If it could be historically proven to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus rose from the dead after three days and performed various miracles, would you become a Christian? Personally, I wouldn't. I don't see what the big deal is. So, he came back from the dead. So what? What does that make him, some kind of big shot? So because someone comes back from the dead it necessarily follows that I must believe everything they tell me and do everything they say? What kind of bizarre inference is that? Do liars never come back to life? Do people who resurrect never make inaccurate or unreliable claims?
Resurrection = proof of Christianity?
Jeremiah Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Christopher Ward
Not to mention it literally says in the bible that Christians hold holy that you shouldn't follow someone just because they display "signs and wonders".
Christopher Sanders
I'm an atheist and yet I would believe him if he really roses from the death.
I don't think history could prove that kind of things but if we assume it does for the sake of the argument then if you still wouldn't believe him then you are a real life version of that retarded christian strawman of the unbeliever who would never believe not matter what and I'm really surprised that they were right about that.
Adam Mitchell
the tree will be known by its fruit user, jesus message was one of peace, regardless of what his followers did generations later
Gavin Fisher
why would you not follow? Being resurrected and performing all his miracles would be undeniable proof of all the prophecies leading up to him
>what does that make him, some kind of big shot?
it's not about him, but about the will of the Father. I don't have an exact Bible quote, but many times Jesus refers to himself as not doing anything for himself, but rather does the will of Him who sent him (God)
Also in response to your follow up, when it says not to follow people who perform "signs and wonders" are refering to other people who are not Jesus. Jesus is the way so he performs the miracles anyone else would be a false prophet
Isaac Sullivan
Hindus also teach peace (ahimsa), so do Buddhists. That isn't to say they teach mindless pacifism but they generally promote nonviolence and compassion. Hindus and Buddhists also attribute numerous "miracles" and extraordinary phenomena to their sages. On the other hand, they do not consider those phenomena to be a proof of their doctrines (unlike many Christians, who are as obsessed with miracles as they are with proselytism). Fundamentally, the doctrines have to prove themselves by their reasonableness, applicability, and coherence. No quantity of mere phenomena can act as a substitute for a coherent body of doctrines that stands on in its own right without reference to some contingent historical occurrence.
Gavin Long
I'm not denying the human capacity for prophecy. If it exists it is what is known as a "paranormal phenomena", like ESP. Such phenomena are gimmicks at best when it comes to genuine spirituality. They don't prove the truth of any doctrine.
Grayson Adams
How so? if you are able to have siddhis then you are pretty much in the right in hinduism.
Buddhism is only different because he say that indian ascetism is incomplete so the siddhis are not that special but enlightened buddhists have their own special powers anyway.
Aaron Price
right, where is the issue again?
Robert Fisher
Couldn't Jesus have just been a powerful sorcerer or something?
Dylan Anderson
Siddhis are not forbidden by some kind of divine commandment, but they are not the substance of Hindu spirituality. They result from the applications of their methods (assuming they even exist at all), but Hindu spirituality mainly aims at knowledge of God (Ishvara) in the case of Yoga ("Yoga"means union, as in union with God), or knowledge of Brahamn (in the case of Vedanta). Brahman is the ultimate reality that Hindus posit exists beyond God. It is a non-dual reality beyond all oppositions and pairs of opposites (for example the pairs God-World, Creature-Creator, Self-Other etc). They don't base their doctrines on any historical event, it's based on its presumable venerability by anyone who practices their methods.
Josiah Gomez
The issue is why should one preference Christianity because of some mere historical phenomenon like a resurrection? The doctrines have to be able to justify themselves without reference to those kinds of contingencies.
exactly
Kayden Ramirez
>It's about DA JEBUS becuase it's ABOUT DA JEBUS
Christian circular logic at its finest. Doubly amusing because Deuteronomy's injunctions in that passage aren't about false prophets at all, but ones who go off the path, thus proving you either can't or didn't read the text.
Jesus is not biblically prophesied unless you spend a lot of time and energy twisting the prophecies to make them about Jesus. He certainly didn't die for your sins, because the actual Messiah is going to be offering sin offerings in the Third Temple.
Oliver Butler
venerability is a typo I meant verifiability
Gabriel Price
>da xtians r STOOPID
>here's why my beliefs are true
|
|>
|3
|
Thomas Davis
jesus never expected people to believe him mainly to his miracles, he wanted to be believede mainly for his actions.
"Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Still, you are not to be forced to believe anything, faith and spirituality is a personal journey after all, get to know about different religions and reach your own conclussions about their teachings, find the sources, not the preachers.
Blake Martin
>he wanted to be believede mainly for his actions
That's almost as bad (ALMOST). Just because someone does nice things doesn't mean they make reliable claims about ultimate Truth, or spiritual realities.
Sebastian Edwards
in christian theology the temple is not supposed to be a literal one but the body of jesus himself , that's one of the reasons jews and christians have a different interpretation of who the messiah is supposed to be and what he is supossed to do in the world.
Wyatt Garcia
>the prophecy says the one who is to come must do x y and z
>jesus does x w and z, not the one local autorities wanted
>controvesy with high patriarch beggins.
Those words were to prove his legitimacy regarding the prophesies stablished within jewish religion. They were supposed to believe him based on the accomplishment of the "checklist" of events that were supposed to come with his arrival.
Jayden Johnson
Are you making some larger point here that I'm missing?
Aaron Jenkins
...
Isaac Edwards
Not exactly sure what you want me to tell you, christianity is the second chapter after jewish religion, the belief in jesus as the son of god makes sence if you follow the religious expectations of his time, for what the son of god was supposed to do to indicate his arrival.
Other than executing the miracles and actions prophesied before him what further proof you wanted?
Logan Sanchez
>what further proof you wanted?
for the doctrines and teachings themselves to be reasonable, applicable, verifiable, coherent, sound, and metaphysically profound.
Lucas Martinez
Except Jesus didn't fulfill any of the Messianic prophecies (and besides, the locals would have believed that the messiah is a man, not a god). Little, unimportant things like restoring the lost cities of Israel or having foreign kings respect it, or ingathering the lost tribes.
Those words precisely prove he isn't legitimate, which is why Christtards tend to either make up prophecies entirely (Matthew 2:23), or twist around words in ones already existing so that they fit (Isaiah 7:14, for instance)
Andrew Johnson
methaporical interpretations rather than purely mundane interpretations of the prophesies is what let's christianity accept the them as fulfilled, if that is debatable is a different subject altogether, I'm just telling you how it is interpreted and why countless generations have been needed to interpret the difference between what is supposed to be interpreted literally and what not from religious text.
Brandon Powell
What's the reason for the name being different in the second passage you quoted?
Liam Peterson
Be good pardon? What name did I change?
Bentley Barnes
I meant Jesus and Immanuel
Aaron Wright
god is with us
Dominic Cook
Ah, no, I meant something else entirely; the Hebrew says
> הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן,
With a pretirate (and masculine) form for our conception. It isn't "she will conceive and give birth, its "she HAS ALREADY conceived and will give birth". I.e. She is pregnant at the moment of prophecy. You can't make it about Jesus without literally changing the text.
Ryan Kelly
good luck with that, considering the number of years, people, cultures, interpretations, sources, politics and so on that affected the text you have access nowhadays, there is a reason things like theology have been a thing for quite some time.
Luis Williams
Well, that's an interesting question. To me it would be kind of like finding out that Bush really did 9-11. Like, there's so many reasons it's not true and doesn't make sense. Somehow getting it proven would just make me question how dumb reality truly is. I'd accept that it happened, but never understand why it did or why it needed to.
Owen Ross
Nah, in nature lots of things go into a state of sort of suspended animation that might be confused with death. It's certainly possible for a human to appear dead for days, though I doubt the event happened exactly as described.
Parker Robinson
The mental gymnastics have begun.
Carter Cox
Jason Hill
Y'all should really read the Qur'an. It's a lot more put-together than the BUYBULL
Jacob Walker
Yeah, I figured that would happen.
Mason Sanchez
The Koran reads like someone was putting together something they knew was going to be a religion.
Noah Turner
fucking watch the video user
Zachary Watson
no
Samuel Smith
Because that was the intention, they knew that whatever happened there with their prophet was going to be a religion and organized accordingly.
Unlike the bible and christianity as a whole because jews didn't accept Christ as the messiah then the canon and gospel war birthed Christianity.
Connor Sanders
>I'm an atheist and yet I would believe him if he really roses from the death.
That's just a troll for people who think gods and kings are there to serve mortals and not vice-versa.
Jesus makes it clear he's trolling:
> He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’” And he said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”