Liar Lord or Lunatic

[Guest]

[Sven]

[jo]

I suspect that you and I have got off on the wrong foot Darrell... I know I can be 'hasty' at times but I keep returning here simply because I CAN and DO learn here. I get frustrated at times, though, at what seems to me to be a complete inability to believe what others here believe.

I am sorry you feel that I have a gigantic ego; if you knew me a little better, you would know that I haven't. I am slightly pained that a Christian who is supposed to 'judge not' has resorted to ad hominem attacks against a person that they barely know.

[Torie]

I don't really have anything very new to add to this discussion, I just wanted to say, Hi Jo! And also to respond to, ' What if Jesus never existed'?! Ahhh! Are you trying to give me a heart attack speculating things like that? What a loss to our world to have never had this wonderful God/man to beautify our history, our present and our future. Impossible thought!

[jo]

Hi Torie, nice to see you! How are things going?

[Torie]

Everything is going all right. Five of my children are in school this year, except for my oldest who is... well, sort of homeschooling. A complex personality! My four year old is adjusting to life without her siblings all day. Just now she is packing for a visit, we go to a friend's house in a few minutes. So far she has five or six ragtag barbies, (We have a new puppy and a two year old boxer so all barbies soon get their hands chewed, they are HAND-icapped!) some doll furniture, a toy car, an old barbie baby from somewhere, a little barbie cup and a purse to put them in. (Wait! a toy credit card, a tiny purse, and a little man!) Anyway, how are you?

[Guest]

Hello all,
I don't think anyone remembered that Jesus was accused of being a devil(nobody posted it). Here is the record:

"Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Matt.12:22-28

[postodave]

[Guest]

well,

of course lewis believed that jesus was the christ, the revealer of an authentic christian faith. he was a man(history), who was crucified, and whos ressurection, if true or false, created a church which would convert millions in a relatively short time. Lord at best, or as Islam claims, prophet at worst.

[Guest]

[Guest]

It has surprised me a bit that some of the proofs in the Bible that Jesus is the Son of God have not been discussed at all. There were many instances where there were numerous witnesses. The shepherds, to whom the angels appeard proclaiming Jesus was God's Son. At Jesus' baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on Him, there were lots of witnesses there. Not to mention the numerous miracles He did in front of everyone, and then there is God the Father proclaiming so all could hear "This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Not to mention the many many people who witnessed his death, who saw how the earth groaned and trembled with the death of it's creator. Everyone saw the darkness and the thuder, felt the terror of the earthquake And don't forget the many many people who talked with Him after His resurrection. And then there are the disciples, not long after His ascention, who had tongues of fire appear above their heads and they proclaimed the gospel and all those who were gathered around heard it in their own language. And then there were all the miracles done by His disciples in His name. And you cannot argue with the people today who have had tumors dissapear, miraculous healings, their lives completely changed, their sins forgiven, because of Jesus. I agree that christianity cannot be completely understood through means of this physical world. The physical is only one aspect of reality. Did you know that people today only use a fraction of their brain? Think of all the things we are missing. We are finite beings, we cannot comprehend everything about God, but He has given us all we need until the time when we see him face to face.

[Kolbitar]

::As for me I believe in Christ not solely because of the historical facts but because of the existential truths. I "KNOW" it is truth. Even if it turns out the bible was written by a group of monkeys, I would still believe in the "truth of christianity". At this point the historicity is irrelevant, just like the quality of the paper on which a love letter is written is irrelevant to the message in it.

Mink, everything was going good till I read this excerpt sitting above. However, I am not beyond misunderstanding or failing, for whatever reason, to extend the benefit of a doubt. You start out saying "not solely because of historical facts," but end up pretty much saying "even despite the historical facts." What truth is there in Christianity without Christ? and what Christ is there without the relevance of his historicity? In your analogy the quality of paper is but a means expressing a substance, but the quality that is the historicity of Christ is the substance. It's like saying it doesn't matter whether the person I love, who wrote the letter, really exists, just that that person's truth exists for me. I think Lewis would have been appalled at such a notion. I don't say that notion is yours, but as I -- a quite fallible human being -- read it, it's hard to see any other meaning. Existentialism sometimes sends the will too far adrift from the intellect. As long as the intellect is still attached, like you started out anchored in the "not *solely* because of historical fact," implying an acceptance of fact -- but more in addition to, then I think you have a very profound and relevant point. If not, I shall have to break out quotes by Lewis, whose name you've invoked in support of your argument, on the "poison of subjectivism." :-)

Sincerely,

Jesse

[Bill]

[Kolbitar]

[Bill]