The Bible

[hasserl]

whats the evidence that jesus was the son of god? you know because its in your bible. whats the evidence that enlightenment is real? i know because its in my texts and teachings.

I already told you about evidential apologetics. There is one huge reason to believe Jesus was the son of God. He rose from the dead. The evidences in support of the Resurrection are very strong. You may not accept them as proof for your own belief, but the evidences are there and have convinced many a skeptic (more than 1 man has set about researching the facts in order to discredit the claim only to end up a believer because the evidence is so strong). So, whether you accept it or not, there is evidence to support it.

we know believe the Buddha is enlightened because he was able to spread the dharma throughout this world. he discovered and spread the middle path and opened the door for all people to gain enlightenment and walk the correct path. even though it was attacked the dharma survives and has grown to the fourth largest religion.

Because a religion has grown is evidence that Buddha was enlightened? That rationalization can be used to support contradictory religions. The fact that Christianity has survived and spread all over the world then proves its truthfulness, and Christianity teaches that there are no other paths to God than through Christ, a direct contradiction to the teachings of Buddhism. So how can both be true? Your evidence isn't rational.

if you are in that branch, that believes the Dalai Lama is a manifestation of Avalokiteśvara, you already know the history of Avalokiteśvara, a highly enlightened being. to prove you are the manifestation highly trained monks have to hear about you, if you are a possibility they travel out and test you. if you pass all the tests the Panchen Lama will recognize you as the Dali Lama, you leave home and spend many years in training and meditation. you receive specialized training for many many years, it is not easy and many sacrifices need to be made. currently the real Panchen Lama (and his entire family) that was officially recognized by the Dalai Lama was "dissipated" by the Chinese government. it is believed that once the 14th dalai lama passes on the Chinese will not allow the Tibetan people to name the next Dalai lama.

Where is the OBJECTIVE evidence? Please, you've offered nothing objective or testable. So again I ask, is there any evidence at all in support of ANY Buddhist teaching? I think if you're intellectually honest you're gonna see the big problem you have. You can hold any "belief" you want to of course, but if you're comparing Buddhism to Christianity, well, there is a lot of evidence in support of Christianity (for example see John W Montgomery's Faith Founded on Fact http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Founded-.../dp/189636313X ) and zero evidence at all for Buddhism. This is not an attack on your faith, you ventured into this thread on the Bible, I didn't go looking for you to attack your faith, you came in here looking to create doubt. Sorry, but you've got nothing tangible or objective to base your faith on, Christians do.

[e90bmw]

i know another name. its not written in your bible because it is not part of Christianity and was taught way before Christianity was even a thought. you wont believe me and will most certainly be convinced i am a sinner doomed to a eternity in hell, but that's all your choice. i know the way i must walk.

"Therefore, Ananda, be a lamp unto yourself, be a refuge to yourself. Take yourself to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth as a lamp; hold fast to the Truth as a refuge. Look not for a refuge in anyone beside yourself. And those, Ananda, who either now or after I am dead shall be a lamp unto themselves, who take themselves to no external refuge, but holding fast to the Truth as their lamp, and holding fast to the Truth as their refuge, shall not look for refuge to anyone beside themselves, it is they who shall reach the highest goal"

think about it.

Buddhism. Ananda, cousin to Buddha.
Took classes on multiple religions.
Anyway, I've been sort of lurking.

As a Christian, I am not convinced of anything concerning you or your destiny. I do know that I am a sinner and I am saved by the Grace of God.
Eternal life is not given due to one's acts. That is, you cannot earn your way into "heaven". You are given grace, in spite of being a sinner. We try to live like Christ, but we all fall short.

Christianity is not about the Bible, although the Bible can teach you how to be a Christian. Christianity is about Jesus and the sacrifice he made so that we may have eternal life.

Peace.

[RAMCLAP]

^^^Well said sir.

[ArmedJackal]

I already told you about evidential apologetics. There is one huge reason to believe Jesus was the son of God. He rose from the dead. The evidences in support of the Resurrection are very strong. You may not accept them as proof for your own belief, but the evidences are there and have convinced many a skeptic (more than 1 man has set about researching the facts in order to discredit the claim only to end up a believer because the evidence is so strong). So, whether you accept it or not, there is evidence to support it.

Because a religion has grown is evidence that Buddha was enlightened? That rationalization can be used to support contradictory religions. The fact that Christianity has survived and spread all over the world then proves its truthfulness, and Christianity teaches that there are no other paths to God than through Christ, a direct contradiction to the teachings of Buddhism. So how can both be true? Your evidence isn't rational.

Where is the OBJECTIVE evidence? Please, you've offered nothing objective or testable. So again I ask, is there any evidence at all in support of ANY Buddhist teaching? I think if you're intellectually honest you're gonna see the big problem you have. You can hold any "belief" you want to of course, but if you're comparing Buddhism to Christianity, well, there is a lot of evidence in support of Christianity (for example see John W Montgomery's Faith Founded on Fact http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Founded-.../dp/189636313X ) and zero evidence at all for Buddhism. This is not an attack on your faith, you ventured into this thread on the Bible, I didn't go looking for you to attack your faith, you came in here looking to create doubt. Sorry, but you've got nothing tangible or objective to base your faith on, Christians do.

You are playing incredibly fast and loose with the relative strengths of evidence. There is no conclusive evidence of Jesus' ressurection. There is not even conclusive evidence that he was anything but a literary construct.

To be clear.... There is evidence... The bible is evidence both for and against the ressurection. As I mentioned in another thread, most biblical scholars believe that the ressurection wasn't in the original gospel of mark but was added later for consistency. The other gospels and their stories of the ressurection are evidence in favor.... But it is in no way conclusive. It is all hearsay by authors some of whom never met Jesus and then selectively edited by the church leaving dozens of gospels entirely out.

No objective viewer would ever be swayed that this story was even probable let alone proven. It requires desire to believe. Positive confirmation bias will handle the rest.

[RAMCLAP]

Actually he was written about by non-Biblical contemporary writers. Flavius Josephus for one. The Jesus project started out this way but they were quickly overwhelmed by the evidence for his existence. They quickly changed tactics.

[hasserl]

You are playing incredibly fast and loose with the relative strengths of evidence. There is no conclusive evidence of Jesus' ressurection. There is not even conclusive evidence that he was anything but a literary construct.

To be clear.... There is evidence... The bible is evidence both for and against the ressurection. As I mentioned in another thread, most biblical scholars believe that the ressurection wasn't in the original gospel of mark but was added later for consistency. The other gospels and their stories of the ressurection are evidence in favor.... But it is in no way conclusive. It is all hearsay by authors some of whom never met Jesus and then selectively edited by the church leaving dozens of gospels entirely out.

No objective viewer would ever be swayed that this story was even probable let alone proven. It requires desire to believe. Positive confirmation bias will handle the rest.

Your speaking from ignorance. As I said, more than one man has taken on the topic with the intent to destroy it, only to be convinced of its truth. The criticisms you make have been dealt with repeatedly by scholars, and by posting them you only reveal your ignorance.

[RAMCLAP]

ArmedJackal,

I have no problem with you asking what you ask or stating what you state. You are as welcome here as anyone. I can't help but wonder though. If this Jesus is such a nothing to you, why do you rage and rail against Him so much? It seems to me that if He was such a no one you'd just ignore the whole kit and kaboodle. Yet you talk about Him almost as much as I do. Would you mind if I ask why?

[Not a Cook]

ArmedJackal - respectfully, you've stated some things that aren't exactly accurate. That said, I too have wondered what RAMCLAP asked you below: why are you so interested in Christ, considering you've rejected Him? I think many of us may be curious about that.

You are playing incredibly fast and loose with the relative strengths of evidence. There is no conclusive evidence of Jesus' ressurection. There is not even conclusive evidence that he was anything but a literary construct.

To be clear.... There is evidence... The bible is evidence both for and against the ressurection.

Yes - the Bible is a clear witness to the resurrection of Christ; HOWEVER, it is in no way evidence against the resurrection.

As I mentioned in another thread, most biblical scholars believe that the ressurection wasn't in the original gospel of mark but was added later for consistency.

I believe I was the one to address this in the other thread you mention. Umm... "most biblical scholars"? I'm thinking you mean a subset of "biblical scholars" who are not themselves Christians. By definition, a Christian has to believe in the resurrection of Christ, or else that person isn't a Christian. So, yes - if you ask someone who doesn't believe the Bible to begin with about the resurrection, you will undoubtedly find that they disbelieve and attack the resurrection. As a larger point, those supposed "biblical scholars" who try to claim the end of Mark was added latter generally rely upon some bad arguments all stemming from the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and several other minor errant sources. If you study those codices and the much larger field of biblical manuscripts, you'll find that the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are not reliable. Personally, based on what I've researched, I suspect (as do many scholars) that those two codices were two surviving copies of the 50 ordered by Constantine which are KNOWN to have been produced/edited by an early heretic (Eusebius) and which copies were not accepted by the church. In other words, those particular codices are most likely the very ones which the ancient church rejected because they were known to have been tampered with by a then-known heretic and produced under commission from the Roman Emperor. Non-Christian "biblical scholars" latch onto them to try to disprove many things, because there really isn't anything else they have to latch onto or else they might have to admit the Bible may be true.

These errant codices are also predated by MANY, MANY other manuscripts (Textus Receptus) and even the Pe****ta. Long story short, any "biblical scholar" whose research I've read that suggests the end of Mark was added later generally chooses to ignore (literally, altogether fails to address) some very basic flaws with their premise. The fact that non-Christian "biblical scholars" continue to try to make arguments based on these errant codicies is an example of confirmation bias - something you obviously don't like. The "bottom line" is that end of Mark is what it is, and it does contain one of the accounts recording the resurrection of Christ.

All that said, here's a common-sense-type-question: if Mark didn't believe in the resurrection of Christ, why did he spend his life preaching the message of the gospel WHICH IS BASED ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST?

The other gospels and their stories of the ressurection are evidence in favor.... But it is in no way conclusive. It is all hearsay by authors some of whom never met Jesus

What you wrote above isn't correct. Each of the gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) contained in the Bible bears witness to Christ's resurrection, as do the other books of the New Testament canon (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15). Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. Mark may also have been an eyewitness to Christ's resurrection, but I honestly don't know for sure (remember, Christ appeared to over 500 people after His resurrection, and although it isn't recorded whether Mark was one of them, he is recorded historically at having been the "young man" present at Christ's arrest and lived in Jerusalem, and as such, may have been one of the over 500 eyewitnesses). Luke, on the other hand, wasn't an eyewitness. He didn't walk with Christ during his earthly ministry. Luke is, however, regarded by many scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) as having become one of the most careful historians of the ancient world. He painstakingly wrote his account of the gospel after significant research and personal interviews with folks who were themselves eyewitnesses to the things he recorded. That said, please refrain from claiming "it is all hearsay by authors some of whom never met Jesus" in an attempt to suggest the gospel accounts aren't reliable. They are very reliable.

and then selectively edited by the church leaving dozens of gospels entirely out.

People often make this claim, but it isn't correct. I believe we've covered the recognition of the canon in other threads, so I'll be brief. No other gospel accounts that met the standards was "left out". The study regarding the recognition of the canon is very interesting, and the church had every reason to leave out many spurious books that didn't meet the standards of being recognized as Scripture.

No objective viewer would ever be swayed that this story was even probable let alone proven. It requires desire to believe. Positive confirmation bias will handle the rest.

I thank God that your quote above isn't correct. You've committed the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Many, many folks that started out as enemies of the gospel of Christ and truly disbelieved it have become Christians. One early, ancient example was a man by the name of Saul of Tarsus. You know, the one who went around making sure that Christians were executed for being Christians. By God's grace, Christ saved Saul and gave him a new name - Paul. That is the same Paul who God used to write much of the New Testament. From Paul's time to today, many other folks who have undertaken attempts to disprove the Bible and the gospel of Christ have also become Christians. One modern-day example is a man by the name of Lee Strobel (you can read a brief bio of him here: http://www.leestrobel.com/Bio.php). He was an atheist who was the legal editor of the Chicago Tribune whose wife became a Christian. He wanted to convince her she was wrong and so set out to disprove the Bible and what it records. Long story short, he became a Christian and is today a popular apologist. I've met many, many, many Christians who by their own admission weren't "looking for God" and many of whom even believed He didn't exist and never gave Him any consideration. There is a mountain of evidence - folks walking around - that bear witness to the fact that folks become followers of Christ even when they didn't want to.

[hasserl]

Ever hear of CS Lewis? Very well known author, and professor of English at Oxford; was by his own description, dragged kicking and screaming into the Christian faith, BECAUSE of the historical and logical evidences in support of it. In order to remain intellectually honest he could not do otherwise. A former atheist he became one of the foremost Christian apologists, and authored dozens of books on Christianity.

It was very similar for a man by the name of John Warwick Montgomery, an avowed atheist, and an academic's academic, a man with 11 earned degrees, was also forced by intellectual honesty to reject atheism and become a Christian, and is now maybe the foremost Christian apologist today, an author of many books, and a veteran of dozens of debates with well known atheists.

The claim that an objective viewer would not be swayed by the evidence is ridiculous.

[colossians323]

the gauntlet has been set

[Just Dave]

Ever hear of CS Lewis? Very well known author, and professor of English at Oxford; was by his own description, dragged kicking and screaming into the Christian faith, BECAUSE of the historical and logical evidences in support of it. In order to remain intellectually honest he could not do otherwise. A former atheist he became one of the foremost Christian apologists, and authored dozens of books on Christianity.

It was very similar for a man by the name of John Warwick Montgomery, an avowed atheist, and an academic's academic, a man with 11 earned degrees, was also forced by intellectual honesty to reject atheism and become a Christian, and is now maybe the foremost Christian apologist today, an author of many books, and a veteran of dozens of debates with well known atheists.

The claim that an objective viewer would not be swayed by the evidence is ridiculous.

The same thing with Josh McDowell

He set out to prove the Bible wrong.

[e90bmw]

The one thing is true for all "believers", that is, those that believe the Bible, Quran, Teachings of Buddha, atheists, etc.; in a discussion when the person says "that is what I believe, because it's in my teachings". The discussion is over.

You can have a rational discussion about most anything, except what one believes. The discussion/debate ends when one person pulls out the "belief" card.
Oh, and yes, denial of a Supreme Being, is a belief. So atheists have a belief or faith that there is no God.

[Lineman101]

And they want me to join their Cult of Unbelief...

[colossians323]

And they want me to join their Cult of Unbelief...

You don't have enough unbelief?

[Lineman101]

You know colossians, the belief is so strong in me that I can't comprehend not believing. I would assume the opposite is true with the Cult of Unbelief? Their doctrine is certainly presented in a religious way. Why would they care if I believe in nothing? I have never had one from their way try to convince me that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny does not exist! Strange indeed...