Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It doesn't really sound like we're having the same conversation.No it doesn't. The ideals presented will either work for us, when applied, or they won't. No "argument" is necessary. Just the courage to put those ideals that we believe make the most sense to us, into action.
That's all you know about him?A person who understood who God was, what God's will was. And revealed it to his People.
How do I know?Of course I do not believe in Satan, lol.
But if I would, knowing he is so cunning in deceiving people, I would ask myself: how do I know that this sort of branching off from tradition is not his work? How do you know?
Ciao
- viole
Not really. It isn't on the backs of a few men but on the reliability of the TaNaKh that pointed to the Messiah confirmed by 500 eyewitnesses of a resurrection.What if the small handful of men on whose backs rest the entirety of Christianity were actually liars?
View attachment 43145
It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.
And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.
I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.
Thoughts?
Yes, for any religious or philosophical ideology.
I have no idea. That's what I'm trying to find out from you. Can I get a brief bio on the man/woman from you?What should I know about him?
The remainder of Jer. 31 outlines what the new covenant will entail and it's nothing like Christianity. So the remainder of your interpretation of that passage relies on eisegesis. That being the case, you can't rely on that text for proof.Not really. It isn't on the backs of a few men but on the reliability of the TaNaKh that pointed to the Messiah confirmed by 500 eyewitnesses of a resurrection.
Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
So it was there all along. As Christians, we simply see it fulfilled.
...with the house of Israel...
I guess what Tumah means is we are not "the house of Israel"...We are Gentiles...
The remainder of Jer. 31 outlines what the new covenant will entail and it's nothing like Christianity. So the remainder of your interpretation of that passage relies on eisegesis. That being the case, you can't rely on that text for proof.
If I have understood correctly, @Tumah wants to know how those who didn't witness Jesus' resurrection and miracles (mostly Gentiles) believed those who did witness them.True... true... But can I help it if the New Testament was to the Jew first (The House of Israel) and then (included) to the Gentiles?
If I have understood correctly, @Tumah wants to know how those who didn't witness Jesus' resurrection and miracles (mostly Gentiles) believed those who did witness them.
How do we know that they were not liars... he asks.
If I have understood correctly, @Tumah wants to know how those who didn't witness Jesus' resurrection and miracles (mostly Gentiles) believed those who did witness them.
How do we know that they were not liars... he asks.
Ok, so we can return to your original challenge. Assuming they were liars but not Moses, not Abraham, not any of the Jewish forefathers and prophets.I don't really see how that would ameliorate the point of my OP though.
Returning to your previous post...I assure you Brick, I hold no love for the man. That doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't address a point that he makes on its own validity.
I admit that Christians often do say that but not that the original Christians did. You start by assuming this kind of thing happens from the beginning, but it seems unlikely because of counterposed statements about the law in protestant canon. One statement says there is much value in circumcision in every way. (Romans 3) Another says there is none. (1 Cor 7:19) How can both be there from the beginning when they seem opposite? This is assuming the first are liars and that its all constructed to deceive. It still doesn't work, since they are at odds with themselves. It doesn't work for a conspiracy, because the conspiracy opposes itself.It seems to me that this is greater issue for Christianity that most other religions as Christianity rests almost entirely on the back of a previous code of law that directly commands not to have the very belief that Christianity requires. Unlike Islam which denies that there was a previous code of law different to itself, Christianity says, yes, there were laws that prohibited Christian belief, but those were changed.
And while the Jewish people point to an entire generation of ancestors who received this code of Law via Divine revelation, the Christian must rely on a handful of individuals who are said to have witnessed some miracles which convinced them that this original law had been uprooted.
I've sometimes seen Pascal's wager given as an argument to believe in Christianity. I may be biased, but it seems to me that based on Pastor Noel's words wagering on Christianity is already a pretty heavy risk.
Thoughts?
OOOHhhhhh....
Wouldn't it be the same way as someone of Jewish decent believes in the Exodus and says it is true even though they didn't witness it either?
And yet the whole entire Jewish nation witnessed the parting of the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptian army. And they had the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night constantly before them.
They literally walked around with supernatural events transpiring all the time, including the miraculous mana, the bread from heaven, God provided to them for 40 years.
Yet, still they lacked faith.
So it isn't a thing about seeing with they eyes. The entire generation that left Egypt were left to die in the wilderness because, even after having seen with their own eyes everything that God did, they still lacked faith in him.
Think about that.
Miracles aren't going to prove anything on their own. It is given to false prophets also to be able to do miracles to test the nation:The first century Christians, unlike today, were granted to perform miracles, for the very reason of proving to the Jews that the Christians had Jehovah God's backing.
You could say that it was basically a whole new generation who didn't see it who entered into the promised land and confirmed that what their forefathers said, but did not believe, was not a lie.