is that sinful man WILL choose to act in ways that are "contrary" to God and His standards for human behavior.

This "resulting in the moral codes we live by 2day (more or less, depending on a variety of cultural and peer influences)" is precisely the "problem" in rejecting God's "moral codes" and substituting whatever we want to substitute in their place.

Again, the result is "moral relativism" wherein no one "can" say that anyone else's morals are "wrong," because the "absolute standard" has been removed and replaced with "personal wants and desires" and "different cultures" (cultural differenes) that are at "odds" with each other as to what IS "moral."


With respect to the "external evidences," I'll see if I can find some time to get into that a little. On the other hand, you are correct that the majority of evidence (but not all) IS contained in the Bible. But that doesn't change anything when it comes to "proof that a man known as Jesus existed." That FACT is independent of any claims of diety or Messiahship. That fact alone is merely an issue of history, as recorded in a historical document.

I understand what you are saying here.



What genocide? What proof is there that was any genocide?

That's the same question when applied to Jesus.




Again, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying. The New Testament was "completed" within some 70-100 years of Jesus' presence on Earth, by those who were eyewitnesses and/or intimately aware of the details from their close association with the Apostles. That's not a "long, long time after the actual events," though.

But you are right that the Bible is "nothing more" than another book without the acceptance of Jesus Christ. But as a source of "proof statements," they remain "proof" regardless of personal opinion.

Let me try explain this another way. Today, some 70 years after the fact, there are many "proofs" in existance of the holocaust as being REAL, and the events surrounding the holocaust to be real. Yet that does not stop some people from rejecting the truth and the proof that the holocaust really did happen and was not just "some story" or some "imaginary happenings" in order to benefit some particular group of people.

People can, and do, reject Truth all the time, regardless of all the "proof" in the world. And for humans, that began with Adam and Eve rejecting God's truth in favor of Satan's "truth," the appeal to their pride.




I asked because what you are saying seems to be in accord with that acronym and the statements related to the letters.

God bless.

it isn't? could you imagine using it as "proof" in a courtroom? I have been in courtrooms and let me tell you...that would be laughed out of the building.



you're kidding right?

People can reject that the Earth is millions of years old too. I would say that the "proof" of that is a heck of a lot more convincing than anything in the Bible. Without His calling me...I would believe as 2long and some others do.

My heart added into the equation allows me to believe. Using only my intellect, I cannot wrap my head around the suffering in the world...the murderous history of Christianity...and a lot of other things. The Lord called me...I feel blessed because of that and pray that others open their hearts...NOT THEIR MINDS...and be open to His still, small voice.