Proof that Jesus lived?

[linwood]

Mine is the best........by far...:biglaugh:
He's got a degree in everything and has no bias...:biglaugh:

I agree, you win!

Now, on with our regularly scheduled thread please?

:bounce

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wikipedia...as a resource? I won't even go there.

You should some time. The articles are quite good. I have been very impressed with it. I use it all the time.

Long live saint wikipedia!!

 

[Buttercup]

I think Wikipedia is a questionable source to be honest...and I say that after quoting the site myself. Anyplace that Homer Simpson could go in and edit himself may not be a good thing.

And, if we aren't going to allow a 'battle of the scholars", then I shall adjourn from this thread. I mean, what's the point of debating if no one reading this thread will accept another's expert sources? It's a waste of my time.......

 

[linwood]

I think Wikipedia is a questionable source to be honest...and I say that after quoting the site myself. Anyplace that Homer Simpson could go in and edit himself may not be a good thing.

I was considering that too after the recent problem they had with the false editting of an article.

However I`ve recently been using Wiki a bit in my BoM debate and checked out the editors pages.

These people go to great lengths to acheive what they call NPOV (Nuetral point of view.)

Click one of the "discussion" tabs at the top of every wiki article and have a look at what goes on behind the articles.
Pick a controversial topic and you`ll see how these people struggle in their attempts at neutrality.
Brittanica never had anything like this.

It`s really pretty cool to read.

 

[Mister_T]

Dear lord we are having a battle of scholars.

:biglaugh:

YES! MY DAD IS BETTER THAN YOUR DAD! Knockout

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was considering that too after the recent problem they had with the false editting of an article.

However I`ve recently been using Wiki a bit in my BoM debate and checked out the editors pages.

These people go to great lengths to acheive what they call NPOV (Nuetral point of view.)

Click one of the "discussion" tabs at the top of every wiki article and have a look at what goes on behind the articles.
Pick a controversial topic and you`ll see how these people struggle in their attempts at neutrality.
Brittanica never had anything like this.

It`s really pretty cool to read.

I use it every day in doctoral research.

I'm reading stuff in four or five languages, and I don't have time to get up from my desk and hunt around for little things. I started using Wiki because of this website. It's been a life saver.

Just this week I was reading a French article and found some inscriptions on a temple in Panarama. No country name listed. Wiki was there. Panarama is Panorama, Greece, a suburb of Thessolonica. They were inviting people from Rhodes to a banquet. Both cities were introduced to Chrsitianity by Paul, and he used the same words in Romans 1... Wiki kicks a$$!

I wrote a paper on philosophy last semester and used Wiki all the time to get dates and look up abbreviations. I am SOLD.

EDIT: Incidentally, Wiki has a great article on the historicity of Jesus

 

[Mister_T]

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a good read. I wish I could post that whole book on this thread. Makes a pretty good case.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a good read. I wish I could post that whole book on this thread. Makes a pretty good case.

I haven't read it, but I don't have a whole lot of respect for Christian aplogetics. I disagree with their basic premises.

I'll fight some of these guys to the death.Knockout

Our faith is not the product of reason, so it cannot be attained by reason. If so, we would be earning our salvation, which is a fundamental contradiction to the Gospel.

EDIT: Is this available for free online? You can post a link. If not, I'll read it sometime this weekend and get back with you.

 

[Smoke]

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a good read. I wish I could post that whole book on this thread. Makes a pretty good case.

I haven't read it, but I know from The Case For a Creator that Lee Strobel is intellectually dishonest. I would hate to have such a person as a defender of my faith.

 

[Mister_T]

I haven't read it, but I don't have a whole lot of respect for Christian aplogetics. I disagree with their basic premises.

I'll fight some of these guys to the death.Knockout

Our faith is not the product of reason, so it cannot be attained by reason. If so, we would be earning our salvation, which is a fundamental contradiction to the Gospel.

EDIT: Is this available for free online? You can post a link. If not, I'll read it sometime this weekend and get back with you.

Nah. I don't think it is. Case For Faith is a good one too.

 

[Mister_T]

I haven't read it, but I know from The Case For a Creator that Lee Strobel is intellectually dishonest. I would hate to have such a person as a defender of my faith.

Could you eloborate on the intellectually dishonest part?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would hate to have such a person as a defender of my faith.

That's the beautiful thing about Christianity. We believe that God redeems humans by His grace. No one deserves God's redemption, it is a free gift that God gives those whom God chooses. There is no partiality with God. We believe that Jesus ate with sinners. I think that he can handle Lee Stobel or anyone else who may do dishonest things in His Holy Name. Lee isn't even close to the tip of that ice-berg.

I know who I am as a Christian.

 

[Smoke]

Could you eloborate on the intellectually dishonest part?

I'd rather not get too much into it, since it's off-topic as well as being a tiresome subject. But apart from his dishonest conclusions about the evidence, there is his pretense that he objectively considered the evidence and came to the reasonable conclusion.

On topic, there just isn't any intellectual argument adequate to demonstrate the existence of God, or Christian beliefs about Christ, and any god that could be encompassed by that kind of reasoning would be unworthy of worship anyway.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

On topic, there just isn't any intellectual argument adequate to demonstrate the existence of God, or Christian beliefs about Christ, and any god that could be encompassed by that kind of reasoning would be unworthy of worship anyway.

Bingo! You're ready to worship. I'll save a spot for you on Sunday!!

The fact that God is utterly unknowable by reason does not limit God's actual power to reveal God, not humanity's ability to commune with God. God can empower anyone that God chooses, and blessed are the ones that seek to know God by faith! May God have mercy on us all!!

 

[Mister_T]

Could you eloborate on the intellectually dishonest part?

Nevermind. I read some critiques. They did point out an obvious bias. But then again, the critics are biased themselves. Makes you realize that there really is no gray area in bias. Still a good read.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nevermind. I read some critiques. They did point out an obvious bias. But then again, the critics are biased themselves. Makes you realize that there really is no gray area in bias. Still a good read.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Mister_T again.

 

[Mister_T]

I'd rather not get too much into it, since it's off-topic as well as being a tiresome subject. But apart from his dishonest conclusions about the evidence, there is his pretense that he objectively considered the evidence and came to the reasonable conclusion.

On topic, there just isn't any intellectual argument adequate to demonstrate the existence of God, or Christian beliefs about Christ, and any god that could be encompassed by that kind of reasoning would be unworthy of worship anyway.

Accepting things at face value is something a lot of Christians are guilty of. And some of their answers to questions are intellectualy dishonest. But like A.E. said, faith is the major factor in Christianity. Not un-intelligent answers.

 

[Mister_T]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Mister_T again.

What did I do???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What did I do???

Nevermind. I read some critiques. They did point out an obvious bias. But then again, the critics are biased themselves. Makes you realize that there really is no gray area in bias. Still a good read.

Reading the reviews then recanting. I read reviews on just about everything that I use in my research. It is a very good practice to understand how learned people view the sources that you use. They can tell you how it fits into its context, what it means to the study, and most importantly, its strengths and weaknesses.

And you can still say that it is a good read. You agree that it can be flawed, yet you still enjoy it. One can do no better.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is a good read. ... Makes a pretty good case.

What, in your opinion, is his strongest evidence ... and why?