The 'Faithful'

[genkaus]

There would be no religion in the absence of some revelation.

Revelation is unnecessary. We just need experiences we cannot explain.

[JohnDG]

The only evidence I have ever seen is copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of one person's opinion of a story another person told him after hearing it from somebody else.

[CaseyTheAthie]

The only evidence I have ever seen is copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of one person's opinion of a story another person told him after hearing it from somebody else.

Basically....

[FallentoReason]

Yeah well, unfortunately, a Swedenborg guy isn't the best person to answer that kind of question. In the New Church God is more human than we are, i.e. the source of our humanity. There couldn't be a non-human messiah.

So I take it the messiah can't be non-human because of what you said here:

Or why anti-theistic atheists can't handle the possibility of humans having a spiritual aspect :-) ...

It's the victory over sin thing (Christ Victorious)...if Jesus could overcome the limits of his physical existence then he has the authority to guide us through the same process.

What makes you think that bit of theology is 'original', that he overcame the limits of his physical existence? It all depends on whether he was human or not which is something that isn't very clear to me.

In those times, the belief in these saviour gods included a 'human aspect' but with the saviour god still being in the heavenly sphere somewhere up in the sky. Mithra slaying the bull is an example of this, which apparently was good enough for salvation. The inscription found at caves goes like this: Us too you have saved by shedding blood which grants eternity.

Could it be possible that Paul and friends believed Christ to be of a similar nature?

[Godscreated]

Something that I'm having a hard time understanding is why Christians have a problem with the possibility that Jesus wasn't a physical being. To me this screams evidentialist and NOT people of faith.

Let's forget about whether the NT is true or not for a second. What I observe is that all Christians fall back on the NT as proof of what has come to pass. This blows faith out of the water because what you're really claiming is that there's solid evidence for God through what Jesus Christ did. If this is so, then it makes perfect sense the reactions we see on here when we talk about the 'Jesus myth' if, and only if, you're an evidentialist. Why only if you're an evidentialist? Because the True Believer™ would have the faith that their god has everything under control, that if the evidence shows the Creator didn't come to earth and never intended to but instead showed himself to apostles through revelations, then that's how it is. What I see though is that you necessarily need Jesus to have been on earth for it to mean anything to you. Your 'faith' relies on evidence, which makes you an evidentialist.

EDIT: in a nutshell; pics or it didn't happen => I'm not putting my faith in that. Why do you need the evidence to have faith?

The knowing Christ lived as a physical man comes only after faith, you are trying to put the horse before the cart. Scripture tells us that Christ had to die for the atonement of our sin, a spirit could not die a physical death nor shed blood to cover our sin. A spiritual Christ could not have lived and been tempted to become the perfect Lamb for mankind. It seems to me you are the one who wants absolute evidence, I did not require it, it was given to me after I believed.

---

@ Chadwooters, good to have you back my brother, missed your concise arguments and your faithful stance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A spiritual Christ could not have lived and been tempted to become the perfect Lamb for mankind.

I could not have said it better.

Fallen, a spirit-only savior could be a guide. That is true. However, a spirit-only savior would lack the authority of someone with actually field experience. A human savior has both theoretical and practical experience. But I also agree Christianity is not original in this respect. Buddha also seems to qualify as one who "overcame" human weakness, but my understanding of that tradition is limited.

[FallentoReason]

The knowing Christ lived as a physical man comes only after faith, you are trying to put the horse before the cart. Scripture tells us that Christ had to die for the atonement of our sin, a spirit could not die a physical death nor shed blood to cover our sin. A spiritual Christ could not have lived and been tempted to become the perfect Lamb for mankind. It seems to me you are the one who wants absolute evidence, I did not require it, it was given to me after I believed.

What I'm wondering is if this miracle of knowledge works in every field. I'm studying to be an engineer, but from what I've gathered here, if I have the faith that I am an engineer then all I need to know will come to me.

Engineering, nor history, works like this of course. That's great that 'through faith' you claim to have uncovered mysterious knowledge not known to you before, but I'm concerned with evidence i.e. the tangible. Aside from this, there's nothing that you've said which debunks the mentality of the time. People believed in spiritual occurences all the time just like in Mithraism. What you don't seem to understand is that these spiritual beings were believed to obtain human qualities. These saviour gods suffered like humans would, but somewhere in the heavely realms.

Fallen, a spirit-only savior could be a guide. That is true. However, a spirit-only savior would lack the authority of someone with actually field experience. A human savior has both theoretical and practical experience. But I also agree Christianity is not original in this respect. Buddha also seems to qualify as one who "overcame" human weakness, but my understanding of that tradition is limited.

I know what you're saying, but it's none of my problem if in reality the authority of the NT didn't have field experience. We can only take as truth the things that have credible evidence for, independent of what we want the ideal situation to be.

[Godscreated]

The knowing Christ lived as a physical man comes only after faith, you are trying to put the horse before the cart. Scripture tells us that Christ had to die for the atonement of our sin, a spirit could not die a physical death nor shed blood to cover our sin. A spiritual Christ could not have lived and been tempted to become the perfect Lamb for mankind. It seems to me you are the one who wants absolute evidence, I did not require it, it was given to me after I believed.

What I'm wondering is if this miracle of knowledge works in every field. I'm studying to be an engineer, but from what I've gathered here, if I have the faith that I am an engineer then all I need to know will come to me.

Engineering, nor history, works like this of course. That's great that 'through faith' you claim to have uncovered mysterious knowledge not known to you before, but I'm concerned with evidence i.e. the tangible. Aside from this, there's nothing that you've said which debunks the mentality of the time. People believed in spiritual occurences all the time just like in Mithraism. What you don't seem to understand is that these spiritual beings were believed to obtain human qualities. These saviour gods suffered like humans would, but somewhere in the heavely realms.

What a terrible example you have given, the truth comes through the studying of scriptures so that God can reveal many truths, is not that mysterious knowledge exactly what Paul spoke about.

[FallentoReason]

What a terrible example you have given, the truth comes through the studying of scriptures so that God can reveal many truths, is not that mysterious knowledge exactly what Paul spoke about.

Indeed that's what Paul spoke about. You're catching on. Now tell me, where does Paul say he got his information from? A man who was sent from heaven and preached for 3 years, or through the spirit?

[Whateverist]

As to the OP, I've often wondered at this myself, though not in the same words. For all the talk of faith it has always seemed to me that Christians generally have very little of it. For them the bible is a contract setting out the terms under which they accept God. They do not humbly open themselves to God but rather claim utter certainty that He is exactly as promised. Faith shouldn't be the word they use.

Then again what they do with "belief" isn't much better. For me, to believe is synonymous with finding credible. But among Christians "belief" becomes a form of fervent wishing.