The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[Beagle1]

I'm not talking about any of that. I don't care about what was written about anything. All I care about is the reaction of the Apostles. Not what they taught or passed down. They witnessed the event. If a Muslim knew Mohammed personally and knew for a fact everything he said was a lie they would never kill themselves for fake 72 virgins. The Apostles, they saw what happened with their own eyes and STILL were willing to die. It's not dying for a lie or a belief. They knew the truth.

We’ve been over this before. Belief and sincerity are not evidence of truth. Every major religion has sincere martyrs.

 

[Beagle1]

Did you go to Seminary? Are you a Biblical scholar? You are so arrogant to speak in such absolutes. I'm sure I could find 10 other "experts" claiming otherwise.

Seminary ? No. Classes with seminary students? Yes. Biblical scholar? No. Arrogant? No. I am sure you can find 10 other experts. The point I was making is not fringe or arrogant.
It reflects the broad consensus of mainstream biblical scholarship, including many Christian scholars. If you want to argue against this, you should at least acknowledge it’s the majority view, not just some biased personal attack by me.

 

[Beagle1]

Mohammed talked about Jesus in the Koran. It was 500 years later. I'm sure that's more accurate than an account of people who were actually alive during the life of Jesus on Earth.

The question isn’t whether Muhammad’s writings about Jesus are “more accurate.” The question is whether it’s fair to hold Christian sources to one standard and Muslim sources to another. If you reject the Qur’an because it’s based on faith or later tradition, but accept the Gospels despite the same issues, that’s inconsistent.

 

[go_deep]

Many are invited, but few are chosen.
Matthew 22:14

 

[Beagle1]

While I enjoy a nice discussion with someone who is seeking to find Truth, I do not suspect this to be the case with Beagle or the others that have chimed in on this thread. I found it easier to just stop responding because it turned into nothing more than a back and forth, you are saying the same thing over and over type situation.

Like arguing over the semantics of whether someone needs faith to believe in science's explanation of how we all got here, it is a pointless discussion if the people you are discussing with will not see the objective truth that faith is required and simply call it part of the scientific process.

Naturalists vs supernaturalists. CS Lewis early in this post, simply stated that if you are dealing with a naturalist, just stop now. That's where I am at with these guys. As I have told them multiple times, there is enough in just this thread to let them know Truth, it is up to them to determine it for themselves. We have done our job, it is now out of our hands (as if it were ever in our hands).

You can believe in faith-based truth that can’t be proven, but don’t confuse that belief with proof itself.

C.S. Lewis acknowledged this too. He didn’t say to abandon reason, he said that reason has limits and that faith fills the gap when reason runs out. But that’s very different from saying that faith is the same as objective proof.

 

[go_deep]

The question isn’t whether Muhammad’s writings about Jesus are “more accurate.” The question is whether it’s fair to hold Christian sources to one standard and Muslim sources to another. If you reject the Qur’an because it’s based on faith or later tradition, but accept the Gospels despite the same issues, that’s inconsistent.

Muhammad was a pedophile, so no, nothing he said is worth my time, or worthy of comparison. Consider the source.

 

[Beagle1]

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

For Beagle1 and each of you trying to sell Beagle1 on Jesus:

From end to end, the whole counsel of scripture repeatedly hammers home two things, (1) God is incomprehensible, and (2) God's sovereignty is specific.

Understand that Beagle1, Bart Ehrman (+ tons of other liberal scholars) and our lost neighbors and loved ones don't believe in the authority of scripture (they can't, impossible - see bullet points). The hangup that a lot of you "proof" guys are having is that Beagle1's comments and questions are challenging you to prove a God who is comprehensible. Notice that you're not helping Beagle1 by trying to keep within the limits of what man can comprehend. Make sense?

Another way to help Beagle1 and others is to think twice before prescribing any ideas that man can somehow freely will himself to "fear God"/ "have faith"/ "to believe"... That approach is always well-meaning, but often misleading. If you can't resist going that route, it helps others when we provide definitions.

Without God, man does not have the ability to do any of the following:

• fear god (God gives)
• Gospel calling (Holy Spirit)
• call to repentance (Jesus calls sinners to repent and be saved)
• saving faith (a gift, Jesus gives)
• spiritual baptism/filling with the Spirit (Jesus baptizes)
• the illumination of scripture (Holy Spirit)

Each bullet point is a miracle that will lead toward preferring and treasuring Christ and His coming over anything this world can offer.

If you're reading this and not sure what to do with your curiosity... ask a believer in Christ to share the Gospel with you. And from a place of humility, ask God to reveal your sin to you and call you to repentance... And keep after it! That's my challenge. God does the work, and you can't stop him from doing what He is going to do.

I appreciate the thought you put into this.

If God is truly incomprehensible I don’t see how can anyone claim to know anything about his will or character with confidence.

Just ask God for the gift to believe, and if you get it, you’ll understand. That may work within the faith, but it’s not persuasive to someone outside of it. I’ve discussed this quite a bit in prior posts which I think you’ve read so I don’t want to go over old ground.

But once again thanks for the effort and thought you put into this.

 

[Beagle1]

The argument I've heard at times reminds me of flat earthers today. Because they haven't orbited Earth and seen it first hand, they don't believe it, even though all the facts support it.
For the love of conflict...

The flat-Earth analogy actually proves many of my points. The reason most people accept that the Earth is round is because the evidence is concrete and observable , satellite imagery, physics, travel patterns, and direct experimentation all confirm it.

When it comes to belief in God or the resurrection, the situation is different. These are matters of faith, that I know are deeply meaningful to believers, but not empirically provable in the same way. People like me aren’t rejecting truth out of stubbornness, we’re simply saying that faith based claims operate differently than scientific ones.

That doesn’t diminish the importance of your belief, it just means it’s based on something other than the kind of evidence that convinces someone the Earth is round.

 

[JGRaider]

I don't usually wallow in the mud with these type of discussions because most people aren't interested in learning anything, but in a nutshell.....

Psalm 14:1
New Living Translation
Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

Romans 1:20
New Living Translation
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

John 20:29
New Living Translation
Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

 

[go_deep]

The flat-Earth analogy actually proves many of my points. The reason most people accept that the Earth is round is because the evidence is concrete and observable , satellite imagery, physics, travel patterns, and direct experimentation all confirm it.

When it comes to belief in God or the resurrection, the situation is different. These are matters of faith, that I know are deeply meaningful to believers, but not empirically provable in the same way. People like me aren’t rejecting truth out of stubbornness, we’re simply saying that faith based claims operate differently than scientific ones.

That doesn’t diminish the importance of your belief, it just means it’s based on something other than the kind of evidence that convinces someone the Earth is round.

I guess if your going to only take the books of the Bible as the only source, maybe you can question it's validity. Once you take all of the data in the Bible and cross reference it to all historical data, it's horribly hard to refute.
I'll post 2 links to the Shroud of Turin. Watch them in the order posted, I feel like it's a better explanation in that order.

https://g.co/kgs/UhN6jxB

 

[Beagle1]

Muhammad was a pedophile, so no, nothing he said is worth my time, or worthy of comparison. Consider the source.

Yes it’s fair to criticize Muhammad for marrying a young girl. The Bible also contains morally disturbing commands and actions. Does that affect your faith?

Also, if you believe Jesus is the only way and that sincere believers of other religions, including billions who follow God as best they understand, will suffer eternal damnation for following the wrong theology it brings up the big moral question. What kind of just God allows that?

 

[go_deep]

Yes it’s fair to criticize Muhammad for marrying a young girl. The Bible also contains morally disturbing commands and actions. Does that affect your faith?

Also, if you believe Jesus is the only way and that sincere believers of other religions, including billions who follow God as best they understand, will suffer eternal damnation for following the wrong theology it brings up the big moral question. What kind of just God allows that?

A 6 year old girl...

I believe every person will be judged at the end of their life based on what they knew, and what information was provided to them.

I would be a liar if I told you I fully understand every single thing that's written in the Bible, but like I said several times in the past, with out a deep dive into the culture of the people and traditions of the time, many things in the Bible are hard to understand.

Just stop for a minute and think about this, my mom and dad grew up before power and running water in homes, they were 8 and 10 when they got both into their houses, they were about 30 when they got a phone in the house, try and get my teenage kids to understand that, and there's literally only 65 years difference between them, born in the same town. To try and grasp what happened a few thousand years ago in history, without a hard deep dive into why is pointless.

 

[Valsport]

Guy's this isn't intellectual the natural man understands not the the things of God. We dont war against flesh and blood.

 

[BTLowry]

John 14:6
​

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Pretty clear to me

 

[JGRaider]

Yes it’s fair to criticize Muhammad for marrying a young girl. The Bible also contains morally disturbing commands and actions. Does that affect your faith?

Also, if you believe Jesus is the only way and that sincere believers of other religions, including billions who follow God as best they understand, will suffer eternal damnation for following the wrong theology it brings up the big moral question. What kind of just God allows that?

It's called "free will". Every person has it. What you or I or anyone else believes is irrelevant. What matters is the truth. I find the Holy Bible to be true. Some day we'll see won't we?

 

[Beagle1]

I guess if your going to only take the books of the Bible as the only source, maybe you can question it's validity. Once you take all of the data in the Bible and cross reference it to all historical data, it's horribly hard to refute.
I'll post 2 links to the Shroud of Turin. Watch them in the order posted, I feel like it's a better explanation in that order.

https://g.co/kgs/UhN6jxB

Shroud of Turin wasn't laid on Jesus' body, but rather a sculpture, modeling study suggests

A 3D analysis comparing the way fabric falls on a human body versus a low-relief sculpture shows that the Shroud of Turin was not based on a real person.

www.livescience.com

 

[go_deep]

Shroud of Turin wasn't laid on Jesus' body, but rather a sculpture, modeling study suggests

A 3D analysis comparing the way fabric falls on a human body versus a low-relief sculpture shows that the Shroud of Turin was not based on a real person.

www.livescience.com

And I just posted 2 videos to your one from separate sources that say otherwise.

 

[Beagle1]

It's called "free will". Every person has it. What you or I or anyone else believes is irrelevant. What matters is the truth. I find the Holy Bible to be true. Some day we'll see won't we?

Yes, we will see someday. And as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve already addressed the “free will” argument. But since it keeps coming up, let me ask you this:

Do you honestly believe a person born into a remote Amazonian tribe with no access to a Bible, church, missionary, or even the name of Jesus—has the same free will to find Christian salvation as someone born in Georgia or Texas with churches all over.

How is that “equal opportunity” free will salvation?

 

[go_deep]

Yes, we will see someday. And as I’ve mentioned before, I’ve already addressed the “free will” argument. But since it keeps coming up, let me ask you this:

Do you honestly believe a person born into a remote Amazonian tribe with no access to a Bible, church, missionary, or even the name of Jesus—has the same free will to find Christian salvation as someone born in Georgia or Texas with churches all over.

How is that “equal opportunity” free will salvation?

The Catholic Church address this exact question. You will be judged based upon your knowledge and what information has been offered to you.

 

[Beagle1]

And I just posted 2 videos to your one from separate sources that say otherwise.

This is the most recent analysis. And it’s fine that I know you don’t accept it findings but to say the Shroud is strong conclusive evidence is not the case. Even the Catholic Church takes no position on it.