Is there a true church?

[glassjester]

Perhaps the more accurate question would be what evidence would convince us that this DID NOT literally happen?

Are you saying you do believe, now? Are you changing your stance?

I think you have to assume something didn't happen, unless there's positive evidence that it did.

You can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.



So... what evidence would convince you that God entered time and space? That He literally lived as a man, died as a man, and rose from the dead.

 

[glassjester]

If I say there's a pink elephant standing behind you, it's not up to you to prove it's not there. There had better be good evidence of my claim, or you'd be right to reject it as false.

 

[Crucible]

Perhaps the more accurate question would be what evidence would convince us that this DID NOT literally happen?

The apostles, the martyrs, eyewitnesses..

It was never taken metaphorically by anybody. There were those who accepted it, and those who rejected it.

Simply put, it's your standing that is completely arbitrary and indefensible.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Are you saying you do believe, now? Are you changing your stance?

I think you have to assume something didn't happen, unless there's positive evidence that it did.

You can't prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.



So... what evidence would convince you that God entered time and space? That He literally lived as a man, died as a man, and rose from the dead.

No I am not. I'm saying we can use common sense to figure out that the story of Jesus is not literal.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

The apostles, the martyrs, eyewitnesses..

It was never taken metaphorically by anybody. There were those who accepted it, and those who rejected it.

Simply put, it's your standing that is completely arbitrary and indefensible.

I think you have it in reverse.

 

[glassjester]

No I am not. I'm saying we can use common sense to figure out that the story of Jesus is not literal.

You agreed it would be possible for God to do those things.

So, if He did, what evidence would you expect there to be?

 

[patrick jane]

No I am not. I'm saying we can use common sense to figure out that the story of Jesus is not literal.

You're saying the Lord Jesus Christ didn't die for all our sins and rose the 3rd day. That His death wasn't literal. That borders on blasphemy.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

You agreed it would be possible for God to do those things.

So, if He did, what evidence would you expect there to be?

I don't know and I don't think it's important enough for me to come up with an answer. What good is speculation going to do? I don't have time for guessing games. All I can go off is my own experience of reality.

 

[glassjester]

All I can go off is my own experience of reality.

That's simply untrue.

You accept eyewitness testimony for all types of things, don't you?
History cannot be experienced by you, yet you accept many historical events as true.

Do you believe that Mount Everest exists?
Do you believe George Washington existed?

If your answer is "yes" for either of those, than you accept things as true, even without your own direct experience of them.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

That's simply untrue.

You accept eyewitness testimony for all types of things, don't you?
History cannot be experienced by you, yet you accept many historical events as true.

Do you believe that Mount Everest exists?
Do you believe George Washington existed?

If your answer is "yes" for either of those, than you accept things as true, even without your own direct experience of them.

For the most part I do. And I did the same with the story of Jesus. In fact I know he was a real man who walked the earth. The traditional interpretation of the story is not literal, however. It's symbolism for the soul.

 

[journey]

No I am not. I'm saying we can use common sense to figure out that the story of Jesus is not literal.

The story of Jesus Christ is a matter of recorded history, so you lack common sense. Even our time is set by Him (B.C., A.D.). It isn't hard to believe if you look at the evidence.

 

[glassjester]

For the most part I do. And I did the same with the story of Jesus. In fact I know he was a real man who walked the earth. The traditional interpretation of the story is not literal, however. It's symbolism for the soul.

Whose eyewitness testimony do you believe, when you say that you know Jesus was a real man who walked the earth?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

The story of Jesus Christ is a matter of recorded history, so you lack common sense. Even our time is set by Him (B.C., A.D.). It isn't hard to believe if you look at the evidence.

Nonsense. Everyone knows the story is not entirely literal. You are the one who lacks common sense if you think a man can ascend into the sky. It's symbolism.

 

[glassjester]

Nonsense. Everyone knows the story is not entirely literal. You are the one who lacks common sense if you think a man can ascend into the sky. It's symbolism.

Not just a man.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Whose eyewitness testimony do you believe, when you say that you know Jesus was a real man who walked the earth?

We're side-stepping the issue. It doesn't matter. The interpretation is not meant to be taken literally. I doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Most people just believe it wit for word because they don't have a better explanation. No one really understands the message. The true meaning has been lost in favor of something more palatable to the masses and more convenient for enterprise. This we gain the whole world and lose our own souls in the process.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Not just a man.

So we are adamant about making a God in our own man-made image? The golden calf of worship? Do you suppose it is okay to define God in our own terms? Does man define God or does God define man? It's convenient to ignore the commandment if thou shall not make any graven images. God has no image. He is infinite and eternal. We've got the story twisted.

 

[glassjester]

We're side-stepping the issue. It doesn't matter.

It matters.

How do you know that Jesus was a man that walked the earth?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

It matters.

How do you know that Jesus was a man that walked the earth?

The gospels. Please do not imply that they need to be taken literally when that is clearly not the case. If it is, then provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[glassjester]

The gospels. Please do not imply that they need to be taken literally when that is clearly not the case. If it is, then provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

I agree with the highlighted text, and even stated the very same, in post #241.


You believe the gospels accurately report that Jesus existed. Ok.



Are the gospels an accurate, historical record of Jesus' birthplace?
Are the gospels an accurate, historical record of Jesus' words?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

I agree with the highlighted text, and even stated the very same, in post #241.


You believe the gospels accurately report that Jesus existed. Ok.



Are the gospels an accurate, historical record of Jesus' birthplace?
Are the gospels an accurate, historical record of Jesus' words?

I would say yes for the most part. But would you say it is more likely that Jesus literally raised a man from the dead or is it more likely the miracle points to reconnecting with the lost child-like part of us and thus renewing our sense of purpose in life for example? Would it be more likely that Jesus was literally born of a virgin or would it be more likely that it points to the unconditional, universal and undivided nature of the soul? Be honest.