RE: The usual introductions
September 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm by Simon Moon.)
(September 14, 2012 at 6:49 am)Grazer501 Wrote: It was a number of things that slowly built up over time
In other words, you succeeded in making yourself gullible enough to believe anything.
Funny how, after being an atheist, the religion you just so happen to start believing is the one that is the dominant one in they culture you were brought up in. What a lucky coincidence that it just so happens to be the 'one true religion', huh?
Quote:Inference/evidence of design, historical evidence for Jesus's existence and resurrection, my own experiences at the time and the testimonies of the Christians I had met.
There is no contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' historical existence.
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place——when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Seneca, Plutarch, Justus were also contemporaries of Jesus. They also fail to mention him. Early Christians were so surprised that Seneca did not mention Jesus, they forged letters between him and Paul. Looks like 'lying for Jesus' was an early practice.
Even if Jesus existed historically (I believe the Biblical 'Jesus' was likely based on a real person), you can't smuggle in supernatural claims on the back of history.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
