Christians that make unchristians of others

[Sinyalan]

---

tagaan kaha ni nato silag memorial plan para ilubong nalang nato diretso hihihihi

hahahaha... funny one, pre.

[josephdc]

agree ko nga Belief in God is reasonable but what comes next to that hmm dili ko sold out,well ako ra pod na.

nganung dili ko motoo? well,its source,the bible contain a lot of contradictions; proven insertions,forgery,revisions,and pornography.

Hmmm... I don't know about that. I haven't really studied the bible yet, but I seem to agree with what Christian apologists are saying... There are good reasons for thinking that the bible is credible, and that Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus considered the Jewish Scripture to be authoritative, therefore there is also grounds for thinking that the Old Testament is authoritative.

[josephdc]

Nope, and if I have the opportunity... I would do it without any cost. Although, we have means of learning nowadays - it's long term process but it will give me opportune time to know - not all, but some. However, if people would think that all "historical facts" are true... that's up to you - besides, the person or persons who tells about the past had their own versions to tell (stories)... most of them are colorful for the readers but people neglect to see the garbage behind it. yeah, christianity can back up their stories... mind you those are people who tell tales and the same people (like you and me) commit mistakes.

These "historical facts" are the evidences that Christian apologists put forth in arguing that Christianity is warranted.

For example, the prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus' life, the radical personal claims that Jesus made (that he was God himself), and the historical reliability of the Gospels.

[klemzhou]

all I can say is religion won't give you salvation... it's your faith and relation to God...

[Reason2believe]

Hmmm... I don't know about that. I haven't really studied the bible yet, but I seem to agree with what Christian apologists are saying... There are good reasons for thinking that the bible is credible, and that Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus considered the Jewish Scripture to be authoritative, therefore there is also grounds for thinking that the Old Testament is authoritative.

You havent studied the bible yet...*scratching my head*... of course of course, that book contain some reliable stuffs but we are talking about its "truthfulness" right sir?

My opinion...truth dont contain insertions and pornography. Enlightened bible scholars do believe that the bible have errors,forgeries and insertions. The faithful inspite of the bible's obvious errors stay faithful because they are afraid to go to hell.

[Reason2believe]

ika nga, who controls the past controls the future...
some may even go as far as fabricate, invent such

it's part of man's nature to be cunning...helped him survive too.hehehe

correct sir.

[Reason2believe]

These "historical facts" are the evidences that Christian apologists put forth in arguing that Christianity is warranted.

For example, the prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus' life, the radical personal claims that Jesus made (that he was God himself), and the historical reliability of the Gospels.

wa ko kasabot sir. sorry ha.

I already said and i beleive that even lawyers wil agree tho not all that Historical facts do not necessarily mean as TRUTH.

there are historical data tho so minute that will lead to a fact that Jesus exist but it doesnt follow that what Jesus preached is the truth.

there are historical data that proves that christianity came from middle east but it doesnt mean nga its the REAL religion.

nakuha nimo sir?

[munzter666]

You havent studied the bible yet...*scratching my head*... of course of course, that book contain some reliable stuffs but we are talking about its "truthfulness" right sir?

My opinion...truth dont contain insertions and pornography. Enlightened bible scholars do believe that the bible have errors,forgeries and insertions. The faithful inspite of the bible's obvious errors stay faithful because they are afraid to go to hell.

...they made that full proof, with that verse that kinda says "you dont have the holy spirit with you thats why you dont get it."hahaha basta hindi positive yung kinalabasan

they want you to read that again till you see butterflies and rainbows and the happy stuffs. total mind job.

These "historical facts" are the evidences that Christian apologists put forth in arguing that Christianity is warranted.

For example, the prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus' life, the radical personal claims that Jesus made (that he was God himself), and the historical reliability of the Gospels.

ahhh, bro. for those historical facts you were saying...
talking donkeys? surviving huge fish's gastric enzymes? dead men walking? sticks to snakes? etc

too blurry for historical facts, IMO.

[josephdc]

You havent studied the bible yet...*scratching my head*... of course of course, that book contain some reliable stuffs but we are talking about its "truthfulness" right sir?

Hehe... I hope to do that someday... The task looks so daunting man gud. I mean, bible scholars actually devote their entire professional lives studying it. Sa pagkakaron I'm just reading up a tiny bit on Christian apologetics. I'm not an apologist, but I want to learn more about apologetics, and I see conversations like these as a great opportunity for me to learn more about my faith and clarify it to myself and to others.

My opinion...truth dont contain insertions and pornography. Enlightened bible scholars do believe that the bible have errors,forgeries and insertions. The faithful inspite of the bible's obvious errors stay faithful because they are afraid to go to hell.

I don't think it's fair to say that sir, that the reason why the faithful stay faithful is because of their fear of hell. Many Christians have different reasons why they remain faithful. Many believe because the Gospel message speaks to them personally; it gives meaning to their lives, gives them hope, strength and courage. Others believe not just because the Gospel message speaks to them personally, but they have rational warrants for thinking that Jesus is indeed who he said he is, that he is God incarnate.

wa ko kasabot sir. sorry ha.

I already said and i beleive that even lawyers wil agree tho not all that Historical facts do not necessarily mean as TRUTH.

there are historical data tho so minute that will lead to a fact that Jesus exist but it doesnt follow that what Jesus preached is the truth.

there are historical data that proves that christianity came from middle east but it doesnt mean nga its the REAL religion.

nakuha nimo sir?

Yes, sir, I think I get what you mean. You mean to say that there are facts that can prove a few things about Christianity to be true but not enough to support its central claim, that Jesus is really who he said he is?

According to William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist and author, the truth is that majority of New Testament scholars today actually consider these five as established facts concerning Jesus:

He was crucified. Craig said that this is recognized by historians to be the one indisputable fact about Jesus. Even Robert Funk, the late chairman of the Jesus Seminar, a group of New Testament scholars who are critical of the traditional picture of Jesus, supports the idea that Jesus' crucifixion really took place.

He was buried by Joseph of Arimathea who was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. There are multiple and independent attestations to this fact. For example, in the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew and Luke, and independently by John. Also, in Paul's letter to the Corinthians which was probably written earlier than the Gospels.

Some people might say that the New Testament documents are unreliable because they were not "external sources". Actually, the New Testament did not exist as "one book" before 320s AD. The Gospels, Paul's letters, the Book of Acts, etc., were actually separate documents which were written within the first century. So there was no such thing as an "external source," though there were documents that corroborated some of the accounts in the New Testament written by non-Christians, like the Jewish historian Josephus and Pliny the Younger.

His tomb was discovered empty. There is also multiple and independent attestation of this fact in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. It is really unlikely that this account is just made up. Women were the chief witnesses of the empty tomb. That's significant because first-century Palestine had a very patriarchal culture; the testimony of women were not considered reliable. According to Josephus, women weren't even allowed to serve as witnesses in Jewish courts. If the early Christians just made up the story of the empty tomb, they would most likely write that men witnessed the empty tomb, especially the original disciples, not women. Also, all the Jewish authorities had to do to disprove the belief was to produce Jesus' body, but even they did not dispute the empty tomb story.

His post-mortem appearances. This, too, has multiple and independent attestations.

The origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection. It is amazing that all of a sudden the original disciples found withim themselves the courage to preach the Gospels after his crucifixion. Where did their boldness come from? Was it simply make-believe, an illusion? No sane person is willing to die for an illusion, or a lie. Yet majority of them died horrible deaths to proclaim their beliefs. Jesus' crucifixion and death must've crushed them. Peter even denied knowing Christ after Jesus' capture by the Romans. The other disciples fled and hid. Yet why, all of a sudden after the crucifixion, did they have the folly to declare belief in Jesus? Why the sudden conversion of hundreds of Jews to Christianity?

Luke Timothy Johnson, a prominent New Testament scholar, said that “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required in order to explain the origin of the Christian faith," particularly the origin of the belief in the resurrection.

So I guess the best explanation for these facts is that Jesus really died and rose from the dead. His resurrection serves to vindicate his radical personal claims.

[Sinyalan]

These "historical facts" are the evidences that Christian apologists put forth in arguing that Christianity is warranted.

For example, the prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Jesus' life, the radical personal claims that Jesus made (that he was God himself), and the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Yup, there are historical stories among the jewish people but I wouldn't consider them as all true. the fact is, I have not seen any Jewish home that put on images or anything that reminds them about "jesus" as the son of god. Why is that? History tells that Christianity in Israel is less in number than Judaism (78%) than the latter (2%). That history tells us that even the land where it all "started" didn't even recognized as "reliable" (numbers don't lie... ). Who were the people responsible for popularizing the "jesus theory"? The "same" people who invaded us for more than 300 years in the past.

Now, would that be a considerable truth? I doubt it.