Jesus' Divinity And An Idiot

[Fidei Defensor]

Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur.

Apologetics starts with figuring out the lowest common baseline

-belief in God can be supported through philosophy

-belief in the veracity of the bible through historical methodology

-belief in the teaching authority of the Church through study of the bible

Everything else falls into place for Catholics.

 

And the difference between early Christians and Nazi's is that the Nazi's died for an ideal. Christians died for a person, and the truth of the Resurrection, a historical event.

I didn't mean to use the reference to Nazis in a disrespectful way, only to point out that others have given their lives for way worse reasons, so martyrdom can't be appealed to as best reason to believe in Jesus.

Edited March 12, 2014 by tardis ad astra

[PhuturePriest]

I refrained from posting in this thread because I didnt like the use of idiot. But this is the internet right? So Im not allowed to be upset. Or if I am upset, Im lame? I cant remember the internet rules lol

 

:cry:

 

It might have been slightly uncharitable, but I was highly frustrated at the time because I couldn't comprehend how this person could conflict with her own argument so much and not realize it.

[CrossCuT]

It might have been slightly uncharitable, but I was highly frustrated at the time because I couldn't comprehend how this person could conflict with her own argument so much and not realize it.

 

Oh Ive been there too so my comment wasnt very charitable either. I am fully aware of my own mistakes in name calling. :(

 

It can be SUPER frustrating.

But I disagree with Ice. I think you should debate people (if its something that doesnt cause you stress that is).

I think debates and conversations like this help us learn! I quite enjoy doing it on PM simply from the perspective that if I dont know something, I am forced to go look it up in order to participate in a conversation that interests me. 

 

Not only that but you CAN learn things from others even if you dont want to!  :hehe2:

[PhuturePriest]

Oh Ive been there too so my comment wasnt very charitable either. I am fully aware of my own mistakes in name calling. :(

 

It can be SUPER frustrating.

But I disagree with Ice. I think you should debate people (if its something that doesnt cause you stress that is).

I think debates and conversations like this help us learn! I quite enjoy doing it on PM simply from the perspective that if I dont know something, I am forced to go look it up in order to participate in a conversation that interests me. 

 

Not only that but you CAN learn things from others even if you dont want to!  :hehe2:

 

I debate people about Catholicism because I was always told that as a member of the Church Militant, it is my duty to defend the faith whenever I am called to, and this person was denying the very divinity of Christ and saying she had the Bible to back that up.

[Ice_nine]

I didn't mean to use the reference to Nazis in a disrespectful way, only to point out that others have given their lives for way worse reasons, so martyrdom can't be appealed to as best reason to believe in Jesus.

 

erm, ok how many nazis were willing to die that weren't willing to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays and pretty much anyone else? The witness of the early Christian martyrs is compelling because they were willing to die but not willing to kill.

[PhuturePriest]

erm, ok how many nazis were willing to die that weren't willing to kill Jews, Gypsies, gays and pretty much anyone else? The witness of the early Christian martyrs is compelling because they were willing to die but not willing to kill.

 

I don't think he was comparing Nazis and Christian martyrs, and I don't think it's fair to continue insinuating that he is when he has already clarified he isn't. Analogy =/= comparison.

Edited March 12, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[Ice_nine]

I don't think he was comparing Nazis and Christian martyrs, and I don't think it's fair to continue insinuating that he is when he has already clarified he isn't. Analogy =/= comparison.

 

 

He was making a comparison. An analogy by definition is a comparison. I understand what he was saying. There's been many people who were willing to die for horrible things, but there's a crucial difference between willing to die while concurrently killing the hell out of everybody and willing to die without using lethal violence.

[Fidei Defensor]

He was making a comparison. An analogy by definition is a comparison. I understand what he was saying. There's been many people who were willing to die for horrible things, but there's a crucial difference between willing to die while concurrently killing the hell out of everybody and willing to die without using lethal violence.

I was simply pointing out that there have been people willing to die for way worse reasons than the Christians for Jesus.  In pointing that out, I was trying to say that just because some were willing to die for Jesus, whom they may never have personally met, doesn't necessarily = truth to his claims. It may be evidence, but its not the strongest.

[RC Patriot]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I guess I was referring to those who saw the resurrected Jesus. I mean, it would be like torturing Neil Armstrong to get him to say that the moon landing was a hoax. So we're talking about two different things.

 

Event / Ideal

[Fidei Defensor]

Ah, I see what you mean now. I guess I was referring to those who saw the resurrected Jesus. I mean, it would be like torturing Neil Armstrong to get him to say that the moon landing was a hoax. So we're talking about two different things.

 

Event / Ideal

Indeed, actually having seen Jesus is a bit different. However, I would argue that we don't have a very reliable record of the martyrs that far back, its mostly based on tradition and stories that were passed along.

[RC Patriot]

Indeed, actually having seen Jesus is a bit different. However, I would argue that we don't have a very reliable record of the martyrs that far back, its mostly based on tradition and stories that were passed along.

 

So what, in your opinion, is reliable evidence for the historicity of the resurrection?

[Fidei Defensor]

So what, in your opinion, is reliable evidence for the historicity of the resurrection?

I personally don't think there is any. Like I mentioned, I don't necessarily believe Jesus even existed. An argument can be constructed that a so-called "savior" was constructed from myths and traditions with no reliable historical evidence except the writings written by those biased towards belief or forgeries added to outside documents.

[RC Patriot]

I personally don't think there is any. Like I mentioned, I don't necessarily believe Jesus even existed. An argument can be constructed that a so-called "savior" was constructed from myths and traditions with no reliable historical evidence except the writings written by those biased towards belief or forgeries added to outside documents.

 

Sure enough... I missed that part of your earlier post.

How do you square that belief with the myths and traditions of the Jews prior to Jesus?

As far as I know, prior to Christ, the Jews believed they would be saved by a political savior. In fact, when Pilate gave the Jews a choice to free either Jesus (The Son of the Father) or Barabbas (bar  = son, Abba = father), the Jews chose the revolutionary, Barabbas.

 

This isn't to say that the account is strictly a "historical record," but if Jesus was an invention of tradition, wouldn't it follow that the "savior" tradition would remain consistent?

[Fidei Defensor]

Sure enough... I missed that part of your earlier post.

How do you square that belief with the myths and traditions of the Jews prior to Jesus?

As far as I know, prior to Christ, the Jews believed they would be saved by a political savior. In fact, when Pilate gave the Jews a choice to free either Jesus (The Son of the Father) or Barabbas (bar  = son, Abba = father), the Jews chose the revolutionary, Barabbas.

 

This isn't to say that the account is strictly a "historical record," but if Jesus was an invention of tradition, wouldn't it follow that the "savior" tradition would remain consistent?

 Not necessarily. If you look at how the Christian tradition changed from the Jewish one, the dropping of the many laws and such and instating rules based on love and kinship, it seems that whoever this Jesus was or brought about radical changes which some may have seen as attributes of the savior they were looking for.

 

That being said, its also possible that many of the writings gave attributes to Jesus that they preferred, and it went from there. I don't think Jesus as we know him existed but I'm not above the idea that someone similar to the written about Jesus may have existed, albeit he wasn't divine or anything like that.

[Golden Years]

 Not necessarily. If you look at how the Christian tradition changed from the Jewish one, the dropping of the many laws and such and instating rules based on love and kinship, it seems that whoever this Jesus was or brought about radical changes which some may have seen as attributes of the savior they were looking for.

 

That being said, its also possible that many of the writings gave attributes to Jesus that they preferred, and it went from there. I don't think Jesus as we know him existed but I'm not above the idea that someone similar to the written about Jesus may have existed, albeit he wasn't divine or anything like that.

 

Just out of curiousity, and with all due respect, have you tried praying to Jesus and asking him to reveal the truth about himself to you?  Just wondering if your beliefs are based strictly on analysis of historical evidence or if any are derived from personal experience.