My big problem with Christianity

[cinch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, and the Romans are just going to let the disciples close to Christ so that they can pull him off the cross. They poked his side with a spear and watched the blood and water run from the wound.

This is if you take the "Christ's Crucifixion" theatrics as the gospel (zing!) truth. It was not beyond a Roman footsoldier to feel compassion for Christ, or perhaps even be a closeted follower of him.

I don't think it's completely crazy-wacko-insane to consider the possibility that Yehoshua ben Yosef could have been rescued from the cross.

[Verto]

Originally posted by cinch

(B) He lead the Arabs to surprising military and geopolitcal dominance in a short amount of time, and established an 'empire' that would influence the region for centuries to come.

Didn't Napoleon do the same with the French?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you make that argument, then you need to find a credible way to explain the following phenomenons.

1. Why did the Christian church grow? Why would all the people follow a religion of a man who was simply out of his mind? WIthout the resurrection, there is no reason to believe that christ is the Son of God.

2. Why would the disciples want to rescue Christ from the cross? If they believed that he was the promised Messiah, they would expect God to intervene on his behalf. If they intervened, then Christ would not be the Messiah, but simply a man.

3. How do you explain Paul, and the acceptance of Paul by the Christians?

There is very little dispute, however, that Mohammed led his people to victory at Mecca.

If war is the mark of God's favour, than God sided with Genghis Khan.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We would not believe such a thing without the Gospels. There are no alternative explanations that fit the accounts better than the resurrection of Christ.

HUH? There are tons of alternative explanations that could be raised that are more believable than somebody rising from the dead. The "Gospels" are "mans" written/spoken words and are "interpretations". You are welcome to believe that men have actually first, heard the word of our lord... and then ACURATELY passed them on... but that doesn't make them FACT.
It is just as possible that Jesus did not die on the cross.
Your comments that the Romans would have checked to make sure he was dead... or wouldn't let him down alive since they crucified him in the first place isn't a fact... just an assumption. There is no proof either way.
Your explaination is no more supported than any other story I could make up. Because there are NO FACTS.

So to say there are no alternative explanations that fit the accounts better than the resurrection of Christ is a weak personal opinion of yours at best... and supported by nothing other than your faith. Again, you are welcome to believe whatever you want... but you can offer up no proof to support your opinion. It's pure faith... and that's all it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Tons of alternative explanations that fit all the rest of the Gospel accounts? Go right ahead. What are they?

You are welcome to believe that men have actually first, heard the word of our lord... and then ACURATELY passed them on... but that doesn't make them FACT.

Why not? That's exactly what we do with other historical sources. The Gospels meet reliablility standards.

There is no proof either way.

The only account we have says that these things happened. I therefore believe the evidence ought to weigh more heavily on that account. Lacking plausible explanations to the contrary, I see no reason to go against their testimony.

but you can offer up no proof to support your opinion.

Earlier in the thread I posted on the word proof. What standard are you looking for? If you treat the Gospels as you would any other historical source of the time, we could consider them to be excellent proof.

[Ming]

"Could" is the operative word. While you consider them a reliable source, again, there is still no proof. Just a tale... a story... one biased point of view... not anything more... and no proof that it actually happened the way one version happens to claim.
It is just as likely that the roman soldiers had pity on him, let him down, and made up a story that he died so they wouldn't get in trouble... as good as your proof

[Mr. President]

Some stories, especially apocalypticism such as the Book of Daniel, have as much a political motive as a religious one.

Daniel, for instance, was composed shortly after the Persian conquest of the Jewish kingdom. In its most literal interpretation, it is a vision of the end of the world; however, it can also be interpreted, and was widely interpreted at the time, as a proclamation of defiance against the Persian overlord and a call for the reversal of the Jewish nation's defeat.

Or so I've read.

[monkspider]

The truth of the matter is that Jesus had lived the perfect life and thus became perfectly one with God. His purpose here was to set an example for the rest of us.

Did he die on the cross? Yes. Did he appear on earth after his death? Yes. What was the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross, as many posters here have asked? It was just to continue his example he has set for us. It was a beautitful example of perfect love, to willing lay down your life in peaceful opposition to the forces of hate. That is what we should all shoot for.

Luckily, I can say with 100% certainity that the above is true. If anyone has any other questions, I would be pleased to answer them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the point is that the wages of sin is death, the natural outcome of sin is death

I reject the notion of Original Sin. First of all, as I pointed out before, it seems highly unlikely that the big G is less enlightened than us, and we surely do not blame people for the crimes their ancestors commit. Secondly, again, as I pointed out before, how would anybody not figure out Adam and Eve had to eat from that tree? It was bound to happen. Supposedly YHWH is omniscient, surely he would have known beforehand.

Originally posted by Jon Miller
rather he died, and when he died (before even, when he took up the cup in the garden) he took our sin, our sentence, and was the one who did it instead of us

Again this makes absolutely no sense at all. First of all, we don't sentence people for crimes they didn't commit. Secondly, YHWH could just easily cleared us of our "sins."

On a deeper theologial level, if we assume that YHWH is both omniscient and omnipotent, surely he could have chosen, among infinite possibities, the one world that we humans did not, do not, and will not commit any "sins."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is there no reason to believe God to be omnipotent? Let us consider the contrary. St. Anselm argues that God is always the greatest being we can conceive. Therefore, a being that is not omnipotent, would not be god, because we could imagine a higher being.

Um, the Ontological Argument is for the existence of the Judeo-Christianity god, not for whether he's omnipotent or not.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I suggest either going the route that God does not exist, because you wil probably get more distance than trying to argue that God would not be omnipotent.

A person can surely go a long way arguing that YHWH is not omnipotent. Why, there just so many examples around us! Just look at us. Hey, why would we be vulnerable to the HIV virus or the Ebola virus? An omnipotent god could easily made us in such a way that we would be immune to them.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you look at Moslem doctrine, they reject what I have posted that Jesus died on the cross, but rather that he survived, and the disciples rescued him. This has absolutely no basis, because the Roman soldiers, if they crucified someone, would make sure that they killed the person before letting him off the cross.

There are several problems with Jesus's "crucifixion."

The big one is -- there is no mention of "cross" in the original text, or so claimed a former theologian. The original word in Greek means "a stake," not "a cross."

Furthermore, even the gospels mentioned that the Romans had no interest in killing of Jesus, only the Jews did. IIRC, only one of the synoptic gospels mentioned the Roman soldiers stabbed the body after it was removed from the "cross."

[monkspider]

You sound like a person with a lot of questions UR. Is there anything you would like to ask?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Luckily, I can say with 100% certainity that the above is true.

According to a book that was compiled long after the supposedly occurance of the events, in 397CE IIRC, with an eye towards in spreading their religion (read: propaganda). There is absolutely no outside evidence of any of these events.

Does any of these not case doubts on the truthfulness of these events?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


According to a book that was compiled long after the supposedly occurance of the events, in 397CE IIRC, with an eye towards in spreading their religion (read: propaganda). There is absolutely no outside evidence of any of these events.

Does any of these not case doubts on the truthfulness of these events?

Of course! But that is just one of the many reasons that they are not perfect (or even particularly good) accounts of Jesus/Yeshua's life.

Anyway, you would be better to take this arguement with Ben Kenobi then me.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
You sound like a person with a lot of questions UR. Is there anything you would like to ask?

Okay. Do you accept the doctrine that the bible is divinely inspired but reject Papal Infallability? Why (or why not)?