No Worries, Is it that difficult to say that you're open to the possibility that Christ rose from the dead? Is it that difficult to say that you're open to the possibility that Jesus is God? Is it that difficult to say that you're open to the possibility that the Trinity is the truth? I'd like to give you The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith as gifts. If you're willing to accept my offer, just email me. If you use PayPal, I'll just send you money and you can buy them yourself. "For much of my life I was a skeptic. In fact, I considered myself an atheist ... "As for Jesus, didn't you know he didn't claim to be God? He was a revolutionary, a sage, an iconoclastic Jew—but God? No, that thought never occurred to him! I could point you to plenty of university professors who said so—and certainly they could be trusted, couldn't they? Let's face it: even a cursory examination of the evidence demonstrates convincingly that Jesus had only been a human being just like you and me, although with unusual gifts of kindness and wisdom ... "As far as I was concerned, the case was closed. There was enough proof for me to rest easy with the conclusion that the divinity of Jesus was nothing more than the fanciful invention of superstitious people ... Or so I thought." —The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel
I feel you misunderstood me. I have 100% faith in Islam. The thing I'm "looking for" is something that I haven't been told - and really, nothing has changed my mind so far. This "thirst" you speak of is something you misinterpreted. I have never been so sure of something in my life, but I am open to the possibility that somewhere, something was overlooked. Since I have so much faith in Islam, I'm willing to open all these doors and look into them with a strong heart and see if I left any stone unturned. After all, I'm human, I make mistakes, and for that reason alone, I will not trust my decision 100%. You say you have full faith in Christianity, but do you acknowledge the fact that you're human, and humans make mistakes, and this could be one of them for you? Ofcourse you are, that's the nature of human beings. As for the proof thing - I don't expect full proof. But I expect much better proof. Faith is much more necessary in Christianity, I feel, than in Islam. My faith in Islam was developed literally over 5 or 6 years, I took my steps very cautiously. But with Christinaity, you're saying someone has to have faith FIRST? Personally, I think that's wrong. You look at the proof that exists, you evaluate it, and then you can decide whether or not to have faith in Christianity, and that's how it should work. If everyone followed yoru example of having faith before ANYTHING else, then every child born into every Christian family would remain Christian and never explore other possibilities. You don't know how much I appreciate your offer about the books, but I'm really not much of a book-reader, I haven't read more than a few in my life. Also, I really doubt those books are available here in the Middle East . I will however, look those books up on the net, and read through some summaries, comments, and highlights. I hope you don't think I'm turning you away, I just know that I wouldn't get the chance to read them, so I wouldn't want you to show such a great gesture, and have it go to waist because of me. I very much appreciate the thought though.
Sane, Consider it a standing offer. The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...3369294/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0982220-0296037 The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_1/002-0982220-0296037?v=glance&s=books&st=* You claim to have 100% faith in Islam, but you state that you don't trust 100% your decision to have faith in Islam. That means that you don't really have 100% faith that Islam is the truth. You claim that you are "more than willing" to believe that Christianity is the truth, but you also claim that you believe 100% that Islam is the truth. If you're really "more than willing" to believe that Christianity is the truth, then you don't have 100% faith that Islam is the truth. I'm not saying that I believe very strongly that Christianity is the truth. I'm saying that I know Christianity is the truth, because the Holy Spirit within me lets me know that it is. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). It's good to see that you don't require 100% proof. You misunderstood what I wrote about faith, though. The Christian faith is not a blind faith. If it were, why would I be giving all these reasons to believe in Christ? If Christianity were a blind faith, there wouldn't be any reasons to believe. You would just have to believe. The Christian faith is a faith informed by reason. You can use your ability to reason to evaluate the case for Christianity before you accept Christ. The Case for Christ gives you reasons to believe that Jesus is God the Son. There are many reasons to believe that the Christian faith is the truth. Ultimately, though, accepting Christ is a matter of faith. A person does not have the Holy Spirit within him/her if he/she is not a Christian. When a person accepts Christ, he/she is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who lets him/her know that the Christian faith is the truth. Someone might say to a Christian, "Prove to me that Christianity is the truth and I'll accept Christ." He/she has everything backwards. Accept Christ and God will let you know that Christianity is the truth through the power of the Holy Spirit. It takes humililty to accept Christ when you don't have all the answers. You have to step out in faith.
No Worries, I don't know why you're so obsessed your belief statement / historical statement distinction. I know it's a fact that Christ rose from the dead, but where have I insisted that anyone has to accept it as a fact? Where have I insisted that anyone has to accept "Jesus rose from the dead" as a historical statement? I'm just giving reasons to believe that Christ rose from the dead. You define a "belief statement" as one that requires faith in order to believe. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Historical statement or belief statement? I guess you would call it a historical statement and not a belief statement. But the fact is, it takes faith to believe that Lincoln was assassinated. It just doesn't take that much faith. Still, it requires faith to believe that Lincoln was assassinated. According to your definition then, "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" is a belief statement, because it's one that requires faith to believe. Maybe you'd say it's not really a belief statement, even though it requires faith to believe, because it only requires a tiny, tiny amount of faith to believe. Maybe there's a No Worries faith threshold that distinguishes a No Worries historical statement from a No Worries belief statement. Maybe a statement that requires a tiny, tiny amount of faith to believe is not enough to remove the statement from the No Worries historical statement realm. What about a statement that requires a "tiny" amount of faith, but more than a "tiny, tiny" amount of faith? What about a statement that requires a "small" amount of faith? How do you determine the amount of faith required to believe in a statement, anyway? And how do you measure that faith? Please explain the No Worries methodology used to calculate the amount of faith required to believe in a statement. And what are the terms of measurement for faith according to the No Worries system? We can measure gas by the gallon. We can measure distance in yards. How do you measure faith? And please tell everyone the No Worries faith threshold that distinguishes a No Worries historical statement from a No Worries belief statement. Before, you had two categories: 1. Belief statement; 2. Historical Statement. I guess you had trouble classifying the statement, "Jesus was a real person." Now you're saying that "Jesus lived" is a historical statement "with a low probably of correctness versus solely a belief statement." It's not a belief statement, according to you. It's a historical statement. But then you go on to qualify the degree to which it's a historical statement: So now you have many more categories: 1. Belief statement; 2. 100% Historical Statement; 3. 1% Historical Statement; 4. 2% Historical statement; 5. 3% Historical statement; 6. 4% Historical Statement; 7. 5% Historical Statement; etc. According to you, "Jesus lived" is a "historical statement with a low probability of correctness versus solely a belief statement." Let's say that "Jesus lived" is "a historical statement with a .00000001% "probability of correctness." To you, the fact that it has a certain probability of being true is what distinguishes it from a belief statement. That's why you used the word, "versus." So, in the No Worries system, if a historical statement has a certain probability of being true, then it's not a belief statement. You say that "Jesus rose from the dead" is a belief statement. What's the probability of it being true, according to your calculations? Not 0%, right? How about .00000001%? If it has a .00000001% probability of being true, then should "Jesus rose from the dead" be classified as a historical statement with a .00000001% "probability of correctness"? Or is there a certain No Worries probability of correctness threshold it has to cross before it can be classified as a No Worries historical statement? If there is one, please tell everyone. What is the No Worries probability of correctness threshold that must be crossed before one can classify a statement as No Worries historical statement? 5%? 20%? 33.3%? Why do you have to classify everything for us, anyway? The point is that whether Jesus rose from the dead is a historical issue. I'm just giving reasons to believe that Christ rose from the dead. It's really not that complicated. Can you read my words below and tell me where you think I'm misleading everyone and /or overstating my case?
Dude, your trying to convince somebody who obviously does NOT believe in the religion that Jesue came BACK FROM THE DEAD. There is nothing in the world you can possibly pull up that can convince anyone. Show me the last person that came back from the dead please...
The above is the very definition of blind faith. As for the 100% thing, I'll re-phrase. I have as much faith in Islam as any human being can have in any belief. I asked you if you acknowledge that you're a human and make mistakes, and you didn't answer. If you are 100% sure that Christianity is the truth, but you don't have 100% proof, then you are relying on faith, and that's an area where mistakes are bourne. So do you acknowledge that you, as a human being, make mistakes and therefore that leaves room for you to be wrong about Christianity?
I think No Worries is more than willing to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, he does believe in God (whichever God that may be), and God can do anything. He's not arguing that it couldn't happen, he's simple argunig that maybe it didn't.
This post isn't to anyone specifically. If you're out there and you're evaluating the case for Christianity, I'd like to show you more evidence that Christ rose from the dead. See if you agree with No Worries that the theory of the liberal "scholars" is just as strong as the claim that Christ rose from the dead. Acts 5:29-42 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him." When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ. Let's analyze the theory of the liberal "scholars." 1. Theudas - about 400 followers 2. Judas the Galilean - a band of people 3. Jesus the Christ - "a small but dedicated following" 1. Theudas was killed. What happened to his followers? Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 2. Judas the Galilean was killed. What happened to his followers? After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 3. Jesus the Christ was crucified. What happened to his followers? Acts 2:42-47 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Acts 4:32-37 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet. Faith Informed by Reason What's wrong with that picture if Christ did not rise from the dead? Do you agree with No Worries that the theory of the liberal "scholars" is just as strong as the claim that Christ rose from the dead? I ask all of you who are wondering if the Christian faith might be the truth: Does the evidence point to a dead Jesus Christ who stayed dead, or does it point to a Jesus Christ who died, rose again, and appeared to his disciples and many other people? Theudas was killed, and his followers were dispersed. Judas the Galilean was killed, and his followers were scattered. Jesus the Christ was crucified, and his followers were dispersed. No, check that. Jesus Christ was crucified, and his followers ... 1. devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 2. were all together and had everything in common. 3. sold their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 4. every day continued to meet together in the temple courts. 5. broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved. Jesus Christ was crucified, and his followers ... 6. were one in heart and mind. 7. shared everything they had. 8. sold lands and houses, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. "With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all" (Acts 4:33). What did the apostles do after they were flogged and ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus? "The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 5:41-42). Gamaliel was a smart man. He said, "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:38-39). He was right. The behavior of Jesus' followers does not make sense if you insist that Jesus died and that he stayed dead. Their behavior is exactly what you'd expect from them if Jesus had really risen from the dead. Their behavior is exactly what you'd expect from them if Jesus really was—and is—God, a God of love. The "purpose and activity" of Jesus' followers would have failed if it had been "of human origin." It didn't fail, because it was "from God." Fighting against God is a hopeless battle. "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised from the dead, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." —1 Corinthians 15:12-14
KB, You have presented absolutely no evidence. I'll put it in an analogy for you. If someone was murdered, and I was a suspect. Then I wrote in my diary days after this murder, about the day of the murder. In it, I wrote that I did not commit the crime. How likely is an investigator to believe what's in my diary, considering that it's clear that I wrote it days after the murder? There has to be a way other than biblical verses to get your point across. Your quotes keep saying "from God" and that it wouldn't work if it's not "from God". No one's arguing otherwise - everyone is in agreement that those things are from God. The argument is whether he is God or whether he rose from the dead.
Sane, I'm trying to share my faith with you as I would with a friend. Keep that in mind as you read this post. A person can completely believe in a lie. Even if you did have 100% faith in Islam, it wouldn't change the fact that it's a false religion. You acknowledged that you don't have 100% faith in Islam. In other words, you aren't sure that Islam is the truth. You're wrong to say that you "have as much faith in Islam as any human being can have in any belief." A Christian can know with certainty that the Christian faith is the truth, through the power of the Holy Spirit. I'm a sinful and fallible human being, but there's no way I'm wrong about the Christian faith being the truth. I know it's the truth, because the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of truth—lets me know that it is. "If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:15-17). Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We know him because he lives with us and is in us. Jesus said, "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him." You might just think I've read the Bible so much I've convinced myself I'm indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I am telling you that the Holy Spirit is real. "Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come" (2 Corinthians 5:5). "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us" (1 Corinthians 2:12). The Bible makes clear claims about the Holy Spirit, doesn't it? If what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit is true, then a Christian can know with certainty that the Christian faith is the truth. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). My Faith There was a time in my life when I completely lost my faith in God. I don't mean that I started having doubts about the God of the Bible. I mean that I had no faith that God existed at all. I didn't know what to believe. If the Christian faith was the truth, then why wasn't the Holy Spirit letting me know that it was? Maybe Christians had just fooled themselves into believing what they wanted or needed to believe. Who said that the only options were one God and no God, anyway? Why couldn't there be more than one God? And who said God had to be a loving, all-powerful God? Wasn't that just wishful thinking? Maybe people believed in a loving, all-powerful God because they weren't able to cope with all the pain and suffering in this world on their own. Maybe people believed in the possibility of eternal life as a way of dealing with their fear of death. Weren't the claims of the Bible just way too good to be true? Maybe that's why Christianity was so popular. Who wouldn't want to believe in a loving, all-powerful God who would give you eternal life if you just believed in Jesus Christ? I had no idea what to believe. At some point, though, I determined that, out of all the faiths and religions in the world, the Christian faith was the only serious contender for being the truth. But I still didn't even have faith that God existed at all. All I could do was pray to a God that I wasn't sure existed. I said, "God, if you exist, please let me know in my heart that you do. And if the Christian faith is the truth, please let me know in my heart that it is. Please give me faith." — Sane, you already believe that God exists. You believe in the God of Islam, though. Many people would say that you and I worship the same God, and that we just call him different names. They would be wrong, though. The God of the the Christian faith is a Triune God. The God of Islam is not. We do not worship the same God. You've been honest with yourself by acknowledging you aren't 100% sure that Islam is the truth. You've said that you are "more than willing" to believe that Christianity is the truth, but that you want more evidence. I'll try to give you more evidence, but there's something you can do, too. If you haven't already, I strongly encourage you to humbly ask God to lead you to the truth. "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).
Well, since you're human, you are prone to mistakes, that is FACT. So if you were wrong about Christianity in the first place, thent he holy spirit doesn't exist. So how can you say "The Holy Spirit lets me know"? Pardon me for saying this, but you had blind faith in your religion. That means, you already believed that the Holy Spirit exists, you wanted to believe it and you believed it before you even "recognized" the holy spirit. As for my faith, you couldn't be more wrong. I will repeat the sentence: I am as certain about my faith as any human can be in any faith. Asking God to lead me to the truth? Done, way before I had faith in any religion. I told you, I didn't step into anything blindly. BTW, not all Christians believe in the trinity, and they have the same book you have and the same info you have. They've read the same books and been to church. If I were a unitarian, I would be deeply offended by your comments. Also, and I'm saying this as a friend, I would appreciate it if you didn't call Islam a flase religion without anything to back it up. I can accept it as a discussion, but not as a "that's just theway it is".
Sane, OK. I won't call Islam a false religion in my posts to you anymore. If a friend asked me to stop doing that, I would. So I will. KateBeckinsale7
The Holy Spirit by Billy Graham The Bible begins with the majestic statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Hebrew scholars have told me there are three numbers in the Hebrew language: Singular, one; dual, two; plural, more than two. The word translated "God" in Genesis 1:1 is plural, indicating more than two. The Hebrew word used here is Elohim. Matthew Henry says it signifies "the plurality of persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This plural name of God . . . [confirms] our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which, though darkly intimated in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in the New."
