Why would someone tell me that saying ‘there’s no evidence that Jesus was real’ is itself an act of faith?
I mean, it’s quite obvious that all the evidence we have regarding biblical Jesus is far from conclusive and from a logical point of view, saying ‘there’s no evidence that Jesus was real’ is simply stating a fact like stating that there’s no evidence that Santa Claus is real. As far as I can see, the only difference between the Santa Claus myth and the Jesus myth is that millions of apparently sane adults believe that Jesus was real; is this why I was accused of an act of faith for it?
More Questions From This User See All
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
is this why I was accused of an act of faith for it? Yes
If you are going to try to convert others, you can't use YOUR act of faith to do so.
Desiree, Jesus said you will be condemned by your own words. What you say shows a desire(!) that the evidence point a certain way.
But even the non-believer historian Will Durant answers that in the first century, to deny that Christ had ever existed seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity.'The Story of Civilization,: Part III, Caesar and Christ.�
Furthermore, he says "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Caesar and Christ, p. 557).
You are not trying to see what is there. That is wrong.
the individuals who're taught that faith on my own is customary by skill of Jesus. it quite is fake indoctrination it quite is additionally deceptive. It needless to say states with the aid of the e book of Acts and James that baptism immersion, coaching and witnessing approximately God and Christ, and demonstrating a willingness to artwork for God and the church is a call for. Christianity isn't approximately as quickly as saved, continuously saved and faith basically misconceptions. it quite is a lot deeper and demands very a lot of works and faith to boot as being a real instructor of Christ. actually everybody who ever reported that being a Christian is ordinary has in no way studied scripture.
There is evidence of Jesus. The Bible. And I know "everybody says that." But it's not the only evidence. How else has His message lasted so long? It's funny and sad that people want to deny Christ" because it was so long ago and we may never know" and yet there are over 5000 original language manuscripts within 50 years of each other and 99% accurate of each other. But there are only 7 of Aristotle with 1400 years between copies. But nobody says Aristotle didn't exist.
The faith starts where the evidence ends.
I would not bring Santa Claus into adult conversation
Clarrie Briese, B.A., Diploma of Criminology (Cantab), A.O., is a former Chief Magistrate (judge) of N.S.W., Australia (now retired). He is renowned in Australia for his work in rooting out corruption—no matter where it was found—and in Christian circles for defeating a high-profile humanist attempt to destroy creation ministry with lies (see interview, Blowing the whistle on corruption). Here he applies his formidable legal knowledge to the testimony of the Apostles.
The truth of the Resurrection stands or falls on the truth of the witnesses. Are they reliable? Of the New Testament writers, there are six witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, if we include the apostles Peter and Paul. These people have left us writings in the form of historical documents which give us their testimony concerning the resurrection.
The question is—are these historical documents reliable? Can we trust them? One way of determining whether the documents are reliable is to put the people who wrote them through the test a good magistrate or judge would put them through. The accuracy of these witnesses depends on five things: their honesty, ability, their number and consistency of their evidence, the conformity of their testimony with our own personal experience, and lastly, the coincidence of their testimony with other circumstances and facts.
Continued... http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4994
Historical events or individuals are not 'proved'. They accepted or not on the ground of competent, and credible testimony.
The university educated disagree with you.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/j...
Your accuser(s) had no rational, logical response to the point you were making, so they just inverted a logical argument and used it.
"Black is NOT white."
"You can't prove that black is NOT white, so it's possible that black IS white."
well look at Bush, his blood can go all the way to Jesus.
It's called the Illuminati blood and all our leaders are proud of it.
I am in the blood but I am not proud of the leaders......
Theres a movie called bloodline, and it gives you most of the information you need.