Resurrection of jesus christ

[Storyteller]

@Proinsais.
On kindle so cant quote!
Why would it not lend weight to Christ being the Messiah?

[Proinsias]

I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

Alexander the Great was the student of Aristotle, of royal blood and carved out one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen. He acheived the sort of stuff Jesus promised he would to the locals but still hasn't gotten around to doing. Claims of divine birth are common to both Jesus & Alexander. Ultimately it doesn't really matter much if Alexander the Great turns out to be an amalgamation of myth, legend and someone really called Joe the Mediocre, you may be in for some mockery from historians but there's not many people holding that opinion on Alexander the Great is a choice between eternity with a loving God or eternity in hell.

What on earth does the choice between heaven or hell have anything to do with my question to Kenny?

Kenny made it a matter of credibility and I simply asked if he holds to the same level of credibility with any other historical figure. If not Alexander the Great then pick another, how about Napoleon, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Does Kenny hold the same historicity value he does for Jesus as he does for Napoleon or the others with the same eye for (or lack of) credibility? That is my question and you've not addressed it in the least.

How about picking someone who was more akin to Jesus? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc were all hugely famous across the world in their lifetimes, commanded armies, won wars, held power over hundreds of thousands of people......politcal & military giants that changed the world within the time they spent on earth. Jesus seems to have spent most of his chatting to people within a fairly localised area, made little impact on the world in his lifetime and stands in stark contrast to all the others on the list as someone who intended to establish a kingdom on earth but never got round to it.

@Proinsais.
On kindle so cant quote!
Why would it not lend weight to Christ being the Messiah?

I don't see miracles as proof of religious convictions. If he came back from the dead it proves he came back from the dead, not that he was spot on in his reasoning and theological outlook.

[RickD]

Proinsias,

Contrary to your assertion that Christ was going to establish his kingdom on earth, but never got around to it, are the words of Jesus in John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

[Kenny]

Why is there a credibility issue?

They say Rome kept detailed records of events of their day. Today Rome is one of the most Christian spots on Earth yet they have no record of such an event today. If Muslims claimed many saw Mohammad ascend to heaven, do you think many Christians would believe it? Or do you suppose there would be credibility issues.

Do you believe it?

If I did, I would still be Christian.

It took me a long time to get my head around the resurrection. Sometimes it still feels to miraculous, too good to be true but why wouldn`t it be? Why would people risk their lives to spread the Word, to produce Bibles so we could know the truth if it was all a lie?

Now I know people believe all sorts of things, and can be wrong, and die for false beliefs, so what sets Christianity apart? The resurrection. It all hinges on that. No resurrection, no faith. No resurrection, no hope. Which is why I am so enthralled by the shroud.

If scientists prove, without doubt, that it is indeed the shroud of Christ, would that encourage you to believe?

If there were ever an expert on the Shroud, I think that would be the Catholic Church. Yet the Pope refuses to pronounce it as authentic; instead choosing to refer to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins”
To me that speaks volumes.

Ken

[Kenny]

It could, and did, for many. It just seems that even that isn`t enough for some. And that isn`t a criticism, I just find it odd. I mean, what will it take?

How much more of a miracle do people want to believe?

I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.

Ken

I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

If people claimed Alexander the Great preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I would be skeptical of that as well.

Ken

[Proinsias]

Proinsias,

Contrary to your assertion that Christ was going to establish his kingdom on earth, but never got around to it, are the words of Jesus in John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Fair enough Rick, I think the point still stands at least as somone who never had an earthly kingdom.

[Byblos]

It could, and did, for many. It just seems that even that isn`t enough for some. And that isn`t a criticism, I just find it odd. I mean, what will it take?

How much more of a miracle do people want to believe?

I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.

Ken

I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

If people claimed Alexander the Great preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I would be skeptical of that as well.

Ken

Nonsense. You give credibility to the deeds of Alexander the Great simply because they are a matter of historical record without giving it much thought. Yet you deny such to Jesus. Besides which, how exactly can you be certain that what Jesus performed was 'outside the laws of nature'? How do you know that science will not one day explain all the miracles including the resurrection? As you so often state, back in the 1850s microbial diseases would have been thought of as 'outside the laws of nature'.

[Byblos]

How about picking someone who was more akin to Jesus? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc were all hugely famous across the world in their lifetimes, commanded armies, won wars, held power over hundreds of thousands of people......politcal & military giants that changed the world within the time they spent on earth. Jesus seems to have spent most of his chatting to people within a fairly localised area, made little impact on the world in his lifetime and stands in stark contrast to all the others on the list as someone who intended to establish a kingdom on earth but never got round to it.

I'm sorry but that just struck me as very funny. Are you saying these individuals had more of an historical impact than Jesus? I'm not sure either way, though, how it could not support the issue I am contending with Kenny vis-a-vis credibility. The fact remains that as a purely historical figure, Jesus' historicity is held to a much, much higher standard than any other figure in history. And I hope you're not gonna hide behind some nonsense like 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs'. I'd really be very disappointed.

[Kenny]

It could, and did, for many. It just seems that even that isn`t enough for some. And that isn`t a criticism, I just find it odd. I mean, what will it take?

How much more of a miracle do people want to believe?

I can't speak for those people 2000+ years ago, but I think for the people of today there is the credibility issue.

Ken

I presume then you have the same credibility issues with any other historical figure such as Alexander the Great. If not, why not.

If people claimed Alexander the Great preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I would be skeptical of that as well.

Ken

Nonsense. You give credibility to the deeds of Alexander the Great simply because they are a matter of historical record without giving it much thought. Yet you deny such to Jesus. Besides which, how exactly can you be certain that what Jesus performed was 'outside the laws of nature'? How do you know that science will not one day explain all the miracles including the resurrection? As you so often state, back in the 1850s microbial diseases would have been thought of as 'outside the laws of nature'.

I give credibility to the deeds of Alexander the Great because the historical record sounds realistic. The idea that some leader did a bunch of stuff leaders often did years ago sounds realistic. Now if science proves it is possible to walk on water, heal blind, raise people from the dead, and all the other miracles Jesus is said to have done; without going outside the laws of nature, I will at that time change my mind; but until then I will remain skeptical.
I didn't think of it before until you reminded me when I read your reply to Proinsias; but extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary proofs. Disappointed or not; if you tell me you have a chicken that lays eggs, I will take you at your word and probably be willing to buy a chicken from you if I were in the market for one. But if you tell me you have a chicken that lays golden eggs, and you were willing to sell it to me at a fair price; now your word is no longer sufficient; I will require at minium to see this under observed conditions before I shell out that kind of money

Ken

[Proinsias]

How about picking someone who was more akin to Jesus? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln etc were all hugely famous across the world in their lifetimes, commanded armies, won wars, held power over hundreds of thousands of people......politcal & military giants that changed the world within the time they spent on earth. Jesus seems to have spent most of his chatting to people within a fairly localised area, made little impact on the world in his lifetime and stands in stark contrast to all the others on the list as someone who intended to establish a kingdom on earth but never got round to it.

I'm sorry but that just struck me as very funny. Are you saying these individuals had more of an historical impact than Jesus? I'm not sure either way, though, how it could not support the issue I am contending with Kenny vis-a-vis credibility. The fact remains that as a purely historical figure, Jesus' historicity is held to a much, much higher standard than any other figure in history. And I hope you're not gonna hide behind some nonsense like 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs'. I'd really be very disappointed.

Always glad to entertain. I'm saying the impact of the others was felt within their lifetimes as domineering figures in world politics, wars and the establishment of nations, empires and whatnot. The impact of Jesus has arguably eclipsed all of them but his influence has grown over hundreds and thousands of years, the height of his fame is long after he left the earth. For a more apt comparisson I would venture someone like John the Baptist....a religious figure in the ancient near east mentioned in the Gospels, by Josephus and gaining worldwide fame long after he left the earth.

The historicty of Jesus is something that is often described as being accepted by 'most scholars', 'almost all scholars', 'near unanimity'.....this sort of stuff is not the case with George Washington - I'm not aware of any phd level academics specializing in the life and times of George Washington claiming he didn't exist....this is not the case with Jesus....we may laugh at Robert Price but he's more educated than either of us on these matters and thinks the historicity of Jesus is heavily suspect.

I for one would be very suprised if any of the figures we're talking about didn't exist but Jesus & John the baptist would surprise me far less than George Washington or Napoleon being more myth than reality.

[EssentialSacrifice]

They say Rome kept detailed records of events of their day. Today Rome is one of the most Christian spots on Earth yet they have no record of such an event today

You can't use Roman "detailed records" of 2000 years ago as proof or not of a single event if you can't use them for events that took place that numbered in the thousands and were not recorded, such as crucifixions ... surely there were, but almost none have been recorded in antiquity. Jesus is famous now, He was barely a blip on the Roman radar then.

If Muslims claimed many saw Mohammad ascend to heaven, do you think many Christians would believe it? Or do you suppose there would be credibility issues.

That's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.

If there were ever an expert on the Shroud, I think that would be the Catholic Church.

why would you think that? The church has never been or intimated themelves as an authoratative expert on the shroud and has in fact never said anything other than refering to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” It's why the Church, knowingly allowed the Shroud to be subjectd to 2000 hours of true scientific research, even tho said scientific research may have conclude it as a forgery and thereby relinquishing it even as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” . Unafraid ken, of the religious consequences to reach the truth.To me that speaks volumes. Ante Mortem Contumeliam

Yet the Pope refuses to pronounce it as authentic; instead choosing to refer to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins”

Yeah, you see he has a responsibility to over 1 billion Catholics not to besmurch the Church by making unfounded claims, If the Shroud had a chinese laundry ticket that said "no ticky no washy, property of Jesus of Nazareth" they still wouldn't authenticate it as people would likely say... "Oh come on, how many Jesus's were there in Nazareth at that time... it could have been any one of them !" Again, Ante Mortem Contumeliam To me that speaks volumes.

[Kenny]

That's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.

My point is, if christians are reluctant to accepta (what you might consider) false/other religious claims; it shouldn’t surprise you if those of other religions or no religion at all are reluctant to accept Christian claims.

That's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.TThat's kinda the point. He didn't, they didn't say he did and therefore no credibility issues arise. Unless you use the word "if". The writer of the quran (God) would have let us know if Mohammad was ascended. http://www.missionislam.com/quran/whowrote.htm That to me speaks volumes.why would you think that? The church has never been or intimated themelves as an authoratative expert on the shroud and has in fact never said anything other than refering to it as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” It's why the Church, knowingly allowed the Shroud to be subjectd to 2000 hours of true scientific research, even tho said scientific research may have conclude it as a forgery and thereby relinquishing it even as “an icon that inspires genuine faith regardless of its historical origins” . Unafraid ken, of the religious consequences to reach the truth.To me that speaks volumes. Ante Mortem Contumeliam


Yeah, you see he has a responsibility to over 1 billion Catholics not to besmurch the Church by making unfounded claims, If the Shroud had a chinese laundry ticket that said "no ticky no washy, property of Jesus of Nazareth" they still wouldn't authenticate it as people would likely say... "Oh come on, how many Jesus's were there in Nazareth at that time... it could have been any one of them !" Again, Ante Mortem Contumeliam To me that speaks volumes.

The Catholics have had the Shroud for over 500 years! You don’t think any of those “Catholic Scientists” have taken a peek at it to see if they could claim it as authentic?
If all of those Christian scientists are reluctant to call it authentic, I wouldn’t be holdin’ my breath waiting for those evil atheist scientist to do so. (LOL)

Ken

[EssentialSacrifice]

My point is, if christians are reluctant to accepta (what you might consider) false/other religious claims; it shouldn’t surprise you if those of other religions or no religion at all are reluctant to accept Christian claims.

Not much of a point... nothing you say surprises me anymore and other religions can think whatever they want... reluctance aside... don't care...

The Catholics have had the Shroud for over 500 years! You don’t think any of those “Catholic Scientists” have taken a peek at it to see if they could claim it as authentic?

Soooo you got proof of this, or are you just talkin out your hat again (your hat must be exhausted)... find the link where "Catholic Scientists" took a peek...
"cause you said so doesn't count" ken

If all of those Christian scientists are reluctant to call it authentic, I wouldn’t be holdin’ my breath waiting for those evil atheist scientist to do so. (LOL)

Over 80% of the scientists that STURP used were not Christian... do your homework ken... quite a few of them converted after research... I'm not holding my breath for nothin... don't need to, my faith, as most here on site, is not determined by the Shroud's potential authenticity... it's just cool that it hasn't been ruled out yet ... after the most extensive research on any religious article in the history of man...do your home work ken... LOL

[Kenny]

Dang bro! Didn't know you was gonna come at me that way! Look I ain't trying to challenge or offend, someone asked my opinion of the shroud and I told them. To me it's really a non-issue. Judging from your reaction this is obviously a very important subject to you, it's something you believe in and I ain't trying to take that away from you. I am not trying to deconvert you or anyone else here; I was just answering a question that was asked of me; Okay? Are we cool now?

Peace
Ken

[Storyteller]

Ken,

Have you actually read any of Bips thread on the shroud?

I find it curious that there have been so many scientists that were atheists before studying the shroud yet became Christians after researching it. Does that count for nothing?
The shroud has been studied, really hard, yet no one can disprove (or prove, to be fair) it`s authenticity. That speaks volumes to me.
The circumstantial evidence that it was indeed the shroud of Christ is pretty compelling. How, as an atheist then, do you explain the image on the shroud? We can`t, with all our knowledge and scientific processes, recreate that image today.
The blood clots, the pollen, all of the little details strongly suggest it is the real deal.

(edited to add, just read that through and realise it may come across as aggressive, it isn`t meant like that at all. x)